Co-Creation from an Employee Perspective Preconditions for success in Professional Service Firms...

Co-Creation from an Employee Perspective

Preconditions for success in Professional Service Firms

Master thesis in Service Management

Copenhagen Business School

Supervisor: Patricia Plackett

The Department of Operations Management

Number of pages: 69

Number of STU’s: 140.193

Karolina Forsmark

MSoc.Sc. Programme: Service Management

24-11-2011

Abstract

Nowadays, the number of opportunities in a business market characterized by networks,

alliances and knowledgeable empowered customers has increased considerably compared to

the past. This thesis will tackle the challenge of how Professional Service Firms can expand

their collaboration with customers through implementing customer co-creation of value in

their organization. The goal of the thesis was to define a number of internal preconditions that

according to the employees are important for companies to succeed with customer co-creation

of value.

Questionnaires were sent out through e-mail, and answered via a website, to employees

working as consultants in Professional Service Firms (PSF). With the aim of linking the

theoretical perspectives of the thesis with the findings from the survey, hypotheses were

created. The hypotheses was selected through a study of how present literature is defining co-

creation and based on the theory of Liedtka et al., An Ethic of Collaboration. The conclusion

of the thesis was 5 key preconditions that can serve as a valuable guideline and/or starting

point for the management of PSF consultancies in planning and implementing co-creation.

These preconditions were Coherent Intent, Capital for Learning and Relationships, Person-

Centered Attributes, An Ethic of Collaboration, and Understanding of Customer Needs.

Although the majority of articles written analyze co-creation from a management perspective,

this thesis provides a new perspective through focusing on the employee experience and

knowledge. By incorporating the employee perspective to the management perspective,

important complementary information is gained and in addition, the probability of successful

co-creation of sustainable business practices is increased.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Outline of the Thesis ............................................................................................................... 8

2. Theoretical Base for Study .............................................................................................................. 9

2.1. Professional Service Firms & Collaboration .......................................................................... 10

2.2. Customer Co-Creation of Value ............................................................................................. 12

2.3. An Ethic of Collaboration ....................................................................................................... 17

2.4. When to collaborate? ............................................................................................................ 21

3. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 22

3.1. Secondary Data Collection – Literature Review .................................................................... 22

3.2. Primary Data Collection - Survey ........................................................................................... 23

3.3. Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................ 28

4. Data Collection – Employee Survey about Customer Collaboration ............................................. 29

4.1. Question 1 ............................................................................................................................. 31

4.2. Question 2 ............................................................................................................................. 37

4.3. Question 3 ............................................................................................................................. 40

4.4. Question 4 ............................................................................................................................. 43

4.5. Question 5 ............................................................................................................................. 44

4.6. Question 6 ............................................................................................................................. 46

5. Analysis & Discussion .................................................................................................................... 49

6. Conclusion & Future Research ...................................................................................................... 62

Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... 65

List of Figures

Figure 1 - Hypotheses: Potential Preconditions for Co-Creation ............................................................ 5

Figure 2 - Outline of Thesis ...................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 3 - Building Blocks for interaction for customer co-creation of value (Prahalad & Ramaswamy

2004) ...................................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 4 - Liedtka et al. (1998), An ethic of collaboration, p.37 ............................................................ 18

Figure 5 - Bar Chart showing the mean for All Participant Question 1 ................................................. 32

Figure 6 - Factors that are influencing participants with a position as Senior ...................................... 33

Figure 7 - Factors that are influencing participants with a position as Other ....................................... 34

Figure 8 - Chart including the answers for Question 4 .......................................................................... 44

Figure 9 - Confirmed hypotheses .......................................................................................................... 59

List of Tables

Table 1 - Demographics of the Participants .......................................................................................... 30

Table 2 - Overview of answers given to Question 1 .............................................................................. 31

Table 3 - All Participants; The Median, Mode & Mean ......................................................................... 35

Table 4 - Seniors; The Median, Mode & Mean...................................................................................... 36

Table 5 - Others; The Median, Mode & Mean ...................................................................................... 37

Table 6 - Existing internal factors in companies that support employees in the collaboration process

............................................................................................................................................................... 38

Table 7 - Question 3 - What internal factors should a company focus on to improve in the future for

successful collaborations? ..................................................................................................................... 42

Table 8 - Action/Decisions needed to achieve a "win-win" situation ................................................... 45

Table of Appendices

Appendix 1 - Questionnaire

1

1. Introduction

Nowadays, the number of opportunities in a business market characterized by networks,

alliances and knowledgeable empowered customers has increased considerably compared to

the past. This thesis will tackle the challenge of how Professional Service Firms can expand

their collaboration with customers through implementing customer co-creation of value in

their organization. Thus, the first goal of the thesis was to investigate how to implement co-

creation successfully while the second objective was to analyze what internal preconditions

employees think are a necessity for co-creation. The results from the primary research were

analyzed, with the help of hypothesis, in relation to a theoretical framework. Finally, the

findings obtained from the analysis were 5 key preconditions for successful co-creation from

an employee perspective.

Background

“The opportunity to create economic value through creating societal value will be one of the

most powerful forces driving growth in the global economy.”

Porter & Kramer (2011), p.75

Is it possible for companies today to create economic value without collaborating with

stakeholders and listening carefully to their interests and needs? The quotation above comes

from an article written by Porter & Kramer (2011) where the importance for all actors to

create shared value is discussed. That benefit will come to companies that are creating value

for and with their society rather than being solely firm-centered and working against it.

The notion of that economic benefit, which comes to those who are creating shared value,

underlines the concepts that will be analyzed, questioned and discussed in this paper. Even

though creating societal value through sustainability actions is a factor few companies today

can afford to ignore, it is not the main study in this thesis. Rather, this paper focuses on the

possibilities that exist to create economic value through collaboration with customers.

2

The Idea

The idea for this thesis came from reading about the theoretical concept Customer Co-

Creation of Value. This concept, which will be analyzed in this paper, was first introduced in

an article by Prahalad & Ramaswamy in 2000. Customer Co-creation of value arose from the

belief that value is lost for many companies that have not yet realized the economic benefits

obtained from having a closer collaboration with customers.

Along the history the world has developed and changed, the way we today describe the

business market is quite different from how we would have described the market in the 19th

century. Over time, the role and the dynamics between companies and customers have

changed and the customer has gone from being passive to become an active, empowered

participant. Thus, in the market today, the customer has the choice of whether to play the role

of the collaborator, communicator, or competitor according to his/her own interests (Prahalad

& Ramaswamy, 2000). In this developing business environment, with increased globalization,

technological development and communication available through the internet, not only the

role of the customer has changed but also the role of the companies. From being in an

environment where all parts knew their place in the market, companies found themselves in a

situation where all parties are collaborating and communicating through networks and

alliances. (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000)

Customer co-creation of value is an interesting concept to study in depth, particularly because

it has occurred from the notion that the business environment is changing. In order to survive,

companies need to be flexible and adapt to the present situation and see how they can create

competitive and financial advantages.

Though it is the changed role of the customer which is explained as the reason behind the

development of co-creation, the central role of the individual (employee) can neither be

forgotten/denied (Ramaswamy 2009). In addition, all stakeholders demand in a larger extent

high quality interactions and experiences from business (Ramaswamy 2010). The importance

of the employee is also present in the type of firms the research of this thesis was made on,

namely Professional Service Firms.

3

Problem Statement

Professional Service Firms are companies which are found to be of high interest in the context

of this thesis because they are characterized by a main intangible resource, namely the

employees (Professionals). Traditionally, these companies are already dependent upon their

customers, however it is believed that there is even more value to be gained for companies by

extending and increasing the cooperation activities with customers.

Many professionals, companies and researchers have identified and recognized the value there

is to gain from co-creation, such as Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2004). Continuously, a number

have also developed models for how to co-create value with their customers. Even though it is

of weight to have knowledge in how to co-create, identify with whom and how to motivate

customer to co-create (Hoyer et al. (2010), Tankha (2008), etc.), it will be of less importance

to a company if it does not have a structure that supports co-creation. This point is made by

Ramaswamy (2009), who claims that it is a transformation that starts from within the

organization: “…becoming a co-creative organization is about changing the very nature of

engagement and relationship between the institution of management and its employees, and

between them and co-creators of value – customers, stakeholders, partners or other

employees. In reality, the co-creation journey always begins inside the organization.” (p.32)

A focus on the internal preconditions needed to succeed in co-creation is also of interest

because a lack of research in terms of guidance to companies in how to implement a co-

creative mindset was found through the execution of a literature research for this thesis.

Hence, the focus of the thesis will not be on the external factors such as identification and

motivation of co-creators, but rather on the internal factors. For companies to take the risk and

the step to implement new business practices they do not only need to know that there is value

to gain but also guidance in what to focus on when introducing a co-creation initiative. Thus,

the aim of the thesis is to identify and define internal preconditions that can act as a base to

encourage and support co-creation initiatives of successful sustainable service management

business practices. Based on this goal, the research question structures the research described

in this thesis:

”What preconditions increase the probability of successful co-creation of sustainable

service management business practices?”

4

In order to increase the prospect of reaching an answer of the research question, a number of

hypotheses have been defined. The hypotheses have been selected through a study of how

present literature is defining the co-creation and based on the theory An Ethic of

Collaboration. The decision to include an ethic of collaboration was made because of the

interest of seeing if the attributes stated in the theory An Ethic of Collaboration are the same

as the preconditions for a successful customer co-creation of value. What will also be

analyzed is whether or not the concept of An Ethic of Collaboration is in itself a precondition

for successful co-creation.

An ethic of Collaboration was first introduced in an article by Liedtka et al., in 1998 and it

presents the findings from a study made on a number of companies whom had taken actions

in increasing the internal collaboration activities. They defined it as an ethic of collaboration

for the reason that it is not a wish to build a onetime activity but rather to build up a culture

that fosters collaboration over departments and segments in a company. Through the study, a

number of factors were found present within the companies whom successfully had created an

ethic of collaboration. In this thesis, the main factors to be tested are the firm-centric

attributes, with the belief that those are the factors that companies need to foster first of all in

order to develop and employ the right people. On the other hand, the person-centered

attributes are still standing as part of the hypothesis, however they are treated as a collective

factor to test if hiring the right and developing employee skills is a precondition to increase

the probability of successful co-creation of sustainable service management business

practices.

In addition, to the hypotheses based on an ethic of collaboration, Transparency was analyzed

as being a hypothesis needed to be included. According to Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000,

transparency can be considered as a precondition necessary to succeed with co-creation of

sustainable service management business practices. Therefore, transparency is a key factor

that defines what co-creation is. This hypothesis as such will not be tested but rather stand

with the other hypotheses to show its position as a precondition for co-creation.

As result of the discussion above, the hypotheses to be tested through the research are shown

in the model below, which has been built up by combining the attributes of internal

collaboration by Liedtka et al. (1998), with the attribute of company transparency from the

article Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2000):

Figure 1 -

Sub-question

Even though the aim is to find the preconditions for successful co

service management business practices, these are of limited value if the companies do not

have the tools or necessary knowledge to measure the cost and benefits of a co

activity. This is especially true since the bottom line for all companies’ survival d

whether or not they can create economic profits. In the case of this thesis the measurement of

a co-creation initiative will need extra attention as the main resources are intangibles.

PSF and co-creation is both about handling the so called int

Norton (2004) argues for should be measured and handled differently from tangible assets.

This is because of the complexity in giving a value to for example a strong company culture

or knowledge base, and in the case of co

competences and knowledge has for a company.

1 *The Person-Centered Attributes are; Caring Attitude, Creative Energy, Conscientious Stewardship

& Calling. (Liedka et al. 1998)

Hypotheses -Preconditions for

Co-Creation?

Hypotheses: Potential Preconditions for Co-Creation1

Even though the aim is to find the preconditions for successful co-creation of sustainable

management business practices, these are of limited value if the companies do not

have the tools or necessary knowledge to measure the cost and benefits of a co

activity. This is especially true since the bottom line for all companies’ survival d


creation initiative will need extra attention as the main resources are intangibles.

creation is both about handling the so called intangible assets, that Kaplan &



or knowledge base, and in the case of co-creation how to know what value a customer’s

competences and knowledge has for a company.

ntered Attributes are; Caring Attitude, Creative Energy, Conscientious Stewardship

H.1. Company Transparancy

Y/N - Yes

H.2. Firm-Centric Attributes Y/N

H.2.1. Coherent Intent Y/N

H.2.2. Capital for Learning and

Relationships Y/N

H.2.3. Congruent Systems Y/N

H.2.4. Consciensous Stewardship Y/N

H.3. *Person-Centered Attributes

Y/N

H.4. An Ethic of Collaboration Y/N

5

creation of sustainable

management business practices, these are of limited value if the companies do not

have the tools or necessary knowledge to measure the cost and benefits of a co-creation

activity. This is especially true since the bottom line for all companies’ survival depends on


creation initiative will need extra attention as the main resources are intangibles.

angible assets, that Kaplan &



ation how to know what value a customer’s

ntered Attributes are; Caring Attitude, Creative Energy, Conscientious Stewardship

H.2.1. Coherent Intent Y/N


Relationships Y/N

H.2.3. Congruent Systems Y/N

H.2.4. Consciensous Stewardship Y/N

6

As such, in addition to the research question, a sub-question, standing not as the dominating

question, but one that cannot be ignored, has been formulated as follows;

- What are the cost and benefits of co-creation for building sustainable service

management business practices?

Study Focus

There are different perspectives from which the research question could be discussed and

answered: theoretical, management, employee or customer perspective. With the aim, as the

research questions are indicating, of getting an internal perspective from Professional Service

Firms, the decision was made to focus on the employees and how they relate to collaboration

(co-creation) with customers. Since it can be said that the management perspective already

exists in the literature, this perspective would not be as large contribution to the study as

looking at the employee perspective. A survey was created and sent out to employees working

as consultants in Professional Service Firms. The survey was answered by a total of 18

employees working in different companies and holding various positions. In order to

guarantee answers to the questionnaire the employees were asked questions related to their

collaboration with customers, and not co-creation itself. This decision was made because co-

creation is a concept yet unknown to many people and it would have made people more

confused than actually leading to interesting inputs and ideas about collaboration from their

own experiences.

Definitions

In order to clarify the meaning of the research question, it is important to define what meaning

some of the chosen words have in the context of this thesis. Firstly, the words in the research

question and sub-question will be defined, followed by a description of cost and benefits in

the sub-question. Lastly, a clarification of the use of the term customer co-creation of value in

the thesis will be discussed.

The reason behind the choice of Preconditions was explained previously with the aim of

finding the crucial factors to succeed with co-creation. However, the choice of including

sustainable service management business practices might need a clarifying explanation. The

7

introduction started with stating that it is of crucial importance for companies today to

consider if they are creating shared value. The word Sustainable was incorporate for the belief

that a company which today wishes to survive in the long term cannot afford to not consider if

their actions are destructive or if they contribute positively for the future of the society and the

world we live in. As such, Sustainable is included to show that it is a factor which should not

be ignored and instead be part of the daily work and development of a company culture.

Lastly, it can be argued whether Service Management Business Practices, customer co-

creation of value is a service offered to their co-creators (customers). The term is however

included to highlight the differentiating factor of intangibles and that the customer is

participating in the process of creating a service. How to handle and measure the value of

investments in intangibles are high important in this case because co-creation activities are a

development of a company’s intangibles. Secondly, personalization is a feature of co-creation

that emphasizes the customer’s participation in the process. Even though this study has had a

focus on Professional Service Firms, the two mentioned factors would still be valid for any

company today, since co-creation can be regarded as an additional service whether or not the

main activities production of the company is a service or a product.

Cost and benefits in the sub-question is referring to the financial costs and benefits associated

with the implementation and execution of co-creation initiatives in a company.

Finally, Customer Co-Creation of Value has been written throughout the paper as co-creation,

in order to make the text easier to read by avoiding long sentences in every reference to the

concept.

1.1. Outline of the Thesis

of result from survey findings and theoretical perspectives

Secondary Data Collection

Professional Service Firms & Collaboration

Customer Co

Outline of the Thesis

Figure 2 - Outline of Thesis

Future Research

Conslusion

Analysis & Discussion


Data - Presentation of Survey Findings

Methodology

Primary Data Collection

Theoretical base for study

Customer Co-Creation of Value An Ethic of Collaboration

Introduction

8


Hypotheses

When to Collaborate?

9

2. Theoretical Base for Study

The motivation for using the theories that will be discussed below have steamed from the

methodology chapter and have been chosen due to their interesting nature and the connection

that they have with each other. These will serve as tools that will make it possible to answer

the research question and sub question.

As the business environments and markets are developing so is the theoretical base. The

theoretical concepts have most likely been developed as a result of analyzing previous

theoretical concepts in line with the present business and market environment. Even though

similar concepts to the theoretical base used in this thesis have been used previously,

including; Customer Participation, Participatory Design, New Service Development, Social

Exchange Theory, they are still differing in this case. Hence, the theoretical base in this thesis

has been chosen due to the fact of how things are today and how they fit with the study object

of employees in Professional Service Firms, and are as such seen in this thesis to be more

interesting and relevant than other similar concepts.

Firstly, an introduction and explanation of the study object in this thesis; Professional Service

Firms. As the theoretical base will be applied and analyzed towards the employees in that line

of business. Being the inspiration for the study, the origination and the definition of Customer

Co-Creation of Value will be presented from the perspective of the founders of the concept

Prahalad & Ramaswamy. Followed by, a description of the theory which the hypotheses are

based on An Ethic of Collaboration as depicted by Liedtka et al. (1998). Lastly the study will

discuss the economical benefits of adopting co-creation

10

2.1. Professional Service Firms & Collaboration

In the concepts of services you often talk about the traditional services, hotels, tourism, travel

agencies, and the so called Professional Services. As the surveys presented and analyzed, in

this thesis, were all answered by consultants the focus will be on the later, Professional

Services often referred to as Professional Service Firms. Professional Service Firms, from

here on referred to as PSF’s, are not only separated from the traditional services but are also

argued to have distinct character. Therefore it is argued that they should be analyzed

independently. (Von Nordenflycht, 2010)

In an article by Von Nordenflycht (2010) the question of what is a PSF was posed. Although,

there are a number of definitions of what a PSF is, it is the definition given in that article that

will be used when referring to PSF’s in this thesis.

History of the concept

As with customer co-creation of value, the concept of PFS’s has been developed along the

transitions in the business environment/market. The discussion around the concept of a

profession started in the mid 20th

century, if not even earlier, with the aim to define and

analyze what is meant by a profession. However, it was not until the beginning of 1990 that

the full concept of Professional Service Firms started to come up through the uprising of so

called knowledge-intensive firms, for example management consultants and large accounting

firms. (Von Nordenflycht, 2010)

Definition of Professional Service Firms

Through analyzing the definitions of PSF’s from other authors, Von Nordenflycht found three

distinctive characteristics of the concept, namely Knowledge Intensive, Low Capital Intensity

and Professionalized Workforce. Among the three he argues that it is the first characteristic

that is the more fundamental in defining the concept.

In Knowledge Intensive companies, the organization relies and is dependent upon the skills &

knowledge of the workers and, as such, not solely on management. It is a concept that can be

related to the often used notion of Human Capital. Companies relying upon a knowledge

intensive workforce have two challenges. The first is how to retain and direct skilled

employees, who often have high bargaining power as they possess strongly desirable skills for

companies. Secondly, it is often difficult for many customers to judge the quality of an

11

“experts” output, not only prior to providing the service, but in many instances also after the

service has been performed. As such there is a need for tools on how to measure the quality

through, for example, reputation or appearance.

The second character is Low Capital Intensity. A firm that has low capital intensity does not

have a large amount of value/resources lying in non-human assets, in comparison to tangibles

such as factories and inventory.

Lastly, the third characteristic is Professionalized Workforce. He identify that a Professional

has three key features; a particular knowledge base, regulation and control of the knowledge

base, and ideology. The first two features points to the fact that the employee possess his or

her knowledge and can as such also control when and how much to share the knowledge. An

ideology is here referred to as a professional code of ethics, which has been enforced through

professional associations and internal preferences.

End Note – the key to a competitive advantage in a Professional Service Firm

Even though there are some specific challenges that a PSF meets, there are also competitive

advantages to gain. Through, for example, recruiting and retaining the top experts within

desired areas companies can construct a unique workforce. For a PSF, it is argued that one of

the most important processes in the organization is how to manage and integrate that expertise

in the company. (Boh et al., 2007) For the sake of this survey, it is of value to clarify that the

PSF’s in the study are consulting firms with business-to-business customers and therefore

business relationships are in focus.

12

2.2. Customer Co-Creation of Value

Since co-creation was first presented in an article written by Prahalad & Ramaswamy

published in 2000, there have been a number of additional articles published by other

researchers. Today there is a vast literature on the topic. However, in order to give a clear

definition of co-creation, this paper will solely take the perspective on the concept as

presented and developed by the originators.

To get an understanding of why the concept of co-creation has been developed it is important

to see from what background it came into existence. Prior to defining and explaining what

Customer Co-Creation of Value is, the following questions can be of help: how is it that

companies have lost some of the power and control they used to have towards the market and

their customers? How to regain this power or control through establishing company activities

that are fostering and developing co-creation activities with their customers? These questions

are the main points throughout his chapter when, in a collective way, presenting the present

ideas and thoughts in existing literature that are defining and explaining what customer co-

creation of value is all about.

The origination of the concept

To fully comprehend the concept of customer co-creation of value it is beneficial to see under

what circumstances the concept has been developed. During the past 100 years the markets

and role of customers has changed and developed. As our world has developed, likewise the

market to which we are selling and buying products and services has gone through a

transformation.

Since the beginning of the 21st century the customer has become a so called active player in

the market. Where the sole power no longer lies within the companies and rather the customer

has been empowered through becoming more knowledgeable and a competence resource for

firms. (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000) A customer today knows that there are more value to

gain by being informed and updated about the market and the options available. In today's

market customers can choose with whom they wish to interact and create a relationship for

future investments. (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004) As such, customers today are no longer

passive players, but rather have the choice whether to play the role as the collaborator,

communicator and/or competitor according to their own interests. (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,

2000)

13

Thus, with the changed role of the customer as the one of the main interest to understand the

concept co-creation, there are a number of transitions worth mentioning which has contributed

to this development. The base for the change comes from the developing business

environment, with for example increased globalization, technological development and

communication channels available through the internet. In which, not only the role of the

customer has changed but also the companies. From being in an environment where each part

new their place to in the market, companies found themselves in a situation where all parties

are collaborating and communicating through networks and alliances. In this new business

environment the markets/networks are the forums for dialogue. Where not only the companies

can initiate a dialogue but also the customers, when needed can start the communication with

companies and/or other consumers. As such, a part of the companies’ power and to some

extent control has been transferred to the customers. However, not all control is lost.

Companies still have the possibility to influence and to some extent control the customers by

acting as mediators on communication platforms and establishing co-creation initiatives.

(Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000)

Definition and explanation of the concept

The main incentive for companies to develop and invest in co-creation activities with

customers is the hope to receive benefits through the input from their customers in terms of

competence and knowledge. Even though, companies previously have realized that

collaboration with customers is a source of income, the principles of co-creation differentiate

it from antecedent actions/concepts. Therefore, the belief, that it can bring even larger

benefits, in pursue for customer competences and knowledge, is what defines co-creation. As

such, the way the company interacts and communicates with the customers will be of most

importance when determining the level of success of co-creation.

The authors Prahalad & Ramaswamy who coined the concept in 2000 argue that the aim of

co-creation, which should be the focus from a company's perspective, is to create a so called

personalized experienced. What defines a personalized experience is; “…the customer

becoming a co-creator of the content of their experiences.” (p.84) There is a need to

personalize the experience, for each customer, depending on how they individually wish to

participate, and what benefits they hope to gain from an interaction with the company.

(Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004) The base to build a personalized experience lies in the

14

interaction with the customer. As a result, Prahalad & Ramaswamy (2004) presented in an

article the figure Building blocks for interaction for customer co-creation of value;

Figure 3 - Building Blocks for interaction for customer co-creation of value (Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004)

In Figure 3, it can be seen that the buildings blocks for interaction are facilitating the co-

creation experience between companies and customers. The four buildings blocks are by the

authors summarized and called DART. Dialogue, for a dialogue to be defined as successful in

a co-creation initiative it needs to lead to a desired outcome for all parties involved. That will

say solving issues of interest to all participants. To know and to find the way to the desired

outcome of a co-creation activity (dialogue), all participants must interact, engage, and

become equal, joint problem solvers. To interact on the basis of being equals is often not easy.

Therefore, to have clearly defined rules of engagement is recommended, to act as guidance

during the dialogue. However, dialogue on equal basis may be difficult for customers to

participate in. Hence, as an act to solve this problem it is recommended for companies to

become Transparent & give Access to company information. Customers have today the power

to walk away from collaboration if they feel that they do not trust that the company is acting

truthfully and is hiding information. Today, hiding and not giving out important information

which can have an effect on the outcome of actions are seen as less acceptable compared to in

the past. However, for a customer to find and collect information needed is often not easy.

Thus, to assist and to keep a dialogue running with a customer, companies are recommended

Co-Creation of Value

Dialogue

Access

Risk-Benefits

Transparancy

15

to become transparent and to make it more accessible for customer go get company

information. In turn, dialogue, access and transparency are all factors which assist the

customer to make an assessment of the Risk-Benefits of the interaction around a co-creation

activity with a company.

Four principles of co-creation

The above mentioned building blocks for interaction have been created to encourage and

assist the customer in co-creation. As such, the building blocks are important for the

companies to understand and foster. There are however 4 principles, that are to some extent

overlapping with the building blocks for co-creation, but are more broad factors for the

companies to follow to succeed with co-creation. These 4 principles were presented by

Ramaswamy & Guillart (2010) article; building the co-creative enterprise. They can be seen

as a practical guide applicable to any kind of business.

The four principles were taken forward by the authors from the opinion that to be able to

generate new experiences for customers the development has to start within the company. It is

important that better experiences are first provided internally before they can be successful

externally. This internal experience is meant to help employees to acquire a better and deeper

understanding for how it is like to be on the other side of the interaction, and as such, provide

better solutions for interaction.

1. “Stakeholders won’t wholeheartedly participate in customer co-creation unless it

produces value for them, too.”

2. “The best way to co-create value is to focus on the experiences of all stakeholders.”

3. “Stakeholders must be able to interact directly with one another.”

4. “Companies should provide platforms that allow stakeholders to interact and share

their experience.”

The first principle can be connected to the above mentioned Building Blocks for Interaction.

Through having a dialogue, show transparency and access a company can make it easier for

the customer to assess the risk-benefit factors of participation in co-creation. The meaning of

the second principle is that companies should not focus solely on the economical value, rather

it should be put focus on supplying rewarding experiences for all stakeholders, both

customers and employees. The co-creation activity is about improving and creating new

experiences in collaboration with different parties. Hierarchies and the lack of platforms can

16

hinder and limit the level of interaction for co-creation with customers, which is the point

with principles three and four. However, even though there will always exist discussions and

decision making through the hierarchies in a company, firms need to consider how to relief

some of the hinder for communication to foster a flow of interaction activities, through for

example platforms for interaction, where participants can freely share and discuss their ideas.

Concluding remarks

Co-creation differs from antecedents concepts/theories, thru having the characteristics of;

personalized experience, transparency and dialogue on equal terms. The building blocks for

co-creation and the 4-principles should be used as guidance by companies wishing to

implement co-creation in their company. However, none of the two are specific with the

preconditions needed to success with co-creation from an employee perspective, since it is the

employees whom in practice will interact with the customers. As such, the guidance from the

originators of the concept will used as a base when filling out the gaps of what preconditions

the employees, through the survey, have expressed are needed to succeed with collaboration

with customers (co-creation).

17

2.3. An Ethic of Collaboration

Collaboration with customer within the service industry has been seen for some time now as

beneficial for companies. Related to that, collaboration has been argued, by for example

Liedtka (1998), to be a good strategy because it is an opportunity that is difficult for

competitors to imitate since each collaborative relationship/initiative is unique. This chapter is

based on the article; Beyond Teams – Toward an Ethic of Collaboration, from the authors

Liedtka et al. 1998. The idea behind the concept of an ethic of collaboration originated from a

study made by the authors Liedtka et al., on a number of companies during a four years

period. The companies used in the study have all gained benefits through increasing the

collaboration within their organizations. In the study they found a number of common factors

present in the companies that they concluded to be the elements needed for the development

of successful internal collaboration. These factors that the authors call attributes are presented

in the model shown in Figure 4.

The chapter will firstly be built up through a presentation of what is an ethic of collaboration,

followed by an explanation of the model created by Liedtka et al.

What is an ethic of collaboration?

An ethic is defined by the authors as;

“... a system or moral principles and values grounded in a sense of calling or stewardship.”

(p.34)

The authors named it an ethic because it is not a onetime activity but rather a culture that

creates shared values, of how to work together that stretches beyond teams on to an

institutional level, within a company.

The main factor within an ethic of collaboration is the connections which build bonds

between employees, departments and institutions. With the aim, as the authors say, to create a

“super synergy”;

“ – an ability to jointly recognize opportunity, realign and mobilize resources in creative

ways, and deliver innovative solutions with a speed and agility unattainable through episodic,

assigned, transactional-type collaborations.” (p.36)

18

An ethic of collaboration was found in their research to foster commitment, engagement and

relationship building/creation, for collaboration. The benefits of having an ethic of

collaboration are that employees are having the opportunity to continuously work together,

across departments, time, and is as a result building internal relational collaborations. To get a

better understanding of the concept you can put it in comparison to a transactional

collaboration, where the sharing of knowledge is limited to within a group and the time span

they are working together.

The factors seen in Figure 4 all contributed to an increased competitive advantages as well as

improved client services for the firms in the study.

A model for an ethic of collaboration

Figure 4 - Liedtka et al. (1998), An ethic of collaboration, p.37

The model (Figure 4) above presents the context and attributes needed, according to the study

made by Liedtka et al., to create a collaborative community in a company. The collaborative

community is seen at the centre of the model. The two surrounding rings, with their attributes,

are the support to foster and sustain the inner core. The inner ring is representing the person-

centered attributes; Caring Attitude, Creative Energy, Conscientious Stewardship, and

Calling. These person-centered attributes are in turn supported and strengthened by the firm-

19

centric attributes represented in the outer ring; Coherent Intent, Capital for Learning and

Relationships, and Congruent Systems.

The idea behind the figure is to show how these attributes collectively contributes and creates

an ethic of collaboration (collaborative community). However, in order to succeed with

creating a collaborative community all attributes needs to go in line - it is critical to

understand how the attributes fit in the systems and how they work together towards a

common goal. For management the development of the outer circle plays an important role

for guidance and control. As well as, the management task to build the organization in a way

that guides the individual person’s context and feeling of connectivity.

Person-Centered Elements

The first among the three person-centered attribute is what Liedtka et al. named The Sense of

Calling. It is described as an attribute that even though work is at times tough the employees

still have a strong level of commitment, quality, effort, need to growth and willingness to

collaborate. If the employees has a sense of calling they feel a responsibility and always need

to serve their customers since this is related to the connectivity they feel towards their job.

The second element is a Caring Attitude, which can be defined from different dimensions:

first, having a caring attitude towards colleagues in relation to their well-being and

development and secondly, considering whether or not the job they do is sufficient or good

enough. These factors take form in the pride they feel for their work, colleagues and

company. However, to keep the caring attitude a company needs to foster their employees

feeling of accomplishment. For the employee to feel that they are seen and valued for the

work they do, in order to keep the interest for taking actions, and doing the jobs which leads

to benefits for the firm. The last attribute is Creative Energy, the authors argue for that an

ethic of collaboration can help people to innovate/be more creative. They believe that many

people have a storage of creative energy that is not used to its’ full potential. However, once

people in an organization interacts, innovative ideas are triggered through the cooperation and

discussion with other employees to find collaborative solutions to problems they which to

unravel.

Organization-Centered Elements

In her model Liedtka et al presents four organizational-centered elements, which are acting as

a base and support the system for the personal-centered attributes. The first element is the so

20

called Coherent Intent that acts as guidance for the employees in an organization. Intent is in

this context defined by the authors as; “…to imply “a link to motives, to the will and drive to

focus on and achieve goals [that] captures the hearts and minds of people” (p.43). If well

communicated in an organization it is a lens that acts as an interpretation tool that employees

can use when making decisions regarding priorities and the purpose of activities. In their

research the authors that the companies that had an ethic of collaboration were also willing to

invest in Capital for Learning and Relationships. One of the reasons is to fully facilitate the

knowledge and capabilities of the employees inside the company. Another reason is founded

on the belief that if employees at an early stage assimilate how to learn, they will be more

flexible towards to shaping after company developments. Since the values a firm wants to

communicate are mirrored in the performance/reward systems in the company, an important

factor, in relation to retaining and recruiting the right people, is to have a Congruent System

which back-up an ethic of collaboration. Though, the congruent system needs to be

understood and accepted by all parties, given that a norm that seems fair and caring by

management may not be seen as fair and caring by the employees.

There is a fourth attribute, placed both in the personal-centered and the organization-centered

elements, called Conscientious Stewardship. To have awareness, either as an employees or a

company, of that what we do today can create a legacy for the future employees and partners

of the organization. With an aim to, by feeling pride in the actions you take as well as a

feeling of loyalty towards your colleagues, build up company values and reputation.

Concluding Remarks

Succeeding with implementing an ethic of collaboration, is not only about finding the people

with the right skills and knowledge, but that also ones that fit in and understand the ethics and

the company culture. This should be connected to the intent of a company, it must go in line

with the values that have been laid down, and support and fosters them. This will ensure

individuals connection with the organization and consequently their collaboration.

21

2.4. When to collaborate?

For companies, business will always be business. Accordingly, no matter how strong the

belief is in collaboration, it is always of importance to measure what the companies

potentially can gain from a collaboration initiative. This, as explained in the introduction, is

the purpose for including the sub-question in this thesis;

What are the cost-benefits with co-creation of sustainable service management business

practices?

This chapter starts with a discussion on when and when not to collaborate, followed by how to

measure and estimate the value of intangible assets.

When to collaborate?

In an article written by Hansen (2009) he poses the question: When Internal Collaboration is

Bad for Your Company? That will say when does internal collaboration increase value and

when does it not give any value. He argues for; “...that groups in your organization are

encourage to work together only when doing so will produce better results than if they

worked independently.” (p.84) Even though the question is based on internal collaboration, it

will be argued for in this paper, that the same thought can be applied when collaborating

externally, for example with co-creation initiatives. To know when or when not to collaborate,

Hansen (2009) argues for that it is necessary to look at whether or not the collaboration will

give a collaboration premium. The collaboration premium you estimate by calculating the

difference between the financial return of a project and the opportunity costs and

collaboration costs;

Even though the formula in itself give a guidance in how to estimate the return from a

collaboration effort the challenge with building a co-creative company lies with the handling

and evaluation of intangible assets.

Project Return

- Opportunity Costs

- Collaboration Costs

Collaboration Premium

22

3. Methodology

This thesis is an exploratory study that aims to gain deeper insight about what

preconditions are important for employees in a co-creation initiative. The primary data

collection was based on a survey with questions resulting in both quantitative and

qualitative data.

The process of selecting methods and theories can be helpful to understand and explain

why the used theories and methods were chosen. The idea of using co-creation as the main

theory of research was the first decision taken in the process of writing this thesis and

therefore, the main area of interest. From then on, the process of literature review and

secondary data collection took place.

3.1. Secondary Data Collection – Literature Review

The secondary literature review executed during the process of writing this thesis was

done through a search of scholarly reviewed articles on on-line data bases. The purpose of

this search was mainly to investigate what and how much has been written about the

subject treated in this thesis, but also to find articles within similar areas of research.

There are a number of articles and authors that have discussed the concept of co-creation

in several different contexts. However, it was realized at an early stage that the base of co-

creation and how it can be accessible for companies was the main area of interest.

Therefore, it was decided upon to go back to the origin and base of the concept as

explained in the articles of Prahalad & Ramaswamy. For that reason the view on co-

creation in this thesis will solely take the perspective of Prahalad & Ramaswamy (with an

exception of the article written by Ramaswamy & Guillart 2010).

Moreover, the article by Liedtka et al. (1998) about an ethic of collaboration was also

chosen to be incorporated. The reason behind the decision was simply because of the

interest of investigating if the same attributes needed to succeed with an internal

collaboration are also valid for external collaboration (co-creation). In addition, the aim

was also to see if an ethic of collaboration in itself is a precondition for co-creation.

Though, there might be a number of other articles also depicting what is of importance to

succeed with an internal collaboration, this thesis needs to be read not as a best practice

but rather as an alternative and guidance to how it could be done.

23

Standing as two important concepts, although not seen as the main focus of the thesis, are

the concept of Professional Service Firms and When to Collaborate. Understanding the

characteristics of PSF’s and how they work is important since it can have an influence on

how the answers of the employees are interpreted. A fundamental notion when analyzing

the results of the survey is to understand how important the role of each employee is in

PSF's. The passage of When to Collaborate was incorporated as a tool for how to calculate

the collaboration premium of a co-creation initiative.

3.2. Primary Data Collection - Survey

The process of reaching the decision regarding the method for the primary data collection

was developed through phases with both failures and success. However, the wish during

the whole process was to find a method which would give answers depicting

preconditions needed to succeed with co-creation. At the end, the decision of making a

survey was taken and a questionnaire was sent out to the respondents through e-mail and

answered via a website.

As it occurs with all methods, using surveys as a research tool has both positive and

negatives sides. Survey is defined by Lietz (2010) as “…a complex communication

process whereby the product of the interaction between researchers and respondents leads

the sharing and creating of meaning.”(p.249). In addition, due to the characteristics of

being an exploratory study and the limited samples in this research, it would be interesting

in the future to remake the study on a larger scale to see if the same preconditions needed

according to this study could be also found valid in other types of Professional Service

Firms.

Survey Sample

Before describing the process of writing and deciding upon the questions in the survey, it

is of value to understand the sample selection because the outline of the questions in a

survey may be affected by to whom the survey is intended to be addressed.

As previously stated, the survey was sent out to a number of consultants working at

Professional Service Firms. PSF’s are of interest because the employees are their main

asset. In turn, the employee perspective was chosen because it is an interesting angle

towards the management perspective often represented in the theoretical articles.

24

For the development of this thesis, it is significant to mention that the initial idea was also

to collect answers from a second group of employees, working in traditional service firms,

with the purpose of making a comparison between both industries. Finally, this angle was

excluded from the thesis due to the low number of employees from the second group who

answered the survey (only two people). The reasons for this result were assumed to be

mainly two: a) the lack of motivation to answer the survey and b) the difficulties found by

a number of employees to understand the concepts asked in the questionnaire.

In both instances, the survey was sent to contacts working in the respective industries,

who in turn were asked to forward the survey to their contacts within the sample criteria’s

of consultants in PSF’s and employees in traditional service firms. In total, there were 18

participants answering the survey in the PSF’s category and as said above only 2 in

traditional service firms.

At the end, the sample presented in this thesis represents the 18 participants working as

consultants in PSF’s.

Constructing the Survey

There are many factors that are important to consider when creating and designing the

questions for a survey. In comparison to an interview, where you have the chance to

reformulate the questions, if they were not initially understood by the participant; in a

survey, minor details in the formulation of a question can have large effects upon what

answers you will receive and such on the end result of the research (Lietz, 2010). As

argued by Lietz (2010), it is important to consider the length, specificity and simplicity of

the questions. In short, to make sure that what is asked is clearly understood and that it

leaves no room for interpretation in the respondents.

A sum of 10 questions was asked in the survey. The first five were related to the topic of

the thesis, one question allowed the respondents to express their additional

thoughts/comments, and the last four were included to define the demographics of the

participants. The idea was to keep the number of questions low so it would not be seen as

a too big burden for the participants to answer the survey. Out of the five questions related

to the topic, three were open-ended questions and two were questions where they had to

indicate their answer on a scale. The mix of the two types was chosen partially because it

25

fitted the questions, to give somewhat a variation for the respondents, and finally also

here, to ease the burden with two questions where they just had to “click”.

Even though more questions might have helped to understand the demographics of the

participants better, such as how long they have been working within the

company/industry, their age and education level, it was not seen as having a large enough

influence on the interpretation of the end results, in relation to the value to gain from

having a larger sample selection. Regarding if more questions related to the topic of thesis

would have given a more valid and reliable result is a matter of what is wished to be

achieved. In this thesis, the answers of the survey gave the results that were wished for,

namely indicators of what preconditions are important for employees to succeed with

collaboration. In addition, the main disadvantage of asking more questions and being

more specific is to fall in the use of leading questions.

Therefore, even though there is always room for improvement, the results of the survey

showed to be sufficient to gain an understanding for what preconditions are of importance,

from an employee perspective, to succeed with co-creation (collaboration). Question 1 to

5 will be each individually presented below explaining why they were chosen to be

incorporated in the survey and what information was hoped to be gained from asking the

question.

Motivation for questions included in the survey

Question 1: “What or who inside the company has an influence on the way you are

collaborating with customers? (the customers with whom you are collaborating are

viewed as an external influence)"

There are many factors that can influence employees in different work situations. These

factors can be everything from personal emotions or pressure from management to for

example customers. However, since the aim of this thesis is to identify preconditions for

co-creation, this question was wished to identify what internal factors in a company

influence and to what extent they are having an impact on an employee in a customer

collaboration situation. My Cultural Background, My Educational Background and My

Collected Experience can be argued for being “person”/external factors, yet they were

incorporated because they can also be considered to be internal factors. The reason to

consider them as internal factors lies on that the main assets in a PSF are not tangible in

26

terms of material and products, but rather intangible in terms of employees and their

knowledge & skills.

Question 2: "At the present time, what internal factors in your company support

employees during the process of collaboration with customers? (Internal factors could

include: corporate strategy, corporate culture, corporate reward strategies, management

support, education of employee skills & knowledge)"

In order to identify what preconditions increase the probability of a successful co-creation,

it was considered as important to identify first what factors inside a company are, already

at this moment, supporting their employees in the process of collaboration with customers.

This can of course differ from company to company, however it is of substance to see

what already exists in a company to know what to improve/focus on and what factors need

to be added/developed.

Question 3: "In the future, what factors do you think your company should invest in to

encourage/support employees in the process of collaboration with customers and that also

would contribute to increase the quality/value of the collaboration effort? (For example,

what factors would support and encourage employees to be more creative and open

minded in the process of collaboration?)"

The thought behind asking this question was to investigate from an employee perspective

what factors companies should invest in to support/encourage their employees to

collaborate with customers. This is based on the idea that collaboration should not just be

of interest for management but rather of interest for all employees in a company.

Question 4: Indicate on the scale to what extent you agree or disagree with the following

statement; "How well a company is collaborating internally has en impact on its'

capability to collaborate with its customers"

According to the theory of Liedtka et al. (1998), companies have value to gain by

becoming better collaborators internally. Even though internal collaboration has been

shown to give benefits to a company, this question was posed to see if internal

collaboration has an effect on the way and on the quality of co-creation activities (external

collaboration).

27

Question 5: “If you picture a situation where you are to collaborate with customers as

equals and the aim is to create a "win-win" situation - what actions/decisions would you

take to reach a successful win-win situation?”

The question was asked in order to investigate what thoughts employees have around the

subject of creating a successful win-win situation, since creating a “win-win” situation is

one of the key characteristics that defines co-creation of value. These thoughts could be

used by the management of a company as guidelines to know how employees think and as

such, how to be able to approach their employees from the perspective of their thoughts

and then lead/support them during the process of co-creation.

Interpretation and Presentation of the Survey answers

Two challenges were met when deciding how to present the results from the survey in the

data chapter. The first was how to show the quantitative results of Question 1 & 4 in

calculated averages and charts. For example, the main challenge in Question 1 was to get

an understanding for what method calculates the most valid average. The second

challenge was how to present the data from the open-ended questions, since the aim of the

data chapter was to show the results avoiding making any interpretations or analysis at

that stage. For questions 2 and 3, the factors included in the data chapter were defined by a

process of grouping similar words and expressions mentioned in the survey answers. A

similar method was used for Question 5 & 6, however here it was more challenging since

each respondent tended to put focus on fewer factors (often one or two) and describe them

more at length. Despite this, it was possible to find common themes that allowed grouping

the answers.

In addition, differences between the answers of employees depending on their position in

the company were found in Question 1. In order to get an understanding of those

differences, the employees were classified into Seniors and Others. During the process of

interpreting and presenting the data, the other questions were reviewed to check if similar

differences could be found in the answers. However, no patterns were strong enough to

make similar comparisons as in Question 1.

As mentioned before, there is always a challenge in presenting the results of a survey

without making any interpretation, and some would probably say it is impossible

especially when executing a qualitative study. Thus, even though the objective was to be

28

neutral in the presentation of the results in the data chapter, the results were still shown in

favor of helping to construct later an answer of the research question.

3.3. Hypotheses

With the aim of linking the theoretical perspectives of the thesis with the findings from the

survey, hypotheses were created. Hypotheses are a good research tool since they allow

you, before starting with primary research, to set a number of assumptions that will be

later tested and confirmed as either accepted/denied or left unanswered.

The hypotheses stated in the introduction, Figure 1, were mainly chosen in relation to the

theory of an ethic of collaboration. As mentioned above, it is of interest to see whether or

not the attributes of an internal collaboration are the same as those for an external

collaboration (co-creation). Thus, the attributes take the position in this thesis, as

hypotheses to be tested against the findings from the survey. The firm-centric attributes

were decided to be tested individually whereas the person-centered attributes were defined

as one hypothesis. The reason behind was the belief that it is difficult for employees to

evaluate their own personalities and skills. Despite of this, person-centered attributes were

included as one hypothesis with the interest of seeing in the results whether or not the

individual person has an impact on the collaboration process.

The last hypothesis added from the theory of co-creation was Transparency. This factor

was included as a hypothesis not to be tested, but rather to show its position as a criterion

for successful co-creation according to the originators of the concept.

29

4. Data Collection – Employee Survey about Customer Collaboration

As explained in the methodological chapter of this thesis, the participants answering this

survey all work as consultants in Professional Services Firms. In Table 1, an overview of all

the 18 participants who answered the survey is shown. The information to be found in the

table is; what company/industry they work in, their position/profession, how many employees

there are in the company they work for and in what countries/continents the company has

offices.

Since the survey only was requested to be answered by people working within consultancy

and because of the method of choosing to whom the survey was send it is already known that

all participants are working as PSF’s whether it is indicated in the table below or not.

However, it can be seen in the table that most of the participants work within engineering

consultancy and that only 2 participants work within other sectors than engineering, namely;

Human Resources & Environmental Services. Regarding the number of employees 16 of the

participants work in a firm with 250 or more employees, 1 participant works in a firm with

11-49 employees and 1 in a firm with 50-250 employees. It is also these two participants

working in smaller firms that have an office only in Denmark whereas the companies with

250 or more employees all have offices in several countries or even continents.

The outline of the chapter

The chapter is build up through first introducing the sample demographics in Table 1,

followed by presentation of the data result of each question. Following in the order they were

asked in the survey.

30

1-10 11-49 49-249 ≥250

P.4. Consultancy HR Account Manager/Project Manager x Denmark

P.5. Consulting engineer Civil engineer (Specialised field) x Denmark

P.7. Consulting Senior Engineer x

P.9. Consulting Consultant x worldwide

P.10. Consulting engineer Design structural engineer x Precense worldwide, Europe, America, Africa and Asia

P.12. Consulting engineer Senior engineer/ project manager x Europe, Africa, Asia, North America

P.14. Civil industry Engineer x Europé, USA, China, Middle East, Africa

P.17. Consulting engineer Structural engineer x It has offices in Europé, Asia, Middle East and in America

P.18. Engineering Structural engineer x Europé, US, Britain, China, Middle East

Project Engineer

Project Administrator

Consulting engineer Quality Manager

Consulting engineer Project Director

Consulting Engineer

Consulting engineer Consulting Engineer

Engineering Project Manager

P.13.

P.15.

P.16.

P.20.

Consulting engineer

Consulting engineer

Consulting engineer

Consulting engineer

P.1.

P.2.

P.3.

P.6.

P.8.

x

x

x

x

x

x

Main office; Denmark. Offices and daugther companies world

wide

Headquarters in Denmark, other main braches/subsidiaries;

Nothen, Easter Euriope countries, United Arab Emirates,

China, India, USA

Environmental

consulting services

Senior marine design

engineer/project manager

x

x

33 countries in all continents

HQ in Denmark, branch offices and subsidiaries in the UK,

Spain, Middle East, USA, Canada, Eastern Europé, Turkey,

Russia, China, various African countries

Head Office; Denmark; Reginal offices; Sweden, Norway and

Arabian Gulf Offices; for example Turkey, Baltic countries,

Poland, Russia, USA, China, India, Africa

Denmark, Germany, Holland, Bulgaria, Norway, Lithuania,

Romania, Turkey, Poland, Vietnam, China

Denmark - headquarter and 45 other offices around the world,

US, Europé, Africa, Middle East, Far East

Middle-East (Qatar, Saudi-Arabia, UAE) Australia, Europe

(Ireland, Germany)

Canada/US, China, India, Africa, Middle East, UK/Europé

Denmark (headquaters), offices in several countries

Type of

Company/Industry

Number of Employees

Possition/Profession Office in what country/countries/continents

Senior Marine

Geophysicist/Specialist

x

Ta

ble

1 - D

em

og

rap

hics o

f the

Pa

rticipa

nts

31

4.1. Question 1

“What or who inside the company has an influence on the way you are collaborating

with customers? (the customers with whom you are collaborating are viewed as an

external influence)"

In Table 2, the overall answers and how many of the participants that chose to answer the

question is shown. The numbers in the table indicates how many that chose 1,2,3,4 and 5 for

the different factors. For example, on Company Culture 8 out of 18 answered a 4 and all 18

participants answered the question. However on the third alternative manages/managers, there

was one participant that chose not to click whether or not it was an influence, this was

Participant nr.4, whom has been registered as an account manager at a HR consultancy. In

addition, there was a possibility for the participants too enter other factors that influence them

in collaboration process. Two of the participants entered other factors, these alternatives were

external factors and therefore not considered in the presentation of the question.

All Participants

No

Influence Partial Influence

Strong

Influence

1 2 3 4 5 Total

Company Culture 0 1 4 8 5 18

The Company Management 0 1 7 4 6 18

Manager/Managers 0 1 8 3 5 17

Colleagues 1 2 6 9 0 18

The reason for collaboration 0 3 5 4 6 18

Time 1 1 4 8 4 18

Budget 0 3 3 5 7 18

My Cultural Background 2 2 10 1 3 18

My Educational Background 1 3 6 4 4 18

My Collected Experience 1 0 3 7 7 18

Table 2 - Overview of answers given to Question 1

As an introductory overview of the answers to the question, it can be seen that all factors does

have some level of influence on the employees in a collaboration situation. This since, 87% of

all the answers were given a 3 (Partial Influence) or above with the max of 5 (strong

influence), and 13% was given a 1 (No influence) or a 2.

There are several different methods for how you can analyze the above data, however in this

specific study the choice was to look at the average responses thru the use of the Mean,

Median and Mode as tools when analyzing and presenting the result of the question. It was

also found to be of interest to analyze not only the total results, but also in the perspective of

Senior and Other since it was found that the result slightly differed between the three groups.

The Mean

As can be seen in Figure 5, the mean for all the participants

between 3 (Partial Influence) and 4 (has an influence). This show, as also stated above, that all

factors does have some sort of influence over the employee in a collaboration

were three factors that received a score under 3,4. The factor with the lowest mean was

Cultural Background with a mean of 3,06. The other two in order are

Education Background with 3,39. The rest all received a s

Manager/Managers (3,71), the Reason for Collaboration & Time

Management (3,83), Budget (3,89),

highest mean was My Collected Experience (4,06).

Figure 5 - Bar Chart showing the mean for All Participant Question 1

3.943.83

3.71

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

What or who inside the company has an influence on the way you

are collaborating with customers?

found to be of interest to analyze not only the total results, but also in the perspective of


the mean for all the participants, all factors received an average


factors does have some sort of influence over the employee in a collaboration

were three factors that received a score under 3,4. The factor with the lowest mean was

with a mean of 3,06. The other two in order are Colleagues

with 3,39. The rest all received a score above 3,7. In order they are;

the Reason for Collaboration & Time (3,72), the Company

(3,89), Company Culture (3,94). The factor that received the

My Collected Experience (4,06).

Bar Chart showing the mean for All Participant Question 1

3.71

3.28

3.72 3.723.89

3.06

3.39



All Participants

32

found to be of interest to analyze not only the total results, but also in the perspective of


, all factors received an average


factors does have some sort of influence over the employee in a collaboration situation. There

were three factors that received a score under 3,4. The factor with the lowest mean was My

Colleagues 3,28 and My

core above 3,7. In order they are;

the Company

(3,94). The factor that received the

3.39

4.06


As stated in the instruction it was also found to be of interest to look at the averages not only

from the perspective of all the participants, but also to divide

position in the company. By reading the positions/profession in the company the identification

was made to categorize 7 as Senior (With a position as Project Manager or similar) and 11 as

Other. In order, to analyze whether thei

In Figure 6 and Figure 7 below, it can be seen that the value of the mean changed when

dividing the participants in two

will say with a score above four were:

Manager/Managers and My collected Experience.

were; Budget and My Collected Experience.

Background was the least influence factor.

Figure 6 - Factors that are influencing participants with a position as Senior

4.00 4.004.14

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50




from the perspective of all the participants, but also to divide the sample depending on the



Other. In order, to analyze whether their position in the company influences their answers.

below, it can be seen that the value of the mean changed when

dividing the participants in two groups. For the group Senior the most influencing factors that

will say with a score above four were: Company Culture, The Company Management,

My collected Experience. In turn, for the group Other these factors

lected Experience. However, both groups agreed that

was the least influence factor.

Factors that are influencing participants with a position as Senior

3.43 3.433.71

3.57

2.863.14



Senior

33


the sample depending on the



r position in the company influences their answers.

below, it can be seen that the value of the mean changed when

groups. For the group Senior the most influencing factors that

Company Culture, The Company Management,

In turn, for the group Other these factors

However, both groups agreed that My Cultural

Factors that are influencing participants with a position as Senior

3.14

4.14


Figure 7 - Facto

The Dispersion: The Median, The Mode & The Mean

The Mean is not the only tool to calculate the average and to give clear view it is also of value

to compare it with two other measurements of th

comparison of the results given by calculating and comparing the different averages of the

three different groups. The benefit of making the comparison between the averages are to see

if they are close to each other or dispersed to in the end be able to find the average most close

to the truth. The division has been set as; 0

The calculated averages for the group of

different groups depending on how close or dispersed the averages are in relation to each

other are shown in the tables. Three factors have averages close to each other;

Culture (with an average around 4),

and Time (with an average close to 4). Followed by four factors that has a medium

dispersion; Manager/Managers

(a dispersion of 0,71 = 3,71 (highest)

3.913.73

3.40

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50



Factors that are influencing participants with a position as Other

The Dispersion: The Median, The Mode & The Mean


to compare it with two other measurements of the average. A presentation will follow with the



other or dispersed to in the end be able to find the average most close

to the truth. The division has been set as; 0 – 0,33 close, 0,34-0,99 medium,

The calculated averages for the group of All Participants can be found in Table


other are shown in the tables. Three factors have averages close to each other;

(with an average around 4), My Cultural Background (with an average around 3),

(with an average close to 4). Followed by four factors that has a medium

Manager/Managers with the Median & Mode as lowest with 3 and a Mean of 3,71

(a dispersion of 0,71 = 3,71 (highest) – 3 (lowest)), Colleagues with the Mean as lowest of

3.18

3.913.73

4.09

3.18

3.55



Others

34

rs that are influencing participants with a position as Other


e average. A presentation will follow with the



other or dispersed to in the end be able to find the average most close

0,99 medium, ≥1 large.

Table 3. Three


other are shown in the tables. Three factors have averages close to each other; Company

(with an average around 3),

(with an average close to 4). Followed by four factors that has a medium

with the Median & Mode as lowest with 3 and a Mean of 3,71

with the Mean as lowest of

3.55

4.00


35

3,28 and the Mode as with highest of 4, My Educational Background with the Median and

Mode as the lowest with 3 and the highest with the Mean of 3,39, My Collected Experience

has a mode of 4 & 5 that represents the lowest and the highest, and is therefore categorized as

a medium dispersion instead of a large. The remaining two factors have a dispersion which

has been categorized as large; The Company Management, with the Mode as the lowest of 3

and the Median the highest of 4, The Reason for Collaboration, with the Mean as the lowest

with 3,72 and the Mode with the highest of 5.

In Table 4, the calculated averages for group “Senior” is presented. Among the factors for

Senior four had a small (close dispersion); Company Culture ,average of 4, Median, Mode &

Mean exactly the same, Time, with the Mean as the lowest and Median & Mode as the

highest, My Cultural Background, also here with the Mean as the lowest and Median & Mode

as the highest, My Educational Background, were it is the opposite to the previous factor with

the Median & Mode as the lowest and the Mean as the highest. Four factors had a medium

dispersion; Colleagues, with the Mean as the lowest and Median & Mode as the highest, The

Reason for Collaboration, with the opposite Median & Mode as the lowest and the Mean as

the highest, Budget, with the Mean as the lowest and the Median & Mode as the highest, My

Collected Experience, with the Median as the lowest and the Mode as the highest. The last

two factors had both a large dispersion; The Company Management, with either the Mode as

both the highest and the lowest, Manager/Managers, with the Median as the lowest and the

Mode as the highest average.

ALL PARTICIPANTS

MEDIAN MODE MEAN

Company Culture 4 4 3,94

The Company Management 4 3 3,83

Manager/Managers 3 3 3,71

Colleagues 3,5 4 3,28

The reason for collaboration 4 5 3,72

Time 4 4 3,72

Budget 4 5 3,89

My Cultural Background 3 3 3,06

My Educational Background 3 3 3,39

My Collected Experience 4 4 & 5 4,06

Table 3 - All Participants; The Median, Mode & Mean

36

SENIOR

MEDIAN MODE MEAN


The Company Management 4 3 & 5 4,00


Colleagues 4 4 3,43


Time 4 4 3,71

Budget 4 4 3,57


My Educational Background 3 3 3,14

My Collected Experience 4 5 4,14

Table 4 - Seniors; The Median, Mode & Mean

The calculated averages for the group Others can be found in Table 5. In total there were three

factors that can be found with small (close) dispersion; Company Culture, with the Mean as

the lowest and the Median & Mode as the highest, The Company Management, with also here

the Mean as the lowest and the Median & Mode being the highest, the third with a close

dispersion is My Cultural Background, with opposite as Median & Mode being the lowest and

the Mean the highest. Only two factors had a medium dispersion; Manager/Managers with

the Median & Mode as the lowest and the Mean as the highest, Budget, with the Mean as the

lowest and the Median & Mode both as the highest. In relation to the two other groups this

was the group where the most factors had a large dispersion, with a total of five; Colleagues,

Median as the lowest and Mode as the highest, The Reason for Collaboration, where the

Mean as the lowest and the Mode as the highest, Time, with the same relation as the previous

factor, My Educational Background, with the Mode being both the lowest and the highest

average, My Collected Experience, with Median & Mean as the lowest and Mode as the

highest.

37

OTHERS

MEDIAN MODE MEAN


The Company Management 4 4 3,73


Colleagues 3 4 3,18


Time 4 5 3,73

Budget 5 5 4,09


My Educational Background 4 3,4,5 3,55

My Collected Experience 4 5 4,00

Table 5 - Others; The Median, Mode & Mean

4.2. Question 2

"At the present time, what internal factors in your company support employees during

the process of collaboration with customers? (Internal factors could include: corporate

strategy, corporate culture, corporate reward strategies, management support,

education of employee skills & knowledge)"

The answers to this questions differed both in length and type. In total there were 16

participants that gave some form of answer to the question and one person stated that he/she

did not understand what was asked for. There was however one participant out of the 16 that

stated “not a lot that I know of. All contacts are played within manager to manager and there

is no education available for juniors.” (Participant nr.18), which indicates that he/she most

likely does not have much contact with the clients and that the company does not put efforts

in educating the junior employees in the matter of contact with clients. As such data that will

be presented here comes from in total 15 participants.

In Table 6, the internal factors that support employees in the collaboration process in

companies are presented in order of how many that mentioned the different factors. It is in

that order that the factors will be presented in context of the answers given to this questions.

What where the results and answers of the questions?

Corporate Strategy was mentioned by 6 participants and is as such the factor that was

mentioned the most number of times. It is mentioned as an underlying factor that has a strong

influence on how they are acting and communicating with the customers, at the same time as

38

it put focus on how valuable customers are to a company. This can be seen as an example in

the two answers given by Participant 17 & 2;

“It is primarily driven by our established corporate strategy where close contact and better

understanding of the customer's need are considered to be of utmost importance in order to

be step ahead in the very competitive consulting business.” (Participant nr.17)

“The Corporate strategy has a strong influence on how we discuss matters with the client and

also how we approach the client.” (Participant nr.2)

Number of participants answering Question 2; 16 out of 17.

“Corporate Strategy” – stated by 6 participants

“Management Support” – stated by 5 participants

“Company knowledge & skills – gained through experiences” – stated by 5 participants

“Freedom of work” – stated by 3 participants

“Education of employees – improve skills & knowledge” – stated by 3 participants

“Company Culture” – stated by 3 participants

(“Budget and time given” – stated by 2 participants)

“Internal procedures” – stated by 1 participant

“Code of Conduct” – stated by 1 participant *related to corporate culture

“Company standard” – stated by 1 participant

Table 6 - Existing internal factors in companies that support employees in the collaboration process

With five participants each mentioning the factors, the second most stated factors were

Management Support & Company Knowledge and Skills. Management Support, was given as

an answer by five participants, the key role of the Managers (leaders) was given as an answer

by for example Participant 15 a Project Director in a Consulting Engineering firm; “The

company and the leaders shall be the key factors influencing the way to collaborate so that

focus is always on the customers.”Company Knowledge & Skills, in any service firm and

especially in professional services one of the most important resources is its company’s

39

intangible resources in form of knowledge and skills. This was pointed out by one of the

participants, emphasizing the role of the human resources department in a company to acquire

the right people; “… availability of required resources (incl. human resources (quantity, skills

and experience)” (Participant nr.12).

Following, there were three factors mentioned by 3 participants each: Freedom of Work,

Education of Employees & Company Culture.

Freedom of Work was stated by three participants, however one of them also saw the freedom

as a hinder/barrier for improvement of collaboration skills. “It is person dependent, if you

really want to work on a way and you can prove that it works the company let you do.

However, this company let people too much freedom and some really abuse on that. The

company wants to get there but there, the benefits are clear, but there are many reasons

because it does not work: - It was not common in the old times and therefore some good

Senior people is not used to that. - Some young mangers do not believe in that or do not see

the advantage - Working on this way implies that one has to be really good and be willing to

get feedback from the client (good and bad), when people is not so good, that is a risk that not

everyone is willing to take.”(Participant nr.1) The second of them stated freedom in relation

to employee responsibility in the collaboration process, in terms of being given the trust,

whereas the last stated it as a professional freedom.

Education of Employees is explained by one of the participants as an internal factor that

supports employees in the sense that it secures a certain standard of knowledge in the

company.

Company Culture, has been explained as a factor because it creates a Code of Conduct of

possible unwritten rules (Participant 12) as well as, by the same participant, creating

professional freedom (as mentioned above). It is also an underlying factor, in a similar way as

to the corporate strategy; “There is a set corporate strategy and culture to be followed

however individuals are responsible for the collaboration process allowing creative and

openness during collaboration…” (Participant nr.7).

Budget & Time given, the money involved and available, together with the time frame set the

base for collaboration. “The money involved in the contract. The time and deadlines sets up a

more/less smooth collaboration.” (Participant nr.10)

40

The last three factors, was mentioned by only one participant; Internal Procedures, Code of

Conduct & Company Standard.

4.3. Question 3

"In the future, what factors do you think your company should invest in to

encourage/support employees in the process of collaboration with customers and that

also would contribute to increase the quality/value of the collaboration effort? (For

example, what factors would support and encourage employees to be more creative and

open minded in the process of collaboration?)"

As in the previous question the answers to the question differed both in length and type of

answer. The data that will be presented in this section is the result of the answers from in total

15 participants. One participant did not answer, and one participant (the same as in the

previous question) did not understand what was asked for.

In Table 7, the internal factors are presented that the employees think the company should

invest in to support them in the collaboration process and that would increase the

quality/value of the effort. As for the previous question the results will be presented in the

order of how many of the participants that mentioned the different factors.


The factor that the most number of participants mentioned was; Education of Employees. It

was mentioned in total by 6 of the participants and in the context, not only as a onetime event

but rather, of a continuous action to keep the employees knowledge & skills updated.

“Invest in training staff to improve collaboration and promote those having special skills in

this.” (Participant nr.15)

The three following factors were mentioned by 4 participants each; Build & Foster Customer

Relationships, Customer Needs – Top Quality, and Internal Communication & Collaboration.

Build & Foster Customer Relationships, the participants whom mentioned this factor pointed

towards the importance of creating and sustaining good relationships and to supply a top

quality service product, as one participant wrote; “… making clear that "your project" is "our

project" and the success of it will be a success for both sides. A project is a relationship (but

41

contractual) and therefore must be based on the same principles of any relationship: trust and

communication. …”(Participant nr.1) However, it was also pointed at from another participant

that even though it is a business relationship, it is a human relationship, and that it is not all

about the end service product, but rather how that service was created/developed; “It would

bring benefit to the company, if there would be put extra emphasis on how the human

relationship with the client is created and sustained throught a job/project. Being and

engineering company, the client is not in doubt, that the job is carried out to it's full extent.

But the way it is being presented and the way the engineer supports the client through the

process is more questionable.” (Participant nr.2)

The second factor that was mentioned by 4 participants was Customer Needs – Top Quality,

that is related to the above factor regarding the importance of building and fostering customer

relationships. “Company awareness that customer relations are key issue for growth.

Company top management to focus on customer needs - seek of win-win policies.

…”(Participant nr.10) A step that is connected to the creation of customer relationships are to

gain understanding for and focus on what the customer needs and as such provide a service

that is seen as top quality by the customer. However, it is not only a matter of understanding

each customers need, but also to see them as unique and as such companies needs to realize

the call for; “…quality system that allows, and gives framework, for alternative procedures

that can be tailored to the needs of the customer.” (Participant nr.12)

The last of the three factors that was mentioned by 4 participants each was Internal

Communication & Collaboration. This factor was presented from different aspects. The first

participant argues for the importance of equilibrium in a company/team to be able to face the

clients as equals and as such provide an excellent service product. To create that equilibrium

the participant argues for that each employee needs to feel responsible for their actions and

through that commitment and a sense of belonging to a team/company. Other aspects

mentioned by the participants where the importance to know what resources that exists within

the company; “Team building: overview and an overall picture of various fields ( specialized

works) within the company…” (Participant nr.5), and the importance of good communication

of what is going on within a company; “Information passing down to employees would

improve commitment and result in a better product that would make at the same time the

costumer happier.” (Participant nr.10) The fourth participants mentioned this factor in the

context of good cohesion among colleagues in a company.

42

Delegation of Responsibilities, was stated by a total of 3 participants, in the context of

delegation of responsibilities to qualified people as well as the importance of the notion of

trust from management; “Trust from management and delegation of responsibility…”

(Participant nr.16).

As can be seen in Table 7 the two following factors were stated by 2 participants each. The

first one of these is The Right People – Personality matters, that it is important to recognize

those people with the right personality for collaboration with customers. Followed by Tools

for Collaboration, companies can help employees in the process of collaboration through

supplying them with necessary tools: “Specific tools for Managers to close beneficial deals,

both time and money speaking…” (Participant nr.10), this to secure the value in the

collaboration activity: “Development of processes and professional high level tools to support

maximum and timely output…” (Participant nr.16).

Number of participants answering Question 3; 15 out of 17

“Education of Employees” – stated by 6 participants

“Build & Foster Customer Relationships” – stated by 4 participants

“Customer Needs – Top Quality” – stated by 4 participants

“Internal Communication & Collaboration” – stated by 4 participants

“Delegation of Responsibilities” – stated by 3 participants

“The right People – personality matters” – stated by 2 participants

“Tools for collaboration” – stated by 2 participants

“Open Dialogue” – stated by 1 participant

“Reward Strategies” – stated by 1 participant

“Evaluation and Learn from the Past” – stated by 1 participant

“Entrepreneurship” – stated by 1 participant

“Increase Commercial Awareness” – stated by 1 participant

“Management Support” – stated by 1 participant

“Recognition of Face-to-Face Communication” – stated by 1 participant

“Best Practices” – stated by 1 participant

Table 7 - Question 3 - What internal factors should a company focus on to improve in the future for successful

collaborations?

43

The remaining factors that were mentioned by participants were stated one time each: Open

Dialogue, Reward Strategies, Evaluation and Learn from the Past, Entrepreneurship,

Increase Commercial Awareness, Management Support, Recognition of Face-to-Face

Communication, Best Practices.

4.4. Question 4

Indicate on the scale to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statement;

"How well a company is collaborating internally has an impact on its' capability to

collaborate with its customers"

This was a question where the participant had to a stand to whether or not they agree to the

above statement regarding the impact of internal collaboration on the capability of

collaboration with customers. All 18 participants answered this question.


The participants had the choice of five alternatives on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 was Totally

Disagree, 3 – Partially Agree/Partially Disagree, and 5 Totally Agree., where the number 2

and 4 was in between alternatives.

As can be seen in Figure 8, the majority that will say 56% (10 out of 18) of the participants

answered totally agree. The remaining answered 17% 4 – agree (3 out of 18), 22% chose the

alternative Partially Agree/Partially Disagree (4 out of 18), none of the participants chose 2 –

Disagree, and only 5%, that will say 1 person, chose Totally Disagree.

44

Figure 8 - Chart including the answers for Question 4

4.5. Question 5

If you picture a situation where you are to collaborate with customers as equals and the

aim is to create a "win-win" situation - what actions/decisions would you take to reach a

successful win-win situation?

Out of the 18 participants 15 gave some sort of answer to this question, and out of the three

who did not answer only one motivated that it was because he/she did not find the question

clear and that it depended too much upon what the question referred to.

On this question the participants gave to a larger extent more similar answers than to the

previous open ended Questions 2 & 3.


Many of the answers from the different participants were around similar actions needed to

create a win-win situation with a customer. There where however different aspects of the

actions and therefore it was found important to share the most descriptive quotes in table ___ ,

to get an understanding for the context of their answers.

56%

17%

22% 0%

5%

"How well a company is collaborating internally has en

impact on its' capability to collaborate with its

customers"

Totally Agree

Agree

Partially Agree/Disagree

Disagree

Totally Disagree

45

“- Make clear that the goal is understood, we know what to do and the client knows what

they are going to get. There must be no room for misunderstandings or false expectations. -

State the proper communication lines - State proper tasks and people in charge - State

deadlines All the previous points must be achieved on trust, expecting that both parties have

the same interest in achieving success.” (Participant 1)

“Establish a pleasant work climate with the client. - Make sure, that the wishes of the client

are heard. - Walk the extra mile to make our solution stand out from possible competitors in

the market.” (Participant 2)

“- Experience and wit will surely overrule the situation for a win-win situation - Be well

prepared on the topic and have analysed thoroughly the various aspects of the situation -

Listening to the customers needs and wants - Presenting the gain or benefit to the Customer

in the long run.” (Participant 5)

“You need to understand what the customer wants so listen to their words but also to the

emotions behind the words. This enables one to define the tasks for collaboration and to

determine whether there are any aspects that the customer is more passionate about.

Involve the customer, as much as possible, in determining the actions and decisions that are

to be made. This gets them involved in the delivery process but always remembering that

the customer has come to you for your expertise so deliver.” (Participant 7)

“Be open-minded and responsive to customer requirements.” (Participant 8)

“1. Find out what will give a win situation for the customer and how this can harmonize

with the internal goals and factors that determine an internal win situation. 2. Initiate the

required actions based on the results of the previous analysis.” (Participant nr.12)

“Primarily I should take a balance approach of having a clear appreciation of the

customers need and then weigh it against the current capability of my company. This is to

make sure that what we have promised can be delivered on budget and on time.”

(Participant 17)

Table 8 - Action/Decisions needed to achieve a "win-win" situation

46

As can be seen in the quotes stated in Table 8, there one action that was found in many of

quotes, namely the importance of understanding the customer’s needs. However the

importance of understanding the customer’s needs is expressed differently in the answers.

One of the participants point to the value there is in for the customer to feel as if they are

being heard/listened to. Whereas two other argues for that you need to understand the

customer’s needs to be able to match/harmonize it with the capabilities/resources in the

company. That is, if you do not know what the customer want you neither know what to offer

the customer when aiming at reaching a win-win situation.

To fully grasp the need of the customer, good communication is urged as a necessity

according to the participants, this could for example be helped to achieve through as one of

them states “Establish a pleasant work climate” or “State proper communication lines”.

Communication is a tool for making parties feel involved and as such feel a part of the

process in taking decisions and making agreements. However, at the base of collaboration and

to gain a win-win situation one participant argues for that it is needed to be open-minded and

responsive to the fellow collaborators/customers requirements.

4.6. Question 6

Do you have any other comments or thoughts that you would like to share regarding

how a company facilitates collaboration with customers?

In total there were 8 participants who added additional comments or thoughts. As with the

other open ended questions the length of the given answers varied between the participants.

What they added in addition differed between the participants and below you will find a

presentation of their additional comments/thoughts.


Three of the additional thoughts/comments can be summarized as touching upon the need of

flexibility from both sides during the collaboration process. From a company perspective,

even though a plan for collaboration has been created with time, budget, content and so on, it

is important to have in mind that the clients need might changed during the process. The

company/employee need to be aware to that changes can occur and be enough flexible to

move outside the original plan to give added value and satisfy the customer. This was for

example pointed at by Participant 2;

47

“Some companies are so focused on deliver the high quality they know they can develope that

they forget to listen to the clients needs. Being very focused on follow a strategi planned from

the beginning can be good, but it is important, that it is posible to change the plan during the

proces if it is wrong or if the customer change his mind. E.g. a company only focusesing on

quality plan, budget and time is hard to collaborate with. It is important to be fexible so the

client always has the feeling that you are trying to deliver what he needs, and not what you

would like to deliver.” (Participant nr.2)

This thesis is focusing on a company/employee perspective, however it was also put attention

to, by Participant 1, that it is not only the company responsibility to be flexible but also the

customer. That a collaboration/relationship is not only about solving a problem for somebody,

but it is about solving a problem together, that will say both parties needs to have ownership

to want to find a solution.

Following, two participants discussed the important role of the employee in a collaboration

situation. It is crucial for companies to find the right employees for the job, since it is argued

for by the participants that it is a skill you possess. However, they also point to the importance

of continuous education of employees, as has been found also in the answers of the previous

questions. From the company (management) perspective they need to cater the employees

with proper development possibilities as well as notice that flexibility is needed in the sense

that different employees may have different ways of collaborating with customers.

“-Company should spend much on who are they recruiting so that the future employee can

understand the aim of the company's philosophy and can work as a team with the existing

employee for a better collaboration - Company should invest in training its employees so that

they are updated with the most recent methods for better collaboration -Company's working

environment should cater for the proper development of the employees so that the latter can

progress within the company while learning from predecessors” (Participant nr.5)

Company personnel have many different ways in successfully collaborating with customers,

not everythings works for everyone. There are also those who, no matter how hard they try or

how much support and education they have do not have the ability to successfully collaborate

but who can still be essential members of teams. (Participant nr.7)

The two remaining additional thoughts on collaboration, was firstly the importance of good

communication and secondly that successful collaboration all comes down to why the

48

company exists, that a belief in the company needs to exist on the inside for the customer to

trust the company; “I think it is worth to take a cue on how Apple works. That is to start with

WHY. Meaning from inside and out. Instead of collaborating with customers and stating all

the hard facts and figures, benefits, etc. on what we can do for them, we should start by

saying why our company actually exists..what is our belief...as the customers start to believe

what we believe, then we communicate to them from the inside...then they can make gut

decisions to do business with us..everything else will follow.” (Participant nr.17)

49

5. Analysis & Discussion

This chapter in the thesis will analyze and discuss the theoretical base in connection to the

findings from the primary research.

The outline of the chapter follows the order of the hypotheses as shown in Figure 1 found in

Chapter 1. With the exception of hypothesis H.1., Company Transparency, that will be the last

hypothesis to be analyzed and discussed in the connection to the passage addition thoughts on

co-creation, since it stands as an already confirmed hypothesis through being a key

characteristic in the theory of co-creation. Followed by, concluding remarks of the analyzed

hypotheses and a discussion of how to measure the value on intangible assets in a co-creation

initiative.

H.2. Firm-Centric Attributes

As stated in the article by Liedtka et al. (1998), it is essential that companies support their

employee’s Person-Centered attributes, through fostering and developing their Firm-Centric

Attributes, to gain successful internal collaboration. However, in this chapter it will be

analyzed and discussed, whether or not the attributes contributing to internal collaboration are

factors also needed to succeed with co-creation, that will say are preconditions for co-

creation.

To discuss and analyze the first hypothesis Firm-Centric Attributes, it will be placed in

relation to five of the factors represented in the result of Question 1. The question gave a

quantitative result, since the participants were to place their opinion on a scale to indicate if

the given factors are influencing them in the collaboration process. The three factors that

received the highest averages among the five connected to the firm-centric attributes were:

Company Culture, The Company Management and Manager/Managers. They were

considered to have an Influence, up to even a Strong Influence, on the employees when

collaborating with customers. This was shown in the total average, as well as in the average of

both group Senior and Other employees. Moreover, among the Senior employees, these

factors were found to score the highest averages and to be of even stronger influence than

among Other employees. An explanation could be that the Senior employees have often been

in the company for a longer time, in addition to that they often work more directly with

managers and the company management.

50

Continuing, the remaining two factors that can also can be connected to the Firm-Centric

perspective, although maybe less directly than the three above, and as such act as a support to

the employees are Time & Budget. For the factor Time, the first two groups had the same or

similar median, mode and mean, however for the group Other the mode was higher, with

averages varying between 3,73 to 5. Time, influencing the employee in collaboration process,

could be affected by the management of a company through for example allowing the

employees to spend a longer time on creating/fostering collaborations. That the group Other

got a slightly higher mode, could indicate that they feel somewhat more than Seniors, that

time has strong influence on their performance in the collaboration process. The second factor

Budget, was found to be of strong influence on the group Other, with a clear higher average

than the two other groups. What this depends on is difficult to assume, however it might be

because they have less experience in having the responsibility over a budget/the financial

assets in a collaboration (co-creation) situation, and not as much experience, as a senior, in

estimating the actual costs of an action/project.

Both an ethic of collaboration and the findings from the survey support that to succeed with

co-creation (collaboration) the process needs to start inside the company and be supported by

management, since it is not a onetime event but rather a way of thinking and acting.

(Ramaswamy, 2009)

As the above five factors have an influence (in some cases strong

influence) on the employees, it can be concluded that Firm-

Centric Attributes are preconditions needed to succeed with co-

creation of sustainable service management business practices.

In this context, employees do need the company/management support in one way or another

in the collaboration process. However, what Firm-Centric attributes can act as preconditions

will be analyzed below, through continuing testing the remaining hypotheses against the result

presented in the data chapter.

H.2.1. Coherent Intent

Coherent Intent, as Liedtka et al. (1998) explain, gives value to the collaboration process in a

company since it acts as guidance for the employees, providing motives and focus on the

goals that are wished to be achieved. This can in turn be connected to co-creation, as argued

above, since co-creation needs to be built up from the inside and be supported by company

management.

H.2. Firm-Centric

Attributes Y/N Yes!

51

There are different factors which contribute to a Coherent Intent in a company, such as

Company Culture and Company Strategy. When looking at the results from the research done

for this paper, this can be connected to foremost two of the factors influencing employees in

the collaboration process, namely Company Culture & The Company Management. In

addition, the answers from Question 2, mention a number of factors that support the

employees in a collaboration process and which can be connected to what Liedtka et al.

(1998) refers to as Coherent Intent.

The first factor that is worth looking at is Corporate Strategy, because it was mentioned most

frequently (in total six) among the factors in Question 2. Where for example Participant 2

stated: ”The Corporate strategy has a strong influence on how we discuss matters with the

client and also how we approach the client”. The answer implies that a well designed and

communicated corporate strategy does guide the employees in their work when collaborating

with customers. It was also stated by Participant 17, that corporate strategy is the main driver

for employees in the collaboration process. For Coherent Intent or corporate strategy to be a

precondition for co-creation, it is a necessity to make sure that the corporate strategy is

constructed and directed towards not only management but also employees, customers and

other stakeholders, allowing for example employees to invest in and build relationships with

customers over the years for successful co-creation initiatives.

The second most frequently mentioned factor that can be related to Coherent Intent is

Company Culture. The factor acts, in the same way as the corporate strategy, as an underlying

factor that guides the employees during the collaboration process, since as Participant 7 said:

“There is a set corporate strategy and culture to be followed...”. However, the same

Participant continued on saying that the employee still have a responsibility for making the

collaboration process work (this will also be analyzed later on in this chapter), indicating that

corporate strategy and culture does have an impact, but not the sole responsibility, for the

outcome of an collaboration.

Other factors mentioned in the answers to Question 2, and that can be related to coherent

intent are Internal Procedures, Code of Conduct & Company Standard. They were however

only mentioned by one participant each and can as such be questioned of their actual

significance as supporting factors for employees. On the other hand, Internal Procedures &

Company Standard could have a relation to what other referred to as the company strategy,

since such procedures and standards hopefully would be based on what the company wishes

52

to achieve. The third factor Code of Conduct is likely to be related to Company Culture, as

company culture often stands for ways of acting and being that are acceptable/encouraged in a

company.

The answers to Question 2, noted above, include factors that are already, at this time,

supporting the employees in the collaboration process with customers. In addition, there was

one factor given as an answer to Question 3. The factor shows that companies need to invest

in encouraging/supporting their employees in the process of collaboration and therefore, it is

related to Coherent Intent.

In Question 3, a total of four participants answered that their company need, in larger extent,

to focus on the Customer Needs – Top Quality. The factor is here argued for, although not

directly, belonging to corporate strategy and company culture. The participants that gave this

answer expressed that companies must to be aware of that customer relationships are a key

issue for growth. Companies can achieve top quality services by being aware of customer

needs and as such tailor them accordingly to the customer wishes. In relation to co-creation

this can be associated to the key characteristics of Personalization, where the customer

becomes the co-creator of their own experience. Thus, by incorporating the customer in the

collaboration process, a company can to a larger extent gain an understanding for and

knowledge of the customer needs.

By linking and analyzing the answers of the survey to the theory

of an ethic of collaboration it can be argued that Coherent Intent

is a precondition needed for employee success in collaboration

with customers. This statement lies on that all the factors mentioned above, Corporate

Strategy, Company Culture, and focus on Customer Needs, can be considered incorporated in

the attribute of Coherent Intent. Despite this, Coherent Intent is only a precondition for co-

creation when it is designed to support and encourage employees to co-create, as it can be

seen above in the discussion about corporate strategy.

H.2.2. Capital for Learning and Relationships

Capital of Learning and Relationships was found to be an important factor for the companies

in the research for an ethic of collaboration. Acting as a tool, both to facilitate the knowledge

and capabilities existing in the company but also because people whom are willing to learn

H.2.1. Coherent

Intent Y/N Yes!

53

are also often more flexible towards changes (Liedtka et al., 1998). Factors related to the

attribute Capital of Learning and Relationships were found in the result from the survey.

Reflected in the data chapter it can be seen that answers related to Capital for Learning and

Relationships can be found both as factors already existing in companies in Question 2, as

well as, factors that the companies needs to invest in to encourage/support their employees to

create even more successful collaboration initiative in Question 3.

Company Knowledge & Skills was one of the factors with more number of times mentioned in

Question 2. This factor can also be connected to what one of the participants stated on

Question 3, the importance of evaluation and learning from the past. As was concluded by the

originators of co-creation, the business environment and markets are constantly changing, and

if companies want to survive in the long run they must be flexible and open to learn from the

past, and to gain new knowledge and skills (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000). However, it is

not only the company management that needs a flexible mindset but also their employees and

customers (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000).

Education was another factor mentioned in several instances, both as a present supporting

factor in Question 2, as well as, a factor companies needs to invest in for future successful

collaborations in Question 3. Having a continuous focus on education helps employees to

keep an open mindset as well as making the steps of development smaller, in comparison to if

education only was used when major changes occur in companies. As education of employees

was seen as a prominent factor by the employees, it indicates that it is something they award

high value. The employees need for education could be used as an incentive for companies to

locate resources for development and improvements into learning programs. In which they

can use each education opportunity as a tool for communicating the corporate strategies and

building internal collaboration through incorporating employees from different departments

(in the case of larger corporations).

Concluding that the factors just mentioned are capital for learning, there were also in Question

3 a total of four participants who stated the importance of investing in to Build & Foster

Customer Relationships. As it was explained by one participant, the process of creating a

service is often of more importance for the customer relationship, than the end service

product. Moreover, another participant emphasized that collaboration is a human relationship,

and that we are affected by our emotions and not exclusively by economical influences.

54

The results in the survey have shown that Capital for

Learning, through education of employees and development

of company knowledge and skills and Relationships, by

building and fostering customer relationships, are both

preconditions needed for employees to succeed with collaboration (co-creation).

H.2.3. Congruent Systems

Congruent System is considered in an ethic of collaboration as an important factor since it is

argued for that a company’s values are mirrored in their performance/reward systems. They in

turn play an essential role when companies are recruiting and retaining employees.

The hypothesis that congruent systems are a precondition was not as clearly affirmed by the

results from the survey as the previously cited hypotheses. Thus, it was only one participant

who clearly stated in Question 3 that reward systems are an important investment to

encourage/support employees in the collaboration process.

Continuously, in Question 3 a factor that indirectly could be connected to congruent systems,

being noted by a total of three participants, was the call for delegation of responsibilities:

“Trust from management and delegation of responsibilities…”(Participant nr.16). Delegation

of responsibilities can be seen, from a management/manager perspective, as a way to show

recognition and trust to employees. However, even though the management of a company

encourage delegation of responsibilities, there can be complications in turn of managers not to

willing to let go of tasks and employees who do not desire to have increased responsibilities.

Consequently, the arguments are not strong enough to accept the

hypothesis. Therefore, it will stand as a question mark for future

research to investigate deeper into whether or not Congruent

Systems can be seen as a precondition for co-creation (collaboration).

H.2.4. Conscientious Stewardship

To be aware of what we do today will have an impact on our colleagues and customers not

only at the present but also in the future is an example of what Liedtka et al. (1998) refers to

as Conscientious Stewardship. In relation to the concept of co-creation, Conscientious

Stewardship can be linked to the fact that it is not a onetime event but rather a way of being

and acting in a company, which is of increasing importance if you want to create successful

H.2.2. Capital for Learning

and Relationships Y/N

Yes!

H.2.1. Congruent

Systems Y/N ?

55

co-creation of sustainable service management business practices. Hence, it can be argued for

that Conscientious Stewardship should be seen at in a similar way as sustainability actions in

a company, with awareness of what you do today has an impact on the future generations of a

company.

Another example of how managers can practice Conscientious Stewardship would be when a

manager bases his/her leadership on the corporate strategy of the company and this is

communicated positively to his/her colleagues with the aim to build sustainable business

practices.

However, in the research made for the thesis, Conscientious Stewardship could not directly be

found from analyzing the answers of the participants. Though, it was shown in Question 1 that

manager/managers (as stated previously) and colleagues do have an influence on employees

in the collaboration process. Since manager/managers and colleagues are the carriers of

Conscientious Stewardship and what they do have an influence on the employee, it could be

seen as an indication of that the factor is a pre-condition for co-creation. However, it will be

here argued for that the connection is not clear enough to confirm the hypothesis, since the

result from the survey does not show regarding what and how manager/managers and

colleagues influence the employees.

Although, Conscientious Stewardship is a hypothesis that

neither can be accepted or denied as a precondition, it is an

aim of many companies today that has an interest in

sustainable business practices and as such it is a factor which should not be forgotten.

H.3. Person-Centric Attributes

Through the research of employees in Professional Service Firms the importance of the

employee as a precondition for successful co-creation is already a stated fact, since PSF’s

would not exist if it were not for its personnel and their knowledge and skills. The role of the

co-creator, in this instance the employee, is also explained in the theory of co-creation, where

successful co-creation is based on the dialogue and interaction between all stakeholders

involved, including the employees.

It can be seen from the results of Question 1 that the personal attributes of My Cultural

Background, My Educational Background & My Collected Experience do have some level of

influence on the employee in the collaboration process. With the result that My Collected

H.2.4. Conscientious

Stewardship Y/N ?

56

Experience got the highest averages in all the three groups with an average between 4

(influence) and 5 (strong influence), the other two My Educational Background and My

Cultural Background can be considered as having a partial influence since each factor

received an average of three.

In addition, it was found in the answers of Question 3 and Question 6 that the person and its

qualifications do have an impact on the collaboration process. In Question 6, the participants

had the possibilities to add their additional thoughts around the topic of customer

collaboration. Two participants in each question argued for that it is crucial for companies to

find the right employees for the job and that the personality of the employee does matter.

However, for a PSF it is already acknowledged that the employee (consultant) play a crucial

role for the success of the firm, and in this instance the success of a co-creation initiative.

Though, with many of the participants working in large (more than 250 employees)

multinational companies, keeping track of their employees (resources) is challenging but a

central task for management. However, a larger challenge for a company is most likely the

capability to show recognition for each individual, to make sure that they are happy and as

such wishes to continue to work within the company.

Though, it can be concluded that the person-centered attributes

are important preconditions for employees to create successful

co-creation. The attributes found from the results of the survey,

do however not point to the specific attributes of; The Sense of

Calling, Caring Attitude and Creative Energy given by Liedtka et al. in an ethic for

collaboration. Although one participant did argue for the importance of understanding the

emotions behind a customer action in a collaboration situation (Question 5), this was only one

person and as such not enough accept a caring attitude as a precondition for co-creation

(collaboration).

H.4. An Ethic of Collaboration

As have been shown so far in this thesis, a number of the attributes defining an ethic of

collaboration do acts as preconditions needed to succeed with co-creation. With that

concluded, the next question is whether or not internal collaboration, that will say an ethic of

collaboration, is in itself a precondition for co-creation?

H.3. Person-Centered

Attributes Y/N Yes!

57

In connection to the theory of co-creation, Ramaswamy & Guillart (2010) stress the

importance for companies to be better at providing experiences internally before they can

succeed with it externally. However, they do not argue for to what extent and how to

collaborate internally.

To see if there is a link between co-creation and an ethic of collaboration Question 4 was

decided to be included in the survey. The result of the question turned out to be positive,

reflecting that the employees do believe, with a percentage of 56% Totally Agree, 17% Agree,

22% Partially Agree/Partially Disagree and only 5% (1 person) Totally Disagree, that there is

a correlation between how well a company is collaborating internally and their capability to

collaborate externally.

In addition, it was not only found through the result of Question 4 that there is a correlation

between a company’s capability to collaborate internally and their success with external

collaboration, but also through of the answers given to, for example, Question 2. In these

answers, the participants stated the value of cohesion among colleagues, as well as knowledge

of existing resources within a company. Internal collaboration was also found as a key factor

in the sense of passing on information to the employees, so that they know what is happening

in the company and as such know the latest changes in for example available resources.

According to the employees and the answers of Question 4,

along with the contribution made by participants on other

questions presented above, there seem to be a correlation

between internal collaboration and collaboration with customers (co-creation). Therefore, it

will here be concluded, that Yes – an ethic of collaboration is a precondition for successful

co-creation.

Additional thoughts on Co-Creation & H.1. Company Transparency

This part of the analysis will look at those factors which have a relation to customer co-

creation of value and that have not yet been mentioned as a precondition in connection to the

hypotheses. Among the answers that are yet to be analyzed are those to Question 5 and some

of the additional comments given in Question 6.

The reason behind constructing and asking Question 5 was to gain some insight of how

employees see collaboration when the goal is to reach a “win-win” situation, since this is one

of the main characteristics of co-creation.

H.1. An Ethic of

Collaboration Y/N Yes!

58

One of the main themes in the answers of Question 5, and that also goes in line with co-

creation, is the importance of understanding the customer’s needs, as has been stated earlier in

the chapter under coherent intent. Understanding the customer needs are crucial for

employees (companies) to be able to co-create a personalized experience together with the

customer. In the process of personalization and co-creation, which can be seen depicted in the

model ___ Building Blocks for interaction for customer co-creation, the employees need to

know how to play the role as mediators to create a forum for dialogue. This dialogue or

communication was also mentioned in Question 5 by some of the participants as significant to

be able to succeed with collaboration by mean of creating a win-win situation. The creation of

a good dialogue can lead to easier access to information for the customer, which is the second

building block. To succeed with a co-creation initiative it is vital that both parties have access

to the information needed to succeed with the co-creation initiative (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,

2004). In addition, both sides need, as was stated by a Senior participant, to be more flexible

and share the responsibility for the outcome of the collaboration. Even though, the theory of

co-creation highlight the value of becoming joint problem solver, the comment made by the

Senior participant, is interesting because it is most likely not only about being joint problem

solvers, rather to share the responsibility for the outcome. That will say, if the result of a co-

creation do not live up to the expectations of the client or the employee/company, the co-

creation should continue through a shared responsibility to solve the issue/issues.

The third building block for co-creation is Transparency, also presented as Hypothesis H.1.

The question of transparency was not touched upon in the survey, because it is seen as a

factor which first need to be implemented by management before the employees can apply it

towards the customers. In turn, transparency is a factor that defines and differentiates co-

creation from other collaboration theories and was therefore seen as too important to not be

mentioned as a hypothesis, even though the hypothesis is not tested.

Even though, transparency is needed in order for co-creation to

occur it is questionable whether companies can become

completely transparent, since it is laying deep within many

companies to hold and keep information for them. With the assumption that many companies

will find transparency a challenge, a question in relation to the theory of co-creation is: How

transparent does a company need to become in order to gain the full value they are hoping to

win when creating a co-creative organization?

H.1. Company

Transparency Y/N Yes!

Concluding Remarks - Hypotheses

In Figure 9 below it is shown which hypotheses

preconditions for co-creation, and which hypotheses

were denied). Thus, only two

Systems & Conscientious Stewardship.

After analyzing and discussing the hypotheses,

the hypotheses were confirmed and some

research did not show how strongly the preconditions

To approach a conclusion of the thesis, it will

most prominent from an employee perspective according to the findings.

preconditions can guide management in PSF’s when developing co

mentioned in accordance with

significance.

1. Coherent Intent, important for the employees to be guided and

corporate strategy and culture.

Hypotheses -Preconditions for Co-

Creation?

Hypotheses

below it is shown which hypotheses were accepted, and as such labeled

on, and which hypotheses could not be confirmed (no hypotheses

nly two out of the eight hypotheses could not be confirmed

Systems & Conscientious Stewardship.

and discussing the hypotheses, it was found that even though the majority

confirmed and some were indicated more often by the participants, the

research did not show how strongly the preconditions are correlated to co-crea

Figure 9 - Confirmed hypotheses

To approach a conclusion of the thesis, it will be argued here for 5 preconditions seen as the

most prominent from an employee perspective according to the findings. These

can guide management in PSF’s when developing co-creation. They are

with the occurrence in the chapter, and not with the

, important for the employees to be guided and supported by the

corporate strategy and culture.

H.1. Company Transparancy

Y/N - Yes

H.2. Firm-Centric Attributes Y/N Yes

H.2.1. Coherent Intent Y/N Yes!


Relationships

H.2.3. Congruent Systems Y/N ?

H.2.4. Conscientious Stewardship Y/N ?

H.3. *Person-Centered Attributes Y/N Yes!

H.4. An Ethic of Collaboration Y/N Yes!

59

accepted, and as such labeled as

be confirmed (no hypotheses

could not be confirmed: Congruent

though the majority of

indicated more often by the participants, the

creation.

for 5 preconditions seen as the

These five

creation. They are

the level of related

supported by the

H.2.1. Coherent Intent Yes!


Relationships Y/N Yes!

H.2.3. Congruent Systems Y/N ?

H.2.4. Conscientious Stewardship Y/N ?

60

2. Capital for Learning and Relationships, that it is a flexible learning company with

focus on educating their employees and building/fostering the relationships with

customers

3. Person-Centered Attributes*, the right people for the job.

4. An Ethic of Collaboration, internal communication and collaboration do have an

impact on employee abilities to co-create in PSFs.

5. Understanding of Customer Needs*, is highly significant for employees to collaborate

and to create a win-win situation.

Two of the preconditions above were assigned with an asterisk (*) because of the need to

motivate and/or explain their positions as key preconditions. Precondition number 3 is an

attribute that was concluded to be of importance for employees, since their personal

background is influencing them in the collaboration process, but also because a number of

participants argued for that it is crucial to find the right person for the job. Thus, it is a

perspective that can motivate employees to develop their skills, and for management to work

in relation to recruiting and retaining the right people for co-creation activities. Precondition

number 5, Understanding of Customer Needs, could also, as argued in the analysis, be

incorporated under Coherent Intent. However, it was mentioned in a way by the participants

and supported by the theoretical base that made it seem of too much value to not be stated as a

separate precondition for co-creation.

Precondition 1, 2 and 3 were all attributes concluded as important, not only in the theory of an

ethic of collaboration, but also in this research as factors needed for employees to succeed

with co-creation. Precondition 4, An Ethic of Collaboration, supported that internal

communication (collaboration) is a precondition according to the employees in this study.

This fact has only been touched upon previously in articles about co-creation, but not

discussed in depth. Finally, precondition number 5, Understanding of Customer Needs, was

added to the hypotheses in this thesis because it was considered to be of high value in the

theory of co-creation. On the other hand, the precondition was naturally not incorporated in

the theory of an ethic of collaboration since it is stating attributes for successful internal

collaboration.

How to measure the value of intangible assets in a Co-Creation initiative?

Even though the research done for the sake of this thesis does not give any actual values to

measure, it is still seen as important to discuss the implications of measuring the cost and

61

benefits for a co-creation initiative. First of all, as with any investment, the company needs to

make an estimation of what profit a co-creation initiative will bring. Secondly, this estimation

will be followed by a calculation of estimated opportunity costs and collaboration costs

associated with the implementation of co-creation. According to Hansen (2009), this will in

turn show what collaboration premium a company will gain. However, the main challenge

with measuring a co-creation initiative is not the actual calculation but rather to be able to

estimate and put a price on the value for intangibles. Intangibles, as Kaplan & Norton (2004)

argue, need to be handled differently from traditional tangible assets.

PSF’s most likely have a measurement system for intangibles, since they are their main assets.

Nonetheless, they still face the challenge of estimating the price of the knowledge and skills

that customers can bring to the co-creation initiative. In addition, co-creation is the way of

being and acting in a company and therefore, the results of the initiatives may first come at a

later point in time. Thus, they do not need only to measure what the values of intangibles are

today, in terms of customers and employees, but also have a long-term perspective. This long-

term vision is necessary because first of all, the changes needed in the company to be open in

terms of transparency and access do not happen over a night, and secondly, because building

up support for employees in terms of guidance and education is also a process that takes time.

Lastly, even though a company has already returning customers, deepening the relationships

to build trust to work together towards “win-win” situation is a process that can only be

achieved over time.

62

6. Conclusion & Future Research

In the introduction to this thesis, the question posed was whether companies today can create

economic value without collaborating with stakeholders and listening carefully to their

interests and needs. This question is related to the problem area analyzed in the thesis namely,

customer co-creation of value. The belief is that there is value to claim for those companies

who are prepared to change their focus and direct resources towards collaboration with

customers.

”What preconditions increase the probability of successful co-creation of sustainable

service management business practices?”

With the research question acting as the guideline through the thesis, the wish was to define

preconditions that give a more detailed view of what is needed when implementing co-

creation. Through analyzing and testing the hypotheses against the result of the study, five

preconditions for co-creation were found to be of particular value from an employee

perspective in PSF’s. Presented in order of occurrence in the chapter Analysis and discussion,

and not of importance, the five key preconditions are: Coherent Intent, which is the

importance for employees to be guided and supported by the corporate strategy and culture,

Capital for Learning and Relationships, which means the value of being a flexible learning

company with focus on educating their employees and building/fostering the relationships

with customers, Person-Centered Attributes, which are related to the right person for the job,

An Ethic of Collaboration, referring to that internal communication and collaboration do have

an impact on the employees ability to co-create and finally Understanding of Customer

Needs, which is highly significant for employees to collaborate and to create a win-win

situation.

All the five key preconditions have previously been mentioned in the literature of co-creation

but however, some have been discussed more in depth than others. Thus, this thesis

contributes by validating that the preconditions are also of importance for employees working

as consultants in PSF’s. In addition, the study contributes through giving a much more

detailed view of the key preconditions. For example, an ethic of collaboration has just been

mentioned in the articles of co-creation and it has not been given a key position previously.

The theory of an ethic of collaboration has been concluded in this thesis to be a

complementing element to co-creation because it highlights other factors that are also

63

important for co-creation and because it shows the value of internal collaboration for the

success of co-creation.

The process of building co-creation in a company is in reality more dynamic than simply

focusing on the building blocks for interaction for customer co-creation of value and/or the

four principles of co-creation. When building co-creation in a company it is highly

recommended to complement the management perspective with the employee perspective.

The employees, being the ones practicing co-creation, can contribute with valuable insights

regarding what is not working and what investments/developments in a company would bring

more value to the co-creation process.

Finally, the sub-question was included in the thesis to emphasize the need of measuring the

value of co-creation initiatives. During the process of building co-creation, companies do not

only need to focus on how to create successful co-creation, but also on how to measure the

cost and benefits of each action. Thus, co-creation should only be implemented if it brings a

profit to the company. However, a challenge for PSF’s (and any other type of industry) is

how to measure the value of intangibles when implementing co-creation, for example, the

value of a customer’s knowledge and skills. In addition, it is important to mention in regards

to measuring value that co-creation is a long-term investment, which depends upon the

companies capabilities to change their way of thinking and acting, and that as with many

investments, patience is needed since it may take time before profit comes in return.

Future Research

As within most research project, there is always a new angle from which a study can be made.

This section includes a number of suggestions that could extend the research in a meaningful

way.

Because this thesis is an exploratory study defined by its limitations, a more comprehensive

study with for example complementary survey works and in-depth interviews, would give a

more detailed view on the topic of co-creation from an employee perspective in PSF’s. In

addition, it would be of interest to extend the sample by incorporating other type of PSF’s

than those included in this research, in order to determine whether the same five key

preconditions are valid in other types of firms.

64

End Notes

With the majority of articles written analyzing co-creation from a management perspective,

this thesis provides a new perspective through focusing on the employee experience and

knowledge. By incorporating the employee perspective with the management perspective,

important complementary information is gained and thus the probability of successful co-

creation of sustainable business practices is increased. In addition, the 5 key preconditions

found in this thesis can serve as a valuable guideline and/or starting point for the management

of PSF consultancies in planning and implementing co-creation.

65

Bibliography

Boh W.F., Ren Y., Kiesler S., & Bussjaeger R. (2007); Expertise and Collaboration in the

Geographically Dispersed Organization; Organization Science, July-August, 18 (4), pp.595-

612

Hansen M.T. (2009); When Internal Collaboration Is Bad for Your Company; Harvard

Business Review, April, pp.82-88

Hoyer W. D., Chandy R., Dorotic M., Krafft M. & Singh S. S. (2010); Consumer Cocreation

in New Product Development; Journal of Service Research, 3 (3), p. 283-296

Kaplan R.S. & Norton D.P. (2004); Strategy Maps; Converting Intangible Assets into

Tangible Outcomes; Boston, Harvard Business School Press, pp.29-56

Liedtka J. (1998); Synergy Revisited: How a “Screwball Buzzword” can be Good for the

Bottom Line; Business Strategy Review, 9 (2), pp.45-55

Liedtka J., Haskins M.E., & Rosenblum J. (1998); Beyond Teams: Toward an Ethic of

Collaboration; Organizational Dynamics, Spring, pp.34-50

Lietz P. (2010); Research into questionnaire design – A summary of the literature;

International Journal of Market Research, 52 (2), pp. 249-272

Von Nordenflycht A. (2010); What is a professional service firm? Toward a theory and

taxonomy of knowledge-intensive firms; Academy of Management Review, 35 (1), pp.155-

174

Prahalad C.K. & Ramaswamy V. (2000); Co-opting Customer Competence; Harvard Business

Review, January-February, pp.79-87

Prahalad C.K. & Ramaswamy V. (2003); The New Frontier of Experience Innovation; MIT

Slogan Management, Summer, pp. 12-18

Prahalad C.K. & Ramaswamy V. (2004); Co-Creation Experiences: the next practice in value

creation; Journal of Interactive Marketing, Summer, 18 (3), pp. 5-14

Porter M.E. & Kramer M.R. (2011); Creating Shared Value; Harvard Business Review,

January-February, pp.62-77

66

Ramaswamy V. (2009); Leading the transformation to co-creation of value; Strategy &

Leadership, 37 (2)

Ramaswamy V. (2010); Competing through co-creation: innovation at two companies;

Strategy & Leadership, 38 (2), pp.22-29

Ramaswamy V. & Guillart F. (2010); Building the Co-Creative Enterprise; Harvard Business

Review, October, pp. 100-109

Tankha A. (2008); Co-creation: Innovation Through Customer Cognition; Siliconindia,

August, 11 (6), pp. 32-33

APPENDIX 1 - QUESTIONNAIRE

Employee Perspective on Collaboration with Customers Exit this survey

Introduction

Dear Participant, First of all I would like to thank you very sincerely for taking the time to answer my questionnaire. This questionnaire has been created to investigate from your perspective as an employee how value can be gained from customer collaborations in a service organization. The answers will be analyzed and presented collectively in a Master Thesis project. When answering the questionnaire, could you please keep the following in mind; 1. Collaboration: a focus on solely customer collaboration (to jointly work together). E.g. personalization of a product/service, making improvements and/or developments of a product/service etc. 2. Internal Factors: that exists and can be built/developed within a company, for example: corporate culture/strategy/reward systems, employee skills/knowledge. Consider the most important internal factors that have either a positive or negative effect on you as an employee when facilitating collaboration with customers. 3. A Win-Win Situation: How can a company create successful collaborations with customers that give value BOTH to the company and to the customer? I would be very grateful if you could answer all the questions even if your answers are short. If you have any additional thoughts around the subject of collaboration in the perspective of an employee you are invited to share those in question 6. Thank you in advance for taking the time to answer this questionnaire! Karolina Forsmark Student at the Master Program in Service Management, Copenhagen Business School

1. What or who inside the company has an influence on the way you are

collaborating with customers?

(The customers with whom you are collaborating are viewed as an external

influence)

No influence Partial influence Strong influence

Company Culture

The company

management

Manager/Managers

Side 1 af 5[SURVEY PREVIEW MODE] Employee Perspective on Collaboration with Custome...

21-11-2011http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?PREVIEW_MODE=DO_NOT_USE_THIS_...21/11-2011 11:09:02 page 1

No influence Partial influence Strong influence

Colleagues

The reason for

collaboration – e.g.

an agreement,

contract,

Time

Budget

My cultural

background

(nationality)

My educational

background (skills

& knowledge)

My collected

experience (skills &

knowledge)

2. At the present time, what internal factors in your company support

employees during the process of collaboration with customers?

(Internal factors would include: corporate strategy, corporate culture, corporate

Other (please specify)



reward strategies, management support, education of employee skills &

knowledge)

3. In the future, what factors do you think your company should invest in to

encourage/support employees in the process of collaboration with customers

and that also would contribute to increase the quality/value of the collaboration

effort?

(For example, what factors would support and encourage employees to be more

creative and open minded in the process of collaboration?)

4. Indicate on the scale to what extent you agree or disagree with the following

statement;

“How well a company is collaborating internally has an impact on its’ capability



to collaborate with its customers”

5. If you picture a situation where you are to collaborate with customers as

equals and the aim is to create a ”win-win” situation – what actions/decisions

would you take to reach a successful win-win situation?

5 - Totally Agree

4

3 - Partially Agree/Partially Disagree

2

1 - Totally Disagree



6. Do you have any other comments or thoughts that you would like to share

regarding how a company facilitates collaboration with customers?

Powered by SurveyMonkey Create your own free online survey now!



Employee Perspective on Collaboration with Customers Exit this survey

Background information

7. What type of company/industry do you work in?

8. What is your profession/position in the company?

9. How many employees does your company have?

10. In what country/countries is the company you work for situated? (If it is in

several continents please indicate which ones)

Powered by SurveyMonkey Create your own free online survey now!

1-10

11-49

50-249

250 or more



Co-Creation from an Employee Perspective Preconditions for success in Professional Service Firms...

Documents

Transcript of Co-Creation from an Employee Perspective Preconditions for success in Professional Service Firms...