“If structural engineers are not invited to contribute to the architectural design of a building then the design will miss out on an entire domain of expertise.”Caroline Pidcock - Pidcock
“When we open the door and invite the structural engineer into the design, most of them run away. It is only Cantilever and a handful of others that will enter.”Melonie Bayl-Smith - Bijl
“We are more than just willing to let the structural engineer contribute to the design, we demand it. We don’t want the design to be prescriptive, we hold a fuzzy vision and ask the team to help us form the solution. That is what design is.”Toby Breakspear - Breakspear Architects
“We have an obligation as structural engineers to highlight complexity and identify simpler, less expensive and more practical solutions. It is the journeys these conversations trigger which produce great solutions.”Damian Hadley - Cantilever
Introduction
The critical creative moment at Pixar comes not when group members diverge but when they synthesize diverse ideas. In particular, the integration of art and technology underlies Pixar films. Attempts to synthesize art and technology create tension, but the resolution of that tension produces novelty.Sarah Harvey, Creative Synthesis, 2014
Introduction
Design in the built environment is not one dimensional.
For each challenge there are a myriad of options. And even after the most diligent of explorations, the best option, the option that should be adopted, is rarely obvious. Solutions will have merit for simplicity, merit for buildability and practicality, merit for costs, merit for sustainability (Sustainability is challenging to define. It means different things to different people. Rather than specifically define sustainability it is more productive to use a framework for exploring the ideas encompassing sustainability. The Living Building Challenge is a powerful framework to define sustainability using the 7 Pedals: Place, Water, Energy, Health + Happiness, Materials, Equity, Beauty.), merit for materials (Materials should also include the philosophy of dematerialisation: Reduction, Substitution, Optimisation and Elimination), among many other aspects. Each solution will have different weightings for each of these aspects.
Solutions can also have secondary effects, such as an influence on individual company profits, willingness to compromise, challenges in communication and individual pride and reputation. There are also influential inputs into a problem, such as understanding of builders preferences, understanding of risk, understanding of the materials, understanding of the architectural vision and understanding of the client brief. There are also power dynamics in the group that play a key role in decision making.
How does a designer choose the best solution? What are the processes a designer should use to develop the options? When should the designer stop the exploration of solutions?
This paper explores the idea of co-creation as a methodology for the design process. The core purpose of this methodology, which differs from traditional methodologies, is based on evidence that a co-creation design methodology creates better outcomes by creating more value.
The Linear Design Scale
Different methodologies used during the design process sit on a linear scale. On the left of the linear scale is Designer-centric focus. Designer-centric focus is when the design process is centred around the designer and the designer's requirements without consideration for any other contributor to the design. What is ignored is the requirements of the client, the architectural vision, issues of sustainability and dematerialisation. It is completely centred around the self interest of the designer. This may be based on ease of specific tasks of the designer, maximising profit or ease of the designers documentation. It can be seen as a lazy solution.
Sitting in the middle of the linear scale is Client-centric focus. This is where the design team focuses on the requirements of the client and fulfilling the clients expectations.
Co-creation (We use the word Co-creation to refer to “Value Co-Creation” where the ultimate goal of co-creation is to create value for the client using the expertise of the entire design team. It is the client who determines value and it is the responsibility of the design team to identify and understand these values.) is one step beyond client-centric focus. This is where the expertise of all the members of the design team is fully utilised; where each member of the team contributes to the design.
Every holistic decision for a project as a whole, and every granular decision made for each part of a project lies somewhere along this linear scale.
Before we get into the nuance of what occurs inside the Co-creation stage let's start by exploring the environment in which co-creation is allowed to occur.
The Ecosystem
When they work, ecosystems allow firms to create value that no single firm could create alone.HBR Mark R. Kramer, Marc Pfitzer, The Ecosystem of Shared Value
Ecosystem
Co-creation is not possible for every project. Some architects, project managers and clients do not let consultants into the space where the design occurs beyond simply being subservient to the design. They ask, often indirectly, that the consultants stay outside the inner design sphere where the design decisions are made and leave the design to them.
This often manifests itself in blatant statements like, “this is what we want to achieve, your job is to achieve it, with complete disregard for any other criteria.” Or it may appear in more subtle statements such as, “we would like to achieve this outcome, let us know if we can.” This is asking for a black and white answer: “Yes”, or “No”, where “no” is not an alternative.
This is true in a traditional design methodology where the architect is the sole controller of the design and the consultants are subservient to the design. Co-creation requires some of the team members to relinquish power that exists in the traditional methodology. Co-creation requires an egalitarian ecosystem. Each member of the ecosystem is encouraged to contribute to the design using their expertise. And each member relies on the expertise of others to contribute.
A successful ecosystem which supports co-creation has five key aspects:
- A lack of formal hierarchy,
- A common shared goal with a clear measurement system,
- A shared learning environment with mutually reinforcing activities,
- Constant communication, and
- A single person, not a company, that acts as the backbone for the project.
Within an ecosystem the architect, for example, provides the guiding principles behind the architecture. They may eventually detail the architectural aspects of the build to a fine detail, but until that point, they can ask for guidance for the architecture from each of the other members within their area of expertise. Likewise the structural engineer provides the guiding principles for the structure and allows others to contribute. What will appear obvious when we frame the design in this way is that the expertise of each individual must be multidisciplinary.Essential to the success of the ecosystem is mutual trust. Trust that we are offering solutions based on them being in the best interest of the client.
A common misunderstanding is that suggestions are made in the co-creation stage for wholly self-serving reasons. It may be interpreted as our suggestions are based around the idea that it is easier for us, or perhaps would make us more profit. These are questions of legitimacy. Adding to this is the common case where suggestions based around the best interests of the client are also beneficial to the self interests of the consultant. Navigating this space may not be straightforward and may be riddled with scepticism.
Misunderstandings come from mistrust.
Trust
Trust is developed through communication. Consultants have traditionally feared communication due to protecting their own interests, making mistakes that are difficult to undo and restricting freedom to do whatever they want to do. Letting someone into their interests makes them vulnerable. These attitudes do not foster trust.
Being open about each team member's intentions; communicating that these intentions are centred around the shared goal of achieving the best outcome for the client, is essential (Jim Collins suggests a methodology for gaining trust from others. He suggests that you enter the relationship trusting the other parties. If you enter a relationship with mistrust, the likelihood that you will get the trust of the other party is low. This is because the trust will not be mutual and because they will confirm your preconceived bias of mistrust.).
Take the example of the Balmain Residence. This project had a strong ecosystem which included architect, structural engineer, builder and client. And each was able to contribute to the design using their area of expertise.
Balmain Residence with Andrew Burgess was a CLT building. During the early stages of the project the team explored traditional timber framing, steel skeleton structure and concrete. CLT was chosen as it was the most economical and reasonable solution appropriate for the project.
The preliminary architectural renderings for the project consisted of a flat soffit, flush with the top of the windows without any downturned beams.
Let's use the project to explore the three different methodologies along the linear Design Scale, of Designer-centric, Client-centric and Co-creation.
A Designer-centric focus would simply to make the floor slab thick enough to support the loads from the floor and first floor columns. This has no thought to costs, no thought to efficiency and no thought to simplicity. It is Designer-centric because it is easy, perhaps lazy solution. There would be little controversy, the designer is simply achieving the requirements of the design.
In a client-centric solution, the structural solution starts to consider costs and efficiency. The solution that considered these elements was an upturned timber beam, extending up into the first floor wall. This would achieve the architectural vision of a flush soffit but also take into consideration efficiency and cost. Key to this solution is that there is no compromise to the architectural vision.
This solution goes beyond a designer focus and focuses on the client and architects requirements. In particular the requirement for a flat soffit to the first floor slab.
This is a solution that suits the clients requirements and suits the architectural vision but requires a moderate level of engineering thinking. This solution is potentially a solution that most engineers could determine. It is not controversial. It is quite safe and reasonable.
At this point the designer may be tempted to say that their work is finished. We found a solution. It is client centric, therefore it is the end of their input. But there is another potential step: Co-creation.
Co-Creation by Definition
The architect has a central role, albeit in another shape than previously, now the building project shifts from the twentieth century myth of the singular architect to thoroughly collaborative team structures.Christian Koch and Henrik Buhl, “Integrated Design Process” a Concept for Green Energy Engineering
Co-creation
Co-creation is premised around the idea that the entire team, including the client, is able to contribute to the design. Sanders and Stappers (2008) define co-creation as “any act of collective creativity, i.e. creativity that is shared by two or more people.” Each team member's contribution is formulated from their personal expertise. The contributors must speak a common language and have skills which span across disciplines.
Their contributions are there to help with the success of the project. The success may be based around project costs, architectural vision, clients needs, sustainability, etc.
Their ability to contribute to the co-creation process is what sets consultants apart.
There are essential ingredients for co-creation to exist by definition. It can be argued that co-creation does not occur if any of these don’t exist: a free flow of knowledge transfer, contribution of assets and resources from the participants, sharing of risk and costs between the contributors, speed and efficiency of innovation, increase in project outcome competitiveness, and an increased service quality.
Before entering into co-creation
There are risks of course and co-creation can be intimidating. Whether the design team opens the door to co-creation or whether the consultants find the door and open it themselves, there are risks. The timid or unprepared consultant will shy away from contributing in this way, their preference may be the formulation of black and white solutions to specific problems that are presented to them by the specific challenges of the project.
One of the risks requires an understanding of the ecosystem. It is the responsibility of the designer to understand the dynamics of the team. To what level do you enter the co-creation room? One foot, two feet, or full on. It is also the designers responsibility to determine the motives of the key players. Do they want “practical”, do they want “compliant”, do they want “efficient”, do they want “trouble free”?
Preparation is required before contributing to a project using co-creation. Beyond understanding the dynamics of the team you must understand the project. The contributor must take the time to understand the client, the client’s requirements, the interpretation of the clients requirements by other members of the team and your own contribution to the project. This requires proactive participation and active listening. Allow the layers of narrative to formulate the solutions in your head.
Entering the stage of co-creation
It is common for the design team to ask individual consultants black and white questions that might be interpreted as requiring specific answers. But this can be used as an opportunity to enter co-creation by avoiding answering the questions directly. After all, there are rarely specific answers and the solution is nuanced around the complexities of the situations. This is one way to enter co-creation.
If the door to co-creation is not opened then a decision should be made about opening it. But entering co-creation is not necessarily straightforward. There are hurdles, barriers, challenges, risks and potential misunderstandings to negotiate.
There are two barriers that you must negotiate when entering co-creation. How to justify the co-creation process to yourself and how to present the co-creation to the design team.
Meeting the client's requirements may be a great outcome. So why would you need to enter into co-creation? At the end of the client focus stage ask yourself these questions:
- Is the solution the best solution,
- Is the solution reasonable,
- Is the solution complex,
- Is the solution expensive,
- Is the solution easy to build?
A different and more holistic approach to these questions is simply to ask, “Is there any information that I am holding back that would allow the team to make better decisions?”
Answering these questions will lead you into the world of co-creation. There is an obligation to let the client know when the solution could be improved; when something is complex and expensive. Failure to fulfill this obligation is failing the client and not doing what is in the best interest of the project.
The second barrier to entry is explaining to the client the purpose for entering co-creation. They may not expect it and they may not want it. Without an explanation the intentions may be misinterpreted.
An example of how to present the argument is to simply make it clear that we are entering co-creation. The words used to do this must be non-threatening, humble and trusting. This could be as simple as saying, “I think what I have given you to date suits the architectural vision. I just want to explore an idea. I think this idea is going to go against the architectural vision that you have given me but I think there is a simpler solution and I just want to get a sense of what you think about it.” Another approach may be to ask specific questions about areas that could be explored such as, “There might be opportunities to reduce the costs here, are you interested in exploring these?
Inside Co-creation
We believe that you’ll be most creative when you focus on the internal aspects of a situation or problem - and when you constrain your options rather than broaden them.Drew Boyd and Jacob Goldenberg - Inside the box
Success through failure in co-creation
As a consequence of co-creation being a journey into the unknown, mistakes are inevitable. Formulating complex engineering judgements around challenging problems will inevitably lead to errors at these early stages, before more refined calculations can be made. These errors are usually the result of the complexities which surround the solution.
Most people are afraid to enter co-creation because they are afraid of making mistakes. They are afraid that they will then need to admit their mistakes and damage their reputation.
“Psychologists find that admitting we were wrong doesn’t make us look less competent. It's a display of honesty and a willingness to learn.” These are the words of Adam Grant in his book Think Again.
Adam Grant goes on to say that we need to “recognise complexity as a signal of credibility; When experts express doubt, they become more persuasive. When someone admits uncertainty, it surprises people, and they end up paying more attention to the substance of the argument.”
During the early stages of a project, when initial ideas are being formed we should not be afraid to make mistakes. Admitting mistakes and expressing doubt around complexity are two powerful ways to generate trust. Communication is the key.
Creative Synthesis
It is a common conception that innovation comes from thinking outside the box. There are solid arguments that innovation, consistent and reliable innovation, come from exploring inside the boundaries of the ideas.
Creative Synthesis is defined by Sarah Harvey in her work from 2014. It provides guidance on how a team can work together to consistently create breakthrough ideas. Her paper focuses on the idea that breakthrough ideas are generated when a diverse group of people focus on a common, synthesized understanding of a problem. Synthesis develops through a process in which groups focus their collective attention, enact ideas, and build on similarities within their diverse perspectives. In other words they focus on the space between their knowledge, rather than the traditional thinking of breakthrough ideas occuring in spaces outside their shared knowledge.
Co-evolution through co-creation
During the design process, the project will change as the project moves forward. This is inevitable and a desired outcome of co-creation. Using the co-creation process will ensure these changes will be chosen based on the contribution of the team members based on their expertise. In this way the project will co-evolve. This means that it is less likely to change at the whim of one individual member of the team; changes will be based around group decisions.
For example, projects often change due to budget constraints. Using the co-creation process means that if there are budget constraints, the required changes in the design can be made based on cost criteria. Options in the co-creation process require that alternatives are explored on the basis of costs. That way the team can make educated design decisions and changes specifically around cost. Had the co-creation process not occurred, and budget constraints drove design changes, the changes would be ad hoc and not based on facts.
The journey
Co-creation is about offering alternative solutions that may be less expensive, less complex, easier to build and more straightforward.
Presenting alternative solutions is not always about having these alternative solutions chosen for the final design. And it is definitely not about forcing the decisions into the project. Alternatives often promote journeys through ideas; an exploration of a concept. This exploration can lead to other discoveries.
These alternatives also indicate to the client that there are less expensive alternatives. Often you want to present the simplest solution and move forward from there. Presenting these options places the power back with the design team to make a conscious decision about options. This allows the team to balance the pros and cons of each decision based on price, complexity, architectural merit and clients requirements.
In the Balmain Residence two additional suggestions were made when the project stepped into the co-creation stage of the project. Before entering these discussions there was a discussion around the level of alternatives that the design team wanted to explore.
The first suggestion was a downturn timber beam. This solution was simpler, less expensive and easier to build.
The downside of this option was that the architecture must change. The downturn beam hindered the idea of a flat soffit. This is in direct contradiction of the proposed architectural vision.
This led to a further discussion, a journey, which revolved around the practicalities of a flat soffit and flush window detail and the requirement for bulkheads for plumbing and services. It also included discussions around achieving the exposed CLT soffit using a CLT cladding.
The second alternative suggested aligning the columns on the first floor with the columns on the second floor.
This was a complete change to the architectural vision and on face value was dismissed as an alternative. But this led to a series of different discussions. A discussion about installing multiple columns at regular intervals along the length of the wall, some structural and some not. This created a different but interesting aesthetic which was initially adopted as a successful alternative.
The Foundations for Co-Creation
The ability to face constructively the tension of opposing models and instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, to generate a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new model that contains elements of the individual models but is superior to each.Roger Martin – The Opposable Mind
The Agreement
There must be an agreement between all of the parties inside the ecosystem in order for the development of the solutions for the project to be successful. This agreement, whether explicit or implicit, needs to include team and leadership norms. It must also be premised on the idea that the most successful teams are those where the individual members are not driven by self interest.
Forming the ecosystem team
As we mentioned earlier, offering solutions that go against the architectural vision, such as the structural engineer proposing a column in the middle of a room (although it may make sense structurally), can get a negative reaction from the design team. These dissenting views may clearly go against the architectural vision and therefore elicit a response such as, “Why would you suggest such a thing?” Or “we just told you this is exactly what we don’t want.” A different response from the team may be, “OK, that is clearly not an ideal outcome but why are you suggesting that?”. It is this second response that shows cognitive flexibility; an openness to explore. It is this flexibility that is a clear indicator of a collaborative approach to the design. It is an indication that they want to understand. They want to learn why this may lead to a better solution. This engagement leads to successful projects. In this way the project co-evolves. And challenges are co-discovered.
This placement of an “obstacle” within the design can be, and often should be, intentional. It should not elicit a negative response. It should elicit a response of curiosity.
Behind the scenes of co-creation
For contributors to be active participants in co-creation three things must exist. First, there must be structures in place within the companies to promote and encourage co-creation. The main emphasis should be around prioritising the need for improved outcomes and personal growth rather than an emphasis on company profits, resource management and time commitments. The main barrier for entering co-creation is the additional time required to contribute.
Second, a strong understanding and acknowledgement of the stakeholders needs are required to contribute positively in co-creation. Time must be taken to understand the project, to understand the client, to understand the client’s needs and to understand the team.
Third, the rules and norms (Dr Graeme Russell developed a comprehensive list of team and leadership norms around decision-making. These include team norms of openly sharing perspectives, feeling safe to express dissenting views, everyone must offer constructive criticism, challenging assumptions, maintaining cognitive flexibility, connecting different knowledge, and self reflection. Leadership norms include avoiding fixed positions, a willingness to hear dissenting views, be constructive about disagreement, allow major and minor views to be equally heard, and being inclusive.) of collaboration must be understood. While the primary focus of a participant's contribution should revolve around their area of expertise, it is essential that they have a multidisciplinary approach and are willing to step across discipline boundaries when it is appropriate. Personal skills such as a willingness to listen, a willingness to take on feedback, a willingness to question and a willingness to admit when you are wrong are also required.
Barriers to entry
Co-creation has its challenges. We argue that every project requires some level of co-creation. Even if it consists of a 10 minute conversation between the architect and structural engineer about the size of a single timber beam. This may seem inconsequential, however, we believe every decision that is made between two parties benefits from co-creation. This simple decision would include the sharing of knowledge and the exploration of options.
Co creation requires a strong commitment of time. In a competitive environment where fees are tight, it is difficult to justify additional costs in terms of time commitment. These strong time commitments may also result in resource deficiency within organisations.
Sharing of knowledge, including intellectual property with others, who then spread this information to other parties in different projects, or use this information in other projects may appear opportunistic. They may fail to see that sharing of information is for the greater good, builds respect and trust, and represents a more holistic approach to design.
This sharing of information also leads to a vulnerability. The information could be wrong, confusing or contentious. The team may demand further explanations as clarification that may not be wholly understood or easy to explain. While deep in this space it is difficult to see beyond the details, but it is these granular, explanatory details that often lead to different and superior solutions. And these journeys can be daunting as you travel into unknown territory. It requires the expert to remain cognitively flexible and remain open to new ideas.
Some parties simply don't see the benefit of co-creation. They fail to be able to formulate a sustainable business case around the collaboration. For example, they may sense that the knowledge transfer is one way, not balanced or of no benefit.
There is often a strong desire to simply be compliant; not take things beyond the expected for the sole purpose of not creating conflict. Agreeing is usually easier. Agreeing often makes you appear like a positive contributor to the project. Making the distinction between when to agree and when to not agree is not straightforward. The pathway to not agreeing must be purposefully curated. It must be understood that it is not always the best policy to simply agree. And if an individual is seen as alway agreeing, they may need to be prompted to offer another option or another opinion. It is rarely black and white.
Evidence of better outcomes
Designs that follow the co-creation design methodology are more likely to have better outcomes. Success should be measured in terms of customer satisfaction, customer lifetime value and customer equity.
Everyone knows that design changes, particularly late in the design process, is an unsuccessful outcome. It causes resentment amongst the team, results in inferior solutions and has economic consequences, not only to the project, but also to the individuals involved.
Projects that co-evolve with the entire team through a co-creation methodology are far less likely to undergo significant design changes late in the design process. Design changes are common where there is a single person who “owns” the design and a traditional hierarchy exists. When the design is shared amongst a group there is far less likely to be changes because no single person has the authority to make the change.
Conclusion
The design process of every project sits somewhere on a linear scale: The Design Scale. This scale varies from left to right from Designer-centric, to Client-centric, to Co-creation.
Moving beyond Designer-centric, moving beyond Client-centric and moving into Co-creation is the ideal. Co-creation produces the best outcomes for the client. Projects are more likely to be successful when co-creation is used.
However, co-creation is not a “given” for every project. In order for co-creation to exist there must be an ecosystem of team members that are open to the concept. This ecosystem must be based on trust, trust that everyone in the team provides solutions that are not self-serving, but are in the interests of the client.
Purpose
Throughout co-creation there is an underlying message that is altruistic. Highly and consistently successful teams have one thing in common: there is a complete lack of self-interest. This same message in inherent in Cantilever’s core purpose:
The enrichment of the built environment for the betterment of society.
Postlude
If you develop a new and improved methodology that you believe is delusional, ask yourself, “what needs to be true in order for it to work.”
What are the metrics that create a successful project?
Decision making is easier if you reduce complexity by asking people not to think too much. It takes less time, energy and cognitive resources. It also avoids the risk of getting bogged down in analysis paralysis. But when you limit people's thinking, you lose a lot of information, you don’t fully interrogate your ideas, and you may end up making bad decisions. We often prefer to save time and energy rather than consider all the issues. As a result, desigions regularly involve a significant degree of functional stupidity. This is bound to happen ;when organisations intimidate others, when top managementers confuse Powerpoint presentations with solid information, and when organizations create new structures without thinking about how they will work in practice. - The Stupidity Paradox.
References
HBR - How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity, Ed Catmull hbr.org How Pixar Fosters Collective Creativity (HBR)
HBR - The Ecosystem of Shared Value, Mark R. Kramer, Marc W. Pfitzer The Ecosystem of Shared Value
Sarah Harvey - Creative Synthesis: Exploring the Process of Extraordinary Group Creativity 2014
Busby Perkins+Will, Stantec Consulting, Roadmap for the Intergrated Deisgn Process
Teresa Ambile - How to Kill Creativity
The Opposable Mind - Roger Martin
Inside the Box - Drew Boyd and Jacob Goldenberg
The Stupidity Paradox - Mats Alvesson and Andrew Spicer
Design Council - Beyond Net Zero, A Systemic Design Approach 2021
Flow - Csikszentmihalyi 1999
Huang, L.T., & Villari, B. (2020). Co-creation in circular cities: A design perspective. Discern: International Journal of Design for Social Change, Sustainable Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2(1), 69-88.
Lu, Cai, Burkett and Udwadia, A Methodology for Collaborative Design Process and Conflict Analysis, (2000)
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5-18.
Frow, P., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K. (2011, November). Co-creation: A typology and conceptual framework. In Proceedings of ANZMAC (pp. 1–6).
Busby Perkins+Will & Stantec Consulting (2007). Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process. BC Green Building Roundtable.
Christian Koch, Henrik Buhl (2013), “Integrated Design Process” a Concept for Green Energy Engineering
C.K. Prahalad and Venkatram Ramaswamy, The Co-Creation Connection
Adrian F. Payne, Kaj Storbacka and Pennie Flow, Managing the Co-creation of Value
Vargo and Lusch 2004
Oliver, Co-producers and co-participants in the satisfaction process: Mutually satisfying consumption, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe 2006
Oana-Maria Pop, Building and Managing an Ecosystem of Co-Created Value, Hype Innovation Report
Ron Adner, Match Your Innovation Strategy to Your Innovation Ecosystem. HBR
Elizabeth B.-N. Sandersa and Pieter Jan Stappers, Co-Creation and the New Landscape of Design
- -------------
K. Moe, “Integrated Design in Contemporary Architecture,” Princeton Architectural Press, New York, 2008.
A. Zimmerman, “Integrated Design Process Guide,” Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, 2006.
E. L. Haubjerg, “Team Performance in Integrated Design Processes—How to Improve Team Performance in Integrated Design Processes in Construction Competitions,” Master Thesis, Institute of Business and Technology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, 2010.
M. Keeler and B. Burke, “Fundamentals of Integrated Design for Sustainable Building,” Wiley, New York, 2009.
H. T. R. Hansen and M. Knudstrup, “The Integrated Design Process (IDP): A More Holistic Approach to Sustainable Architecture,” In: S. Murakami and T. Yashiro Eds., Action for Sustainability: The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo National Conference Board, 2005, pp. 894-901.
- -------------
Collaboration is no longer just a strategy: it is the key to long-term business success and competitiveness. Businesses that realize this sooner rather than later will be the ones who win the game and succeed in the new global economy.
A more complete version of the history of colaboration can be found in the following book chapter: Leroi-Werelds, S., Pop, O., & Roijakkers, N. (2017). Understanding Value Creation In Alliance Ecosystems: Insights From Marketing. Forthcoming in Managing Alliance Portfolios and Networks [MAPN]. Eds. T. K. Das, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC.
S. Petersen and S. Svendsen, “Method for Component Based Economical Optimisation for Use in Design of New Low-Energy Buildings,” Renewable Energy, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2012, pp. 173-180. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2011.07.019
The company does have a highly successful innovation service called Activ8 - http://www.fujitsu.com/uk/services/business/activ8/
Charles Edquist has written at length about the topic - https://charlesedquist.com/articles/ Douglas North is another important scholar in this area -
http://www.novonordisk.com/sustainability/Focus/Our-Sustainability-Approach/Changing-Diabetes.html (2006).
When they work, ecosystems allow firms to create value that no single firm could create alone.
In other words, in alliances and portfolios better products and services were the primary reason for collaboration. In networks and ecosystems, better innovation output was a mere by-product of it.
The company is well known for its innovation activities https://www.campbellideas.com
Evolving to a new service-dominant logic for health care Pop, O., Leroi-Werelds, S., Roijakkers, N., & Andreassen, T. (2017) Building customer-centric service ecosystems – under review at the Journal of Service Management, call for special issue on “Service-dominant logic, service ecosystems and institutions: bridging theory and practice”, I. Ng & S. Vargo (eds.) While these aspects of culture have only been studied in the context of the pharmaceutical industry, their application can be much broader. Cocreation Culture in Health Care Organizations - Shikha Sharma, Jodie Conduit, 2016
Institutions represent the rules and norms of collaboration in a certain industry or context http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/half-a-house/