Determining the Relationship Between Co-creation and Innovation by Neural Networks

  • Giacomo di TolloEmail author
  • Stoyan Tanev
  • Kassis Mohamed Slim
  • Davide De March
Part of the New Economic Windows book series (NEW)


The growing complexity of markets, business development and administration has fostered the application of more sophisticated quantitative methods aiming at the analysis of common features and differences amongst different businesses. Amongst those quantitative methods, Neural Networks are gaining support of both practitioners and scholars. This is due to their generalisation capabilities which make them apt to be used without any preliminary assumptions about the variables at hand or about the specific types of the corresponding models. To this extent, we are using them to classify firms w.r.t. the relationship between the perception of their innovativeness and the degree of their involvement in value co-creation activities—the extent to which they involve end users in the definition of their final products and services. We will show that businesses from specific sectors could have a higher degree of involvement in value co-creation. The mapping between the type of firms and the degree of their involvement in value co-creation is of particular interest since they describe attributes and activities and a completely different heuristic level. We have also studied businesses belonging to stock Exchange indexes, which are regarded as the specimen of the economic and financial situation of a Country. Our main contribution will be in translating the applicability of ANN in innovation research.


Innovation complexity Value co-creation Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) 


  1. Allen, S., Tanev, S., Bailetti, T.: Components of co-creation Special Issue on Value Co-creation. Open Source Business Review Online Journal, November (2009)
  2. Angelini, E., di Tollo, G., Roli, A.: A neural network approach for credit risk evaluation. Q. Rev. Econ. Finan. 48, 733–755 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishop, C.: Neural Networks for Pattern Recognition. Oxford University Press, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  4. Bowonder, B., Dambal, A., Kumar, S., Shirodkar, A.: Innovation strategies for creating competitive advantage. Res.-Technol. Manag. 53(3), 19–32 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. Chesbrough, H.W.: Open Services Innovation-Rethinking Your Business to Grow and Compete in a New Era, pp. 53–67. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2011) (Ch. 3: Co-create with your customers)Google Scholar
  6. Christensen, C.M.: The Ongoing process of building a theory of disruption. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 23, 39–55 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Desai, D.: Co-creating learning: insights from complexity theory. Learn. Organ. 17(5), 388–403 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Etgar, M.: Co-production of services. In: Lusch, R., Vargo, S. (eds.) The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing. M. E. Sharpe Inc, Armonk, NY (2006)Google Scholar
  9. Etgar, M.: A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36(1), 97–108 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferrier, W.: Navigating the competitive landscape: the drivers and consequences of competitive aggressiveness. Acad. Manag. J. 44(4), 858–877 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Field, A.: Discovering statistics using SPSS, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, London (2005)Google Scholar
  12. Hagan, M., Demuth, H., Beale, M.: Neural Network Design. PWS Pub, Colorado (1996)Google Scholar
  13. Hicks, D., Libaers, D., Porter, L., Schoeneck, D.: Identification of the technology commercialisation strategies of high-tech small firms. Small Business Research Summary, Dec 2006.
  14. Hinton, G., Sejnowski, T.J.R. (eds.): Unsupervised Learning: Foundations of Neural Computation. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  15. Hoyer, W.D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., Singh, S.S.: Consumer cocreation in new product development. J. Serv. Res. 13(3), 283–296 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hykin, S.: Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall International Inc., New Jersey (1999)Google Scholar
  17. Kristenson, P., Matthing, J., Johansson, N.: Key strategies for the successful involvement of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 19(4), 474–491 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landau, S., Everitt, B.S.: A Handbook of Statistical Analyses using SPSS. CHAPMAN and HALL - CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton (2004)Google Scholar
  19. Lusch, R., Vargo, S., Editors, (2006). The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing, New York: M.E. Sharpe, Part III: Co-production, Collaboration, and Other Value-Creating Processes, 105–179Google Scholar
  20. MacQueen, J.B.: Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Cam, L.M.L., Neyman, J. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, vol. 1, pp. 281–297. University of California Press (1967)Google Scholar
  21. Michel, S., Brown, S., Gallan, A.: An expanded and strategic view on discontinuous innovations: deploying a service-dominant logic of marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36(1), 54–66 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Midgley, D.: Co-creating the innovation with customers. The Innovation Manual-Integrating Strategies and Practical Tools for Bringing Value Innovation to the Market, pp. 143–190. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK (2009)Google Scholar
  23. Mindgley, D.: The Innovation Manual, Chichester: John Wiley and sons. Co-creating the innovation with customers 5, 143–190 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. Nambisan, S. (2009). Virtual Customer Environments: IT-Enabled Customer Co-innovation and Value Co-creation. in Nambisan, S., (Ed.), Information Technology and Product Development, Annals of Information Systems, 5(2), 109–127Google Scholar
  25. Nambisan, S., Nambisan, P.: How to profit from a better ’virtual customer environment’. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 49(3), 53–61 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. Nambisan, S., Baron, A.: Virtual customer environments: testing a model of voluntary participation in value co-creation activities. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 26, 388–406 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ng, I.: The future of pricing and revenue models. J. Revenue Pricing Manag. 9(3), 276–281 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Payne, A., Storbacka, K., Frow, P.: Managing the co-creation of value. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36, 83–96 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V.: Co-opting customer competence. Harv. Bus. Rev. 78, 79–87 (2000)Google Scholar
  30. Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V.: The new frontier of experience innovation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 44(4), 12–18 (2003)Google Scholar
  31. Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V.: The Future of Competition–Co-creating Unique Value with Customers. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  32. Prahalad, C.K., Krishnan, M.S.: The New Age of Innovation. McGraw Hill, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  33. Ramaswamy, V., Gouillart, F.: Building the co-creative enterprise. Harv. Bus. Rev. 88, 100–109 (2010)Google Scholar
  34. Ramaswamy, V.: Leading the transformation to co-creation of value. Strategy Leadersh. 37(2), 32–37 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramaswamy, V., Gouillart, F.: The Power of Co-creation. Free Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  36. Reed, R.D., Marks, R.J.: Neural Smithing: Supervised Learning in Feedforward Artificial Neural Networks. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1999)Google Scholar
  37. Romero, D., Molina, A.: Value co-creation and co-innovation: linking networked organisations and customer communities. Leveraging Knowledge for Innovation in Collaborative Networks, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology 307, 401–412 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rumelhart, D.E., Hinton, G.E., Williams, R.J.: Learning internal representations by error propagation. In: Rumelhart, D.E., et al. (eds.) Parallel Distributed Processing, pp. 318–62. MIT Press, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  39. Sawhney, M., Gianmario, V., Prandelli, E.: Collaborating to create: the internet as platform for customer engagement in product innovation. J. Interact. Mark. 19(4), 4–17 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spearman, C.: The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am. J. Psychol. 15, 72–101 (1904)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tanev, S., Knudsen, M., Gerstlberger, W.: Value co-creation as part of an integrative vision for innovation management. Special Issue on Value Co-creation, Open Source Business Review online journal, Dec (2009).
  42. Tanev, S., Bailetti, T., Allen, S., Milyakov, H., Durchev, P., Ruskov, P.: How do value co-creation activities relate to the perception of firms’ innovativeness? J. Innov Econ. 1(7), 131–159 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J. Mark. 68(January), 1–17 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: Customer integration and value creation: paradigmatic traps and perspectives. J. Serv. Res. 11(2), 211–215 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vesanto, J., Alhoniemi, E.: Clustering of the self-organizing map. IEEE Trans. Neural Networks 11(3), 586–600 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. von Hippel, E.: Application: searching for lead user innovations. Democratization of Innovation, pp. 133–146. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006b)Google Scholar
  47. von Hippel, E.: Democratization of Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  48. von Hippel, E.: Perspective: user toolkits for innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 18, 247–257 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. von Hippel, E.: Why many users want custom products. Democratization of Innovation, pp. 33–43. MIT Press, Cambridge (2006a)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giacomo di Tollo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stoyan Tanev
    • 2
  • Kassis Mohamed Slim
    • 3
  • Davide De March
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.LISICUniversité du Littoral Cote d’Opale, Maison de la Recherche Blaise PascalCalais CedexFrance
  2. 2.Institute of Technology and Innovation & Centre for Integrative Innovation ManagementUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark
  3. 3.Laboratoire de Recherche Opérationnelle, de Décision et de Controle de ProcessusUniversity of TunisLe BardoTunisia
  4. 4.Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and StatisticsCa’ Foscari University of VeniceVeniceItaly
  5. 5.EvoSolutions S.r.l.VeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations