Customer Co-creation & Customer Experience Management

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Customer Co-creation & Customer Experience Management"

Transcription

1 UNIVERSITEIT GENT FACULTEIT ECONOMIE EN BEDRIJFSKUNDE ACADEMIEJAAR Customer Co-creation & Customer Experience Management Masterproef voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van Master in de Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen Lorenzo Van Doorslaer onder leiding van Prof. dr. Patrick Van Kenhove en Prof. dr. Deva Rangarajan

2

3 UNIVERSITEIT GENT FACULTEIT ECONOMIE EN BEDRIJFSKUNDE ACADEMIEJAAR Customer Co-creation & Customer Experience Management Masterproef voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van Master in de Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen Lorenzo Van Doorslaer onder leiding van Prof. dr. Patrick Van Kenhove en Prof. dr. Deva Rangarajan

4 PERMISSION Undersigned declares that the content of this master thesis may be made public and/or reproduced, with acknowledgement. Ondergetekende verklaart dat de inhoud van deze masterproef mag geraadpleegd worden en/of gereproduceerd worden, mits bronvermelding. Lorenzo Van Doorslaer I

5 Preface I have written this thesis to complete my studies in Applied Economics, specialization Marketing, at Ghent University. I would like to thank all the people that supported me during my entire education and helped me, both directly and indirectly, to accomplish this master dissertation. First of all, I wish to thank my promoter Partick Van Kenhove and co-promoter Deva Rangarajan for giving me the opportunity to write my master thesis about co-creation, for the positive feedback and advice during the realization of this paper. They also provided useful information concerning authors (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, Vargo & Lusch ) and recent literature about CC to get a better insight in the topic. As doctoral student in CC, I am grateful to Katrien Verleye for giving me her ideas about cocreation and information concerning the set-up of the experiment. I also would like to thank assistant Hendrik Slabbick who was willing to answer my questions about the data analysis. I thank Ann De Boeck for correcting spelling and grammar errors. A word of thanks to all the people that participated in the experiment. Without their voluntary time and efforts, I could not have finished this paper. Finally, I would like to thank my girlfriend, Jolien De Baerdemaeker, and my friends and parents, who encouraged me during this last phase of my studies. With utmost sincerity, Lorenzo Van Doorslaer May 24 th, 2011 II

6 Table of contents PERMISSION... I Preface... II Table of contents...iii List of abbreviations... V List of figures... VI List of tables... VII Nederlandstalige samenvatting... VIII Abstract... 1 Introduction... 2 Part I: Literature review Customer Experience Definitions and concepts Meaningful experiences Evolution of the Experience Economy Relevance of experiences Co-creation Definitions and concepts Relevance from customer s perspective The changing role of the customer From GDL to SDL Building blocks of CC: the DART model Customer motives/benefits for CC/CP Cost-benefit analysis Where and with whom does CC occur in the value chain?...30 Part II: Empirical study Purpose of the study Management question Research questions Investigative questions Measurement questions Data analysis Sample & procedure Results...40 III

7 4.3 Partial conclusions experiment - discussion Post hoc analysis Partial conclusions post hoc analysis - discussion General conclusion Limitations and further research Limitations of the research Directions for further research and managerial implications...58 References... XII Figures... XIX Appendices... XXIX IV

8 List of abbreviations B2C: Business-to-Consumer CC: co-creation / co-creatie CE: customer experience CEM: Customer experience Management CP: co-production CRM: Customer Relationship Management EE: experience economy / ervaringseconomie GDL: goods-dominant logic NPD: new product development SDL: service-dominant logic SST: self-serving technology WTP: willingness to pay V

9 List of figures Figure 1: The process of experiencing...xix Figure 2: Motives of people.... XX Figure 3: Actors in the creation of a meaningful experience.... XXI Figure 4: Progression of economic value.... XXI Figure 5: The coffee progression.... XXII Figure 6: CC matrix.... XXII Figure 7: GDL versus SDL on value creation.... XXIII Figure 8: Building blocks of the DART model combined.... XXIII Figure 9: Motive categories for engaging in virtual CC projects.... XXIV Figure 10: Proposed impact of personal characteristics on consumer motives.... XXV Figure 11:Relationship between types of adopters classified by innovativeness and their location on the adoption curve.... XXV Figure 12: Classification of experimental designs.... XXVI Figure 13: Interaction effect degree of CC and technology on customer enjoyment.... XXVI Figure 14: Interaction effect degree of CC and technology on cognitive effort and ability.... XXVII Figure 15: Interaction effect degree of CC and technology on WTP Garment.... XXVII Figure 16: Types of motivation and regulation within SDT... XXVIII VI

10 List of tables Table 1: Hypothesis H1a 33 Table 2: Hypothesis H2a...33 Table 3: Hypothesis H2b 33 Table 4: Hypothesis H3a 34 Table 5: Hypothesis H3b Table 6: Hypotheses H1c / H1d Table 7: Hypotheses H1e / H1f.35 Table 8: Hypotheses H2d / H2e Table 9: Hypotheses H2f / H2g. 35 Table 10: Hypotheses H3d / H3e. 36 Table 11: Hypotheses H3f / H3g..36 Table 12: Set up experiment. 37 Table 13: N-values per condition in the experiment. 37 Table 14: Summary variables experiment..38 Table 15: Cronbach alpha interval scaled items.41 Table 16: Output dependent variable enjoyment.42 Table 17: Output dependent variable cognitive effort and ability.. 44 Table 18: Output dependent variable WTP garment...45 Table 19: Output dependent variable WTP computer...47 Table 20: Output dependent variable WTP ball pen Table 21: Output dependent variable WTP car Table 22: Output moderating variable: High product involvement garment..51 Table 23: Output moderating variable: High product involvement computer.51 Table 24: Output moderating variable: High product involvement ball pen Table 25: Output moderating variable: High product involvement car...52 Table 26: Means WTP all respondents versus high product involved respondents 53 Table 27: Means Enjoyment all respondents versus high product involved respondents...53 VII

11 Nederlandstalige samenvatting Geïnspireerd door de actuele relevantie van het concept CC en zijn toekomstige belang, startte ik deze thesis om mijn studies in Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen te beëindigen. CC pioniers Prahalad en Ramaswamy voorzien in hun boek De toekomst van de competitie: unieke waarde co-creëren met klanten nieuwe opportuniteiten om waarde te creëren. In een zeer recent boek (2010) over CC, De kracht van CC, beschrijft coauteur Gouillart de theorie van CC als een proces waarbij waarde gecreëerd wordt tussen een bedrijf en een heel scala aan andere mensen gaande van klanten, tot werknemers, partners en zelfs leveranciers. Vandaag is iedereen is betrokken bij de waarde creërende processen. CC wordt in deze thesis beperkt tot de klantenzijde omwille van interesse en meer inlevingsvermogen. Onderdeel 1 van de literatuurstudie gaat over klantenervaring (customer experience). Dit concept kan beschreven worden als een voort vloeiing uit een reeks van interacties tussen een klant en een product, een bedrijf, of een deel van haar organisatie. Deze ervaring is strikt persoonlijk en impliceert de betrokkenheid van de klant op verschillende niveaus (rationeel, emotioneel, zintuiglijk, lichamelijk en geestelijk). De evaluatie van de klantenervaring is afhankelijk van de vergelijking tussen de verwachtingen van de klanten en de prikkels die voortvloeien uit de interactie-momenten met het bedrijf. Doorheen de jaren werd klantenervaring gezien als een multidimensionale structuur bestaande uit verschillende componenten. Gentile et al. (2007) stellen op basis van de bestaande literatuur zes dimensies zijn van klantenervaring voor: zintuiglijke, cognitieve, emotionele, pragmatische, levensstijl- en relatiecomponent. Boswijk, Thijssen en Peelen (2007) beschrijven klantenervaring als een proces - zintuigelijke perceptie, emotie, ervaring, betekenisvolle belevenis en tot slot betekenis geven - in plaats van bestaande uit verschillende componenten. Er wordt dieper ingegaan op het concept van de betekenisvolle belevenis daar er een behoefte is om een persoonlijke interactie te hebben met het bedrijf die een waarde propositie vooropstelt die betekenisvol en specifiek is voor de klant. Vervolgens wordt de evolutie in de EE van eerste tot derde generatie besproken. Midden de jaren 90 rees een ervaringsgerichte benadering van het concept klantenervaring waarbij de rol van emoties, klanten als voelers, denkers en doeners en de nood aan plezier opnieuw overwogen werden. Pine & Gilmore zijn voorbeelden van vertegenwoordigers van de eerste generatie van de EE. Zij stellen dat de ervaring van de klant de nieuwe bron van waardecreatie is. In de tweede generatie van de EE zijn ervaringen als memorabele VIII

12 geënsceneerde evenementen volgens Pine en Gilmore niet langer beschouwd als primaire bron van waardecreatie. Het is het in staat stellen om alle momenten in de relatie tussen het bedrijf en de klant te beleven op een uitstekende manier, boven zijn verwachtingen, dat het meeste bijdraagt tot waardecreatie. Prahalad en Ramaswamy verwoorden het als de CC van unieke ervaringen met het bedrijf. De derde generatie van de EE gaat nog een stap verder waarbij een individu zijn eigen betekenisvolle belevenis creëert en richting geeft zonder tussenkomst van het bedrijf. Dit wordt communicatieve zelf-directie genoemd. In de laatste sectie van deel 1 wordt de relevantie van ervaringen besproken door de evolutie van de inhoud van economische waarde te bespreken gaande van grondstoffen, goederen, services tot de huidige ervaring van de klant. Onderdeel 2 van de literatuurstudie gaat over CC. De link naar dit concept werd gelegd in deel 1. Eerst wordt de lezer opgewarmd met enkele voorbeelden (Threadless, LEGO en ReDesignMe) over hoe bedrijven vandaag CC toepassen. Net zoals in onderdeel 1 gaan we van start met een overzicht van de inhoud van het begrip doorheen de jaren. Prahalad en Ramaswamy beschrijven CC als de gezamenlijke creatie van waarde door het bedrijf en de klant. Het is de creatie van een ervaringsomgeving waarin klanten kunnen beschikken over een actieve dialoog en mee de gepersonaliseerde ervaring opbouwen. Het product kan hetzelfde zijn (bv. LEGO) maar elke ervaring is uniek. Het betekent niet dat de klant koning is, de klant willen plezieren of een variëteit aan producten aanbieden. CC wordt ook gekaderd naast enkele gerelateerde begrippen zoals massa customisatie en co-productie. De invloed die klanten vandaag uitoefenen op waardecreatie is ongekend hoog door de veranderende rol van de consument. Deze beschikt mede door de opmars van het internet over vijf krachten: toegang tot informatie, globale visie, netwerken, experimenteren en activisme. Daarnaast wordt ook de verschuiving van het wereldbeeld van marketing van een goederen dominante logica naar service dominante logica besproken waarbij service staat voor de toepassing van competenties zoals vaardigheden en kennis. Vervolgens wordt dieper ingegaan op de bouwstenen van CC: dialoog, toegang, risicomanagement en transparantie. Daarna wordt een overzicht gegeven van de motieven en voordelen die klanten ertoe kan aanzetten om deel te nemen aan CC. Deze worden geklasseerd onder pragmatisch, economisch, persoonlijk, cognitief, sociaal en affectief. Füller stelt dat engagement in CC een functie is van intrinsieke motivatie en zelf-gedetermineerde extrinsieke motivatie. Daarnaast zijn er ook een aantal kosten verbonden aan CC, economisch en niet-economisch, waarbij het verschil tussen de motieven/voordelen en de kosten een nettoresultaat oplevert dat determineert of iemand al dan niet deelneemt aan een IX

13 CC activiteit. Tot slot wordt CC voor persoonlijk gebruik besproken naast CC in nieuwe product ontwikkeling en de personen die voor deze laatste vorm van CC in aanmerking komen. Op basis van de literatuurstudie wordt verantwoording voor de keuze van de onafhankelijke variabelen afgelegd en hypothesen opgesteld over enkele relevante afhankelijke variabelen voor het experiment. Deel 2 van de thesis gaat over het experimenteel onderzoek. De onafhankelijke variabelen die gebruikt worden zijn de graad van CC (hoog versus laag) en de technologie (online versus offline) wat resulteert in 4 scenario s. Het experimenteel opzet is bijgevolg een 2*2 volledig factorieel opzet dat geklasseerd kan worden onder statistisch waarachtige opzetten. De afhankelijke variabelen zijn plezier (interval-geschaald), cognitieve inspanning en vermogen (interval-geschaald), en bereidheid tot betalen (ratio-geschaald). Het doel van de studie is om na te gaan wat de invloed is van de graad van CC (i.e. niveau van betrokkenheid van de klant) en technologie op het plezier van de klant, zijn bereidheid tot betalen en de inspanningen die nodig zijn. Daarnaast wordt product betrokkenheid opgenomen als onafhankelijke (modererende) variabele om na te gaan welke invloed deze variabele uitoefent op de relatie tussen de onafhankelijke variabelen enerzijds en de afhankelijke variabele plezier en bereidheid tot betalen anderzijds. Daarvoor werd elk scenario opgesplitst in CC van 4 producten: kledingstuk, computer, balpen en auto. Via de managementvraag wordt overgegaan tot de onderzoekvragen, vervolgens tot specifieke onderzoeksvragen (i.e. de hypothesen) om de uiteindelijke meetvragen te bekomen die gesteld werden in een online vragenlijst waarbij elke respondent willekeurig 1 scenario voorgeschoteld kreeg. Alvorens de vragenlijst te activeren werd een offline pre-test uitgevoerd bij 10 personen waarbij het onderscheid tussen hoge en lage graad van CC duidelijk moest zijn. De vragenlijst bestaat uit vragen afkomstig van bestaande, geteste meetschalen zodat enkel een cronbach alpha analyse uitgevoerd werd. Hieronder bevindt zich een overzicht van de hypothesen met bijhorend resultaat na uitvoering van twee-wegs analyses van de variantie met significantieniveau gelijk aan Plezier H1A: Ongeacht de technologie, klanten die beschikken over een hoge graad van CC hebben een hoger plezier dan klanten met een laag niveau van co-creatie (hoofdeffect): aanvaard. H1b: Er is een interactie-effect tussen de mate van CC en technologie aan de ene kant, en plezier van de klant aan de andere kant: aanvaard. X

14 2. Cognitieve inspanning en vermogen H2A: Ongeacht de technologie, klanten die beschikken over een hoge graad van CC hebben meer cognitieve inspanning en vermogen nodig dan klanten met een laag niveau van CC (hoofdeffect): aanvaard H2B: Ongeacht de mate van CC, klanten die online co-creëren hebben meer behoefte aan cognitieve inspanning en vermogen dan de klanten die offline co- creëren (hoofdeffect): niet aanvaard. H2C: Er is een interactie-effect tussen de mate van CC en technologie aan de ene kant, en de cognitieve inspanning en vermogen aan de andere kant: aanvaard. 3. Bereidheid tot betalen H3A: Ongeacht de technologie, klanten die beschikken over een hoog niveau om te cocreëren zijn bereid meer te betalen dan klanten die een laag niveau beschikken om te cocreëren. (hoofdeffect) H3B: Ongeacht de mate van CC, klanten die offline doen aan CC zijn meer bereid om te betalen dan klanten die online co-creëren. (hoofdeffect) H3C: Er is een interactie-effect tussen de mate van CC en technologie aan de ene kant, en de bereidheid tot betalen aan de andere kant. Kledingstuk: H3A: aanvaard; H3B: niet aanvaard; H3C: aanvaard. Computer: H3A: niet aanvaard, H3B: niet aanvaard; H3C: niet aanvaard. Balpen: H3A: niet aanvaard, H3B: niet aanvaard; H3C: niet aanvaard. Auto: H3A: niet aanvaard, H3B: niet aanvaard; H3C: niet aanvaard. Als het interactie-effect significant is, werden ook hypothesen betreffende de interactieeffecten getest op basis van de grafiek van de interactie-effecten en de 95% betrouwbaarheidsintervallen. Nadien werd een post hoc analyse uitgevoerd die voor een verfijning van het eerste experiment moet zorgen. De invloed van product involvement op de bereidheid tot betalen en plezier wordt onderzocht. Conclusies worden geformuleerd op basis van de resultaten van het onderzoek: bij een hoge graad van co-creatie beleven klanten meer plezier en hebben ze meer cognitieve inspanning en vermogen nodig hebben. De bereidheid tot betalen is hoger bij een hoge graad van cocreatie, maar dit zal vooral afhangen van de product betrokkenheid van de klant. De toekomst van co-creatie ligt online omdat we offline meer inspanning nodig hebben en dit ook in het laatste geval vanuit bedrijfsperspectief te duur zou zijn. Tot slot volgt een algemeen besluit dat bedrijven het concept van co-creatie moeten omarmen omdat het onontbeerlijk is om een duurzaam competitief voordeel te behouden. XI

15 Abstract Purpose This paper aims to understand the impact of customer participation on customer experience. Today a lot of mass customization examples are present. But is it useful to go one step further in the direction of co-creation that is more demand-driven? In a 2*2 full factorial design a high (co-creation on itself) and low (mass customization) degree of co-creation in an online and offline environment (degree of co-creation and technology as independent variables) are manipulated to reveal whether there is a difference in customer experience regarding enjoyment, cognitive effort and ability needed, and on top of that the customer s willingness to pay (dependent variables). Furthermore, a customer s product involvement was introduced to check its effect on the relationship between degree of co-creation and technology on the one hand, and customer experience regarding enjoyment and willingness to pay on the other hand. Methodology An online survey was conducted for data collection. 10 people completed an offline pre-test, while 149 respondents were collected to fill in the final survey online. Findings Co-creation opportunities result in a higher customer enjoyment, a higher cognitive effort and ability needed, and a higher willingness to pay than mass customization opportunities. However, customer product involvement is an important factor in a customer s willingness to pay. Interestingly, customers need more cognitive effort and ability in an offline environment instead of an online environment. The future of co-creation lies online. Furthermore, low involvement products are not suitable for co-creation. Research limitations Co-creation is limited to B2C side from a customer s point of view. Due to the research methodology and language of execution, only people with an internet connection and knowledge of Basic English were able to be part of the study. As I describe two forms of CC, the experiment is limited to co-creation/ mass customization for personal use. Originality/value The comparison between co-creation and mass customization on the one hand, and online versus offline environment on the other hand regarding customer experience has never been conducted before. Keywords Customer experience; Experience economy; Co-creation; Co-creation motives 1

16 Introduction Inspired by the actual relevance of the concept of CC and its future importance, I started my master thesis to complete my studies in Applied Economics. The Marketing Science Institute has listed involving customers into CC or innovation processes as one of the top priorities for (Hoyer et al., 2010). Although neither of my marketing courses put emphasis on this future of competition, it appealed to me because of earlier work on CC and how companies today make use of it. Among others, the book The Experience Economy A New Perspective (Boswijk, Thijssen, Peelen, 2007) caught my attention because of its focus on experiences instead of products. It encouraged my motivation to take a closer look and learn more about CC. Also CC pioneers Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) reveal in their book The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers new opportunities to create value and thus serves as a guide for managers how to search for new strategic capital, illustrated with many examples. In an interview about the most recent book about CC, The Power of CC (2010), co-author Gouillart talks about the theory of CC which states that value is co-created between a company and a whole host of other people from customers, to employees, to partners and even to suppliers. Now everybody is involved in the value CC process. Customers are involved in marketing, employees are involved in human resources processes, and suppliers get involved in the definition of vendor management. This master thesis focuses on the B2C side, because of interest and more empathy. The structure of this paper is as follows. Part one is a literature review which elaborates on the two concepts of the title: CC and CE. Section one of the literature review deals with CE: definitions of CEM, CE, and different approaches to the components of CE are discussed. Boswijk et al. (2007) describe CE as a process instead of consisting of different components. The link from experiences to meaningful experiences is made as there is a need for entering into a personal interaction with the company for the creation of a value proposition that is meaningful to and specific for the customer. Next, I describe the evolution of the EE from first to third generation in which I touch the concept of CC. Finally, the relevance of experiences is explained as the source of value creation is shifted from goods and services to experiences. Section two of the literature review deals with CC. After a warm up of CC examples, I start with the evolution of the content of CC and how CC can be compared with related concepts 2

17 such as mass collaboration, mass customization, user generated content and CP. The relevance of CC from a customer s perspective is dealt with as the role of the customer has changed over time and a shift in the worldview of marketing from GDL to SDL is recognized. Next, an overview is given of the building blocks of CC, better known as the DART model. Furthermore, I provide seven motives why customers may engage in a CC process. One s motive(s) to co-create minus the cost(s) associated with engaging in CC equals a net result that determines whether the customer will participate in a CC activity. As consumers want to be involved in every part of the business system, we discuss CC for personal use next to CC in NPD. Also the question who will be involved into a CC process will be answered. Based on the literature review around CE and CC, justifications for the independent variables are formed along with hypotheses concerning some relevant dependent variables. Part two of this master dissertation is the empirical part in which an online survey was set up to find an answer on the hypotheses of the scenario based experiment. In a last section, limitations of the research and directions for further research are discussed. 3

18 Part I: Literature review 1. Customer Experience In the first part of this master thesis, a synopsis is given about the literature around CE. Definitions and classifications of CE are discussed as it is important to have a good understanding of (the evolution in) CE. Next, the concept of CE is used to describe developments in the EE. Here we link CE to the main topic in this dissertation: CC. Finally, the relevance of the topic of CE will be explained. 1.1 Definitions and concepts The goal of CEM is to understand the CE from a customer s perspective and take steps to optimize that experience in order to maximize value for both the company and the customer. Meyer and Schwager (2007) note that CEM captures and distributes what a customer thinks about a company. What are a customer s subjective thoughts about a particular company? It is direct response of a customer to the touch points with the company. Conversely, CRM captures and distributes what a company knows about a customer. It tracks the actions of customers post purchase. This can include product returns, service requests, inquiries The literature in marketing, retailing and service management rather put the focus on measuring customer satisfaction and service quality rather than CE. However, this doesn t mean that CE has always been ignored. Holbrook and Hirschmann (1982) stated that CE has experiential aspects. Schmitt (1999) researched how companies create experiential marketing. He identified five strategic experiential modules: sensory experiences (sense); affective experiences (feel); creative cognitive experiences (think); physical experiences, behaviors and lifestyle (act) and social identity- experiences that result from relating to a reference or culture (relate). Barry, Carbone, and Haeckel (2002) suggest that companies have to arrange all the clues that customers detect in a purchase process in order to achieve a satisfactory experience. Based on these insights, I have formulated two recent definitions of CE. The concept of CE arises from a set of interactions between a customer and a product, a company, or part of its organization, which arouses a reaction (LaSalle & Britton, 2003; Shaw & Ivens, 2005). This experience has two characteristics: it s strictly personal and implies the customer involvement at different levels (rational, emotional, sensorial physical and spiritual) (LaSalle 4

19 & Britton, 2003; Schmitt, 1999). The evaluation of CE depends on the comparison between the expectations of the customer and the stimuli resulting from the interaction with the company and its offering in correspondence of the different moments of contact or touchpoints (LaSalle & Britton, 2003; Shaw & Ivens, 2005). A related definition originates from Meyer and Schwager (2007) as they define CE as Customer Experience is the internal and subjective response customers have to any direct or indirect contact with a company. Direct contact generally occurs in the course of purchase, use, and service and is usually initiated by the customer. Indirect contact most often involves unplanned encounters with representatives of a company s products, service or brands and takes the form of word-of mouth recommendations or criticisms, advertising, news reports, reviews and so forth. (Meyer & Schwager 2007,p.118). Over time, the concept of CE was conceived as a multidimensional structure composed of elementary components. You have to keep in mind that customers hardly ever recognize such a structure. They perceive an experience as a complex but unitary feeling, where each component is hard to distinguish from another (Gentile, Spiller, Noci, 2007). In 2006 Fornerino, Helme-Guizon and Gaudemaris analyzed CE as an immersive consumption experience that consists of five distinct dimensions: sensorial-perceptual, affective and physical-behavioral (components) and social and cognitive (facets). More recently, Gentile et al. (2007) state that, based on the extant literature of CE, there are six dimensions of CE. They researched the role of different experiential features that lead to a good customer experience by some well-known products. 1. Sensorial component The stimulation of this component affects our senses. The goal of a company s offer can be providing good sensorial experiences. These experiences include smell, touch, sight, hearing and taste to arouse pleasure, satisfaction, and excitement. Jamba Juice bars is a good example that focuses on the senses of customers as they work with natural ingredients, zero grams trans-fat, no high-fructose corn syrup 2. Cognitive component This component is related to mental processes or thinking. Companies can engage customers in using their creativity or problem solving skills. Besides this, a company can lead a consumer to revise the usual idea of a product or some common mental assumptions. This happened for example with Barbie, the first doll with the image of a young woman. 5

20 3. Emotional component This is a component of CE that involves the affective system through creating moods, feelings and emotions. An offering can be directed to generate an emotional experience in order to create an affective relation with the company, its brands or products. Kinder Surprise is an example. 4. Pragmatic component The fourth component is derived from the practical act of doing something. It includes the concept of usability. The Apple Imac is a good illustration of an astonishing practical experience by its design based on usability standards. It doesn t only refer to the use of the product post purchase, but extends to all product life cycles. A good example is the company Whirlpool and its subsidiary KitchenAid that came up with the initiative of the Insperience Studio. 5. Lifestyle component This component comes from the adoption of a lifestyle and the behavior of a person that is formed through the affirmation of the system of values and individual s beliefs. The product and its usage become means of devotion to certain values that company and brand impersonate and values that customers share. Consumption of products without logo is an example. 6. Relational component The relational component involves the person, the relationship of the person with others, his social context and on top of this his ideal self. An offering can empower the relational dimension by means of a product that stimulates its use together with other people. Are you willing to spend your time in Disneyland Paris alone or would you rather go with your kids, family or friends? The product can be the core of a common passion from which a community can be created like the Ducati community. People can identify themselves belonging to or distancing themselves from a social group which refers to a social identity. This model of dimensions of CE is in contrast with Schmitt s (1999) model in the sense that Gentile et al. (2007) distinguish the physical aspects from the values. On the other hand, they join the physical part with the sensorial dimension. Boswijk et al. (2007) describe an experience as either a professional skill or a sensation/feeling. In the literature of CE it is the latter definition that matters. Sensation or 6

21 feeling implies the act of undergoing something, for example letting a potential customer testdrive a car. Here the rational choice for buying a car is supported by the emotional experience of driving it. Boswijk et al. (2007) explain CE as a process rather than a concept composed of different elements. [Insert Figure 1] Starting point is the sensory perception that can be compared with sensory experiences (Schmitt, 1999), the sensorial-perceptual dimension (Fornerino et al., 2006) and the sensorial component (Gentile et al., 2007). Sensory perceptions lead to emotions (Frijda, 1986). It s a way of processing information. Emotions are an involuntary, unintended, nondeliberate way of dealing with the outside world ( ) (Boswijk et al., 1986, p.21-22). An experience is often a complex of emotions that occur either simultaneously or one after the other. Boswijk et al. (2007, p.22) describe it as an immediate, relatively isolated occurrence with a complex of emotions that make an impression and represent a certain value for the individual within the context of a specific situation. A service complaint, for example, leads to a variety of combined emotions and feelings that form the experience. The customer is either treated well or not, with satisfaction or dissatisfaction as result. The next step in the process concerns a meaningful experience. The next paragraph will elaborate more on this. Finally, giving meaning is the last step in the process of experiencing. Sometimes people find themselves in situations where a meaningful experience takes place. Coincidence plays a role, but the individual also gives direction to the situation. What are the needs and motives? The pyramid of Maslow (1962) is the most famous example where a hierarchy of needs is distinguished. In the pyramid people will only strive to fulfill the needs of a certain level, once the needs of lower levels are accomplished. Frijda (1986) also distinguishes different motives, although his model is less well known. Frijda states that there are four motives for people: not wanting to be alone, wanting to be recognized, wanting to maintain control over the environment that one is familiar with and wanting to experience something new. These motives could be put on two axes as in the figure below. [Insert Figure 2] It is a graphic representation of the world that people move around in. People can move or be pushed from one quadrant to another. For example, a movement from left to right can occur when a person climbs up his career ladder, leaving his colleagues and maybe 7

22 friends. As a result, he can feel lonely and try to search for friendship of other colleagues, which means a movement to the right of the figure. 1.2 Meaningful experiences The transition from an experience to a meaningful experience as the fourth step in the process of experiencing (see Figure 1) (Boswijk et al., 2007) concerns an important learning component, an aspect of awareness. Take also into account the difference in language between experience and meaningful experience. In Dutch, the difference between these two concepts is clear due to the use of ervaring for experience and betekenisvolle belevenis for meaningful experience. Unfortunately, in English the same word is used experience but there is a clear distinction between these two concepts. In the framework of a meaningful experience a person wonders what a particular experience means to him. He asks himself several questions: Why do I find myself in situations like this? How should I deal with them? What does it say about me? Do I want this? A meaningful experience gives the individual insight into himself and into the way in which he might change or transform himself. In an interview (conversation with Boswijk and Peelen by Pieterse P., 22/08/2008), Boswijk and Peelen explain their views about meaningful experiences. People are nowadays searching for meaningful experiences because in their view people search for meaning in their lives. They are against the idea to convince people and get people s attention with entertainment as a marketing tool. The focus has to be on the individual. According to Boswijk and Peelen, there are three types of meaningful experiences: 1. A strictly personal experience that is a turning point in life or full of emotion and meaningful in the progress of your life: the birth of your child, a marriage, a passed exam. Those are real meaningful experiences. 2. Experiences that you share with others: social/ social-cultural experiences. 3. Paid experiences. Someone organizes it and directs it for you, for example Rock Werchter festival. In this case, you pay an amount of money for the experience. Man is put in the center of things and he is in search of meaning, sometimes this can be entertaining or relaxing. He can buy this to have more excitement, more experiences in life. It s more than just pleasure or an even better party. It is doing something that makes sense. What really has value for someone? That is the question companies affiliate with. They should step out of their product domain and get access to the private world of their customer. 8

23 How can they help people? Let s take insurance companies. A lot of insurances are adjusted automatically in your life. Instead of this, companies can put their customer in the center and ask him the question whether their current insurance is still what they really want and need. When you re pregnant or retired, you probably have other insurance needs. They state that if the company does not adapt to and focuses on what the customer really wants, it will make less profit in the future. 1.3 Evolution of the Experience Economy The EE is as old as the oldest profession in the world. The Greeks and Romans knew how to make money with experiences. Today, under more prosperous circumstances, the system, developed to fulfill material needs, is transformed to an economy that addresses the psychological needs. Toffler (1970) talks about the dematerialization of the economy in his book Future Shock in a chapter called The Experience Makers. Management consultants and economists didn t pay a lot of attention to this process of psychologizing because they focused on the growing service sector. We had to wait until the mid-nineties for a boost of the concept of CE when a new experiential approach offered an original view to consumer behavior. Different variables that were neglected are reconsidered because of their importance: the role of emotions in behavior; consumers are feelers, thinkers and doers, consumer s need for fun and pleasure This perspective grew along with the mainstream approach in consumer behavior that viewed customers 1 as rational decision makers (Addis & Holbrook, 2001). In the late 1990s Pine and Gilmore launched the bestseller The Experience Economy (1999).The authors describe experiences as a new source of value creation. It is a fourth economic offering next to commodities, goods and services in what they call the progression of economic value. It has always been there, but unnoticed. When you buy an experience, you pay to spend time enjoying a series of meaningful events that a company stages to engage you in a personal way. According to Pine, an experience is a distinguishing economic advantage for which one can ask a premium. According to another pioneer Wolf and his Entertainment Economy (1999), the entertainment character will become the key differentiator in the economy where products without this characteristic will not succeed in the future. This view is different from Pine and Gilmore who talk more about engaging the customer at a personal level. Danish author Ralph Jensen (1999) claims in his book The Dream Society that the biggest part of future growth in 1 I use the terms consumer and customer interchangeably throughout the paper, meaning the end user of the firm s offering. 9

24 consumption will have a higher intangible character and that the story surrounding the product will play an important role in the purchasing decision. These authors in the late 1990s can be considered as representatives of the first generation of the EE. After the publications of these pioneers, the popularity of the subject quickly grew and different approaches focused their attention on CE for leveraging value. The basis of these contributions is a revised way to consider the concept of consumption: it becomes a holistic experience which affects a person as a whole at different levels and in every touch point between company or its offer and a person as mentioned in the definition of CE above. Notice the use of the term person as opposed to customer. As both parties (customer and company) play an active role, this is called the second generation of EE. Experiences as memorable staged events according to Pine and Gilmore are no longer regarded as primary focus. Enabling the customer to have an excellent life-long relationship with a company, even beyond his expectation, is what contributes most to the creation of value (LaSalle & Briton, 2003). Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) describe it as co-creating unique experiences with the company. In other words, selling or staging experiences is converted into providing artifacts and contexts that are favorable of experiences and which can be correctly applied by consumers to co-create their own, unique experiences (Caru & Cova, 2003). In an interview (Boswijk, Thijssen, Peelen, 2007), Ramaswamy talks about experiences as the new source of value creation. How this became the new source of value, will be explained in the next section. It is no longer the company that provides a good customer experience by executing the sequence of activities in the value chain and thereby creating a good; now value is more routed in the experience of the customer. If you put the CE as the source of value at the center of doing business, then it allows consumers to be part of the value creation process. In order to create a good CE, companies now have to involve customers by definition, because the experience is after all routed in the individual. If you become experience-centric, this implies a process of CC. Why? Customers and companies need to start converging around the experiences and this implies a very different process of interaction, a process that is as much focused on how the consumer wants to interact with the company rather than just how the company wants to interact with the consumer (see also section 2.2.2: from GDL to SDL). This is a process of joint value creation on both sides, not the company deciding what is good for the customer. Schmitt (1999) supported this view by stating that marketers need to provide the right customer setting and environment for the desired customer experiences to appear. In 2007, 10

25 a major extension was added by Caru and Cova in their book Consuming Experience in which the authors identify a continuum of consuming experience. This continuum ranges from experiences, like staging experiences according to Pine and Gilmore that are mainly constructed by companies (first generation of EE) to experiences that are largely developed by consumers. In the middle of these two extremes experiences that are co-created by companies and consumers (second generation of EE) are situated as per Prahalad and Ramaswamy in which the company provides the customer with a basic platform and raw materials that are then being used by the consumer to bring in and reach his/her own experience. As mentioned above, there s an extreme where experiences are largely developed by consumers. The individual creates and directs even more his own meaningful experience without interference of the supplier. This is the third generation of EE, which is opposed to the second generation. In this generation we are moving to communicative self-direction (Cornelis, 1988). It s not the company that decides what the customer can buy and what he will experience. In that sense, people are directed from the outside. The two parties will be directing themselves from the inside and communicate with each other: dialogue arises between company and customer. It s a kind of cooperation where people communicate with companies about what they want to experience. Figure 3 reproduces a summary of the evolution in the EE. [Insert Figure 3] The evolution of the EE will be understood better when we talk about the shift in the dominant logic: from GDL to SDL. 1.4 Relevance of experiences Why am I talking about experiences and not about goods or services? Pine proposes a framework of how things work in the business world and how economic value has changed over time (Boswijk et al., 2007; Pine II & Gilmore, 1998). A graphical representation is given in the figure below. [Insert Figure 4] 11

26 In the beginning there were commodities. Commodities are things that grow out of the ground and pulled out of the ground: minerals and vegetables. You collect them out of the ground and sell them in an open market place. These are the basis of the Agrarian economy that lasted for four millennia. It was the primary economic offer. Commodity output increased over time due to higher productivity and better technology. Less people were needed so employees moved out of farms into factories where physical goods were manufactured. Goods are physically tangible things that we touch and feel using commodities as raw material. Goods are the basis of the Industrial economy. Output of goods sky rocketed too and again fewer people were needed to produce more and more goods. People moved out of factories and into service jobs like restaurants, hotels, offices where they deliver an intangible activity on behalf of an individual person. Today 80 percent of employment is in services and what customers want is services, not the products. Goods become commoditized, treated like a commodity. People don t care about the brand, the producer or the features because they re all more or less the same. They only care about the price. Internet is the greatest force of commoditization because people can compare prices of different vendors instantly. Consequently, we push prices down to the lowest possible price. But now services are being commoditized as well. For example in financial serviceswhere you can buy a block a shares with a full service broker for 700, it only costs you 10 with an Internet based broker. Another example is the travel industry. Internet is pushing the prices down with sites such as priceline.com that connects you directly to airlines and hotels. This way no commissions need to be paid. It is now time to move to a new level of economic value. Goods and services are no longer enough. Today Customers want experiences. Experiences are a distinct economic offering that engage each customer in a personal way and thereby create a memory. If there s no EE, all jobs will disappear because of technology and automation. Experiences are replacing them, becoming the predominant economic offering. As an example of this progression of economic value, Pine describes the coffee progression (Boswijk et al., 2007). [Insert figure 5] Raw coffee beans are a commodity that is a practically negligible value. Once roasted and packaged, the coffee beans become goods that can be bought in the supermarket resulting in a homemade cup of coffee with a cost price of Serve the same coffee beans in a local dinner or corner coffee shop and they become part of a service where you 12

27 pay depending on the environment for one cup. Serving an espresso or cappuccino at Café Florian on Piazza San Marco in Venice providing a heightened ambiance is the ultimate coffee experience for which you will pay 17. This example shows that it s not just about the product itself, but also the experience surrounding the product and/or service. 13

28 2. Co-creation I mentioned already once the concept of CC (supra, p.10) when talking about the second generation of the EE. In the second part of this dissertation, the concept of CC will be investigated starting with an introduction of examples to get an idea of applications of the concept in the marketplace. The developments of the concept of CC will be reproduced along with an overview of how CC can be distinguished from related concepts. Its relevance from a customer s point of view will be discussed as the role of consumers changed over time and the traditional model of value creation will be questioned as I explain the shift from a GDL to SDL. Furthermore, an answer will be given to the question why people CC, in which part of the value chain they have an influence and who will be involved in a CC process. On the basis of the literature review around CC, hypotheses are formulated for the research study. You have probably already bought several T-shirts in your life, searching and choosing from the tons of different finished products that are available in clothing stores. But have you ever dreamt of making your own T-shirt starting from the very beginning? Well, within a few minutes, you can get started. The company Threadless offers customers the opportunity to submit, inspect and approve T-shirt graphic designs (Elofson & Robinson, 2007). Surf to push participate, download the submission kit to start creating your own T-shirt and off you go! The mission of the LEGO Company, the world s fifth-largest manufacturer of toys, is to inspire and develop the builders of tomorrow. In your childhood or as a parent you probably have come in contact with LEGO, playing with the six shapes of bricks and following the guidelines until you get the end result that looks the same as on the picture of the packaging 2. But aren t you bored of making obvious creations like a car and do you wonder if you could ever make your own electric guitar because playing the guitar is your passion? No problem. Nowadays people can join the so called LEGO factory (LEGO Factory, 2007) where users are invited to download the Digital Designer software. This provides you with a platform to begin designing and building with virtual LEGO bricks. The point is that you can create whatever you want. Afterwards you can submit your virtual model to LEGO through its website. An employee of LEGO will analyze your creation and based on how many and what type of LEGO bricks you used, he will charge you a certain price for a manufactured version. You will be given the option to order your own piece directly from the website. On top of that, you have the chance to share your idea with other members of the 2 Visit <www.lego.com>. Accessed 16/03/

29 LEGO factory workers 3 community. You can comment on the work of someone else, make copies, propose changes and create adaptations. In fact, a lot of the designed products by customers are appropriated by LEGO for general production and sale. The LEGO sample shows the involvement of the customer in the product development and how one can create his own LEGO experience (Zwick, Bonsu & Darmody, 2008). RedesignMe B.V. is a company that describes themselves as the world s largest creative marketplace 4. On their website, the company uploads a creative assignment, called a challenge. This can include logo designs, marketing ideas, product designs. You can participate to any of the challenges you like and afterwards RedesignMe rewards the winning entries with cash. The company also consists of an offline part RedesignMe Live 5. Face-to-face brainstorm sessions are organized where a select group of professionals and consumers join together with companies to realize new and refreshing ideas. Indeed, you can be part of such project that a company prepares together with RedesignMe. The three examples - Threadless, LEGO and RedesignMe all have the same message: Welcome to the world of CC. This introduction leads straight to the first independent variable for the experiment. CC can happen in an online (Threadless, LEGo and RedesinMe) or offline (RedesignMe Live) environment. Independent variable 1: Technology Online versus Offline 2.1 Definitions and concepts In the late 1990s, a first definition of CC emerged. Kambil, Friesen and Sundaram (1999) defined CC as a partnership with the customers where value is created by both the firm and the customer and engaging customers directly in the production or distribution of value. Customers, in other words, can get involved at just about any stage of the value chain (Kambil et al., 1999, p.38). In every definition the word value will return. Customer value can be defined as the difference between perceived benefits (product benefits, service value, image value and personal interaction value) of a company s offering and perceived costs 3 Obviously, these workers are not working in actual Lego factories in Asia, Europe, and soon Mexico, nor are they employed by LEGO. 4 Visit <http://www.redesignme.com/>. Accessed 29/03/ Visit <http://www.rdmlive.nl/about>. Accessed 29/03/

30 (financial, time, energy and psychic cost) (Sanchez & Heene, 2004; Kambil et al., 1999). This is a broad definition that is difficult to apply when we have to understand how value is created. Kambil et al. (1999) determines value in terms of the interaction of three variables: specific customer needs, the attributes of the firm s offering and the overall cost for the customer (sum of price, risk and effort). Value is created when attributes of the offering match specific customer needs arising from any of the five processes that customers take part in buying, using, selling/disposing of the offering, integrating multiple products to fulfill needs, and CC at a cost considered reasonable by the customer. The greater the fit, the greater the customer value created. The concept of CC was further evolved by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) in the sense of firms creating value with customers producing a unique customer experience. They describe CC as: Co-creation is about joint creation of value by the company and the consumer. It is not the firm trying to please the customer. and Co-creation is [ ] creating an experience environment in which customers can have an active dialogue and co-construct personalized experiences; product may be the same (e.g. Lego Mindstorms) but customers can construct different experiences (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,2004,p.8). It is not about Customer is king or customer is always right. Delivering good customer service [ ]. Mass customization of offerings that suit the industry s supply chain. Transfer of activities from the firm to the customer as in self-service. Customers as product manager [ ]. Product variety. Staging experiences (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004, p.8). The descriptions of CC have been gradually extended toward autonomous individual initiatives (Zwass, 2010). The LSE Enterprise team (2009) made an in-depth study of CC by order of Promise, the world s leading CC Consultancy Company 6. To frame the concept of CC, they start by introducing two dimensions: the role of the firm and the type of value created. The former indicates whether the process is more consumer-led or producer-led. Is the process mainly user-driven or rather initiated and orchestrated by the firm? The latter dimension reproduces whether the value is standardized (benefiting all customers), customized (as in mass customization for example) or personalized (as in CP). On basis of these two dimensions a CC matrix is developed as in the figure below to illustrate where CC sits as opposed to related concepts. [Insert Figure 6] 6 Visit <www.promisecorp.com>. Accessed 21/03/

31 LSE Enterprise describes CC as Co-creation is an active, creative and social process, based on collaboration between producers and users that is initiated by the firm to generate value for customers (LSE Enterprise, 2009, p.9). CC differs from mass collaboration and user generated content on the one hand as the latter are more consumer led and from mass customization and personalization as those two concepts are more producer led. Mass collaboration is a collaboration model based on collective actions that are conducted independently by a large amount of contributors or participants, but in collaboration on a single modular project. Projects typically take place on the World Wide Web by means of web based collaboration tools. For example Wikipedia, the world s largest online encyclopedia that consists of articles fully written by Internet users (Ghazawneh, 2008). User generated content implies that content is made publicly available based on technologies like the Internet, whereby a certain level of creativity and effort is present and this is created outside of professional practices or routines (Wunsch-Vincent & Vickery, 2007). The best example here is Youtube, where you can upload your own videos, share them and watch videos generated by other users. Mass customization refers to companies that offer product variety and customization through flexibility and quick responsiveness. It s different from mass production as mass production is aimed at standardized products, while there is a lot more variety in the mass customized products. People can find almost exactly what they want at a fair price (Kotha, 1995). Dell provides its customers with a site where you can configure the specifications of your own personal computer and Nike ID is an initiative to build your own pair of shoes. Mass customization is more producer-led as customers have to choose from a menu dictated by the company. Customization ultimately is a matter of what can be built and delivered to suit the efficient operation of a company s value chain (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2002, p.6). It is clear that mass customization offers variety, but it is the company itself that decides what can be customized. Consequently, I would describe mass customization as a low degree of CC. This lays against a high degree of CC, CC on itself, where the process is more user-driven and customers don t face those limitations set by the company. Here the company provides an experience environment where individual consumers can create their own unique personalized experience where the building blocks of CC are present (infra, section 2.3). It induces individualized interactions and experience outcomes. A personalized CC experience is a reflection of how the individual chooses to interact with the experience environment that 17

32 the firm facilitates (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004b). This leads to the second independent variable in the experiment: Independent variable 2: Degree of CC High degree of CC versus Low degree of CC CP implies that the customer is an active participant in the production and delivery of a service, which gives him the chance to customize his own world (Bernapudi & Leone, 2003). According to Vargo and Lusch (2008) CP is a component of CC relating to the specific tasks performed by customers that may occur before or during consumption, usage or experience. The customer is consequently always a co-creator but not always a co-producer. An example of this recently became a trend in a lot of Belgian department stores: self-scans. Customers can scan their own articles during the shopping taking away the job of the cashier and thus CP this service. In a very recent paper, Zwass (2010) defines CC as Co-creation is the participation of consumers along with producers in the creation of value in the marketplace (Zwass, 2010, p.13). As opposed to LSE Enterprises analysis, he states that the CC process can be initiated by the firm or the consumers themselves. He distinguishes sponsored CC from autonomous CC. The former consists of activities performed by consumer communities or individuals by order of the firm, for example P&G Connect+Develop initiative in the search for innovative ideas resulting from external people. The latter refers to consumer communities or individuals that produce value independently of any organization and voluntary. However, they might provide platforms that benefit economically. 2.2 Relevance from customer s perspective Product variety has not necessarily resulted in better customer experiences. (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004, p.1) As mentioned already in the relevance of experiences (supra, p.11) we have more choices of products and services today than ever before. The question is whether this results in a better customer experience. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) state that the increasing variety yields less satisfaction and call it the paradox of the twenty-first-century economy. The march of the Internet played a major role in this. Stimulated by the consumer-centric culture of the 18

33 Internet, characterized by interactions, speed, individuality and openness, the impact of the customer on value creation is increasingly growing. The role of customers has changed from isolated to connected, from unaware to informed, from passive to active. This will be explained in the next section. About.com is one of the most popular consumer word-of-mouth sites, where people can discuss more than subjects. Consumer to consumer recommendations, comments, ideas, etc. have a powerful influence on choice. It is clear that nowadays the consumer s influence on value creation is enormous and companies should listen, learn and absorb their valuable intelligence (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Thanks to the Internet, consumers can actively define the way they see value as experiences and force their visions towards the companies. The market is becoming a forum for interactions between consumers, consumer communities and firms. These dialogues, access, transparency and understanding of risk-benefits are the core of the next step in value creation. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a) call them the building blocks of CC. This topic will be explored as well further-on The changing role of the customer CC of value begins with the changing role of the consumer in the industrial system. Companies should welcome the five powers of the connected consumer. 1. Information access Consumers nowadays have access to enormous amounts of information. We use this information to make better, more informed choices. For companies that usually prevent the customer of flows of information, this shift is radical. They can no longer take control over value creation. For example, consumers make use of the Internet to learn about diseases, treatments, the latest drug trials and share their personal experiences with others. In this way they can question their physicians more aggressively and have a greater share of participation in choosing their own treatment modalities (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2002, 2004a). 2. Global View Consumers can search on the Internet every moment, they have the ability to check what is happening in the world. They can access information on products, technology, firms, performance, prices... There are still some geographical limits on information, but they erode fast. This changes the rules for how companies compete (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2002, 19

34 2004a). Due to this evolution, arbitrage 7 for example asking a different price for the same product on another market is a practice that hardly can be carried out nowadays by multinational firms. 3. Networking People have a natural desire to coalesce around interests, needs and experiences. The boom of the Internet and developments in messaging and telephony strengthens this by creating an unparalleled ease and openness of communication among consumers. They are thematic consumer communities where individuals can share ideas and feelings without geographical constraints and few social barriers. Consumers share the same interest, but may know nothing more about each other. The power of these consumer networks is their independence from the firm and that they are based on real consumer experiences, not the companies story what they will experience. Consumer networking turns the traditional company controlled marketing communications upside down. Rather than making advertisements on television and billboards for their next movie The Lord of the Rings that will be launched, the New Line Cinema works together with fan sites to help spread word of mouth and create buzz (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2002, 2004a). Now, people can share their experiences through all kinds of new social media and communication technologies and therefore force companies to engage them in the creation of mutual value. 4. Experimentation The Internet can also be used for experiments with or developments of products, especially digital ones. For example, technology-savvy people began to experiment with an MP3, a compression standard for encoding digital audio, and this caused challenges to the music industry. The skills of individual software users bundled together also enabled the codevelopment of popular products such as the Linux operating system and Apache Web server. Of course, experimentations go beyond digital spheres as well: people that improved their homes can share their projects with others, or passionate gardeners can share tips on how to grown organic vegetables. Companies can benefit from these creative ideas for the development of products and services (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2002, 2004a). 5. Activism By learning people can better discriminate when making choices and by networking people encourage each other to speak out and act. Consumers provide companies and each other with unsolicited feedback. AOL Watch is a website where posts about former and current 7 Visit <http://www.britannica.com/ebchecked/topic/32311/arbitrage>. Accessed 08/04/

35 AOL customers are written. The web is also a powerful tool for group discussions on issues of the same interest. When individual powers join together in a community, share of voice is greater. People that find it important to protect the animals can affiliate with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to promote reforms and to get governmental attention. So what is the result of the changing role of the customer? Companies have to interact with customers and thereby co-create value because customers seek to exercise their influence in every part of the business system. Companies can no longer design products on their own, develop production processes, craft marketing messages or put simply act, autonomously From GDL to SDL "Any customer can have a car painted any color he wants so long as it is black." (Ford, 1922, p.71-72) This quote from the founder of the Ford Motor Company reflects the way companies traditionally created value: unilaterally from the firm to the consumer and controlled by the firm. Companies provided a good customer experience themselves. The market, viewed as a locus of exchange or as a whole consisting of different segments of consumers, was separated from the value creation process. Consumers were the target of the firm s offerings; passive, seen as a prey. They had no role in value creation; they were only involved at a single point of exchange where value extraction takes place from the customer for the company. Firms acted autonomously in the design of products, development of production processes, control of sales and craft of marketing messages without involvement of the customer. The traditional concept of the market is company-centric as well as the process of value creation (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004b). Thus, marketing used a model of economic exchange, which had a dominant logic based on the exchange of operand resources, resources where an act or operation is performed on, such as goods. Consequently, this dominant logic is called the GDL (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). A firm s production process embeds value or utility into a good, and the value of the good is represented by the market price or what the consumer is willing to pay. From this perspective, maximum efficiency and maximum profit is achieved by standardization and economies of scale. In other words, the traditional model is based on the value-in-exchange meaning of value. As an example of these thoughts, Ford s quote tells us that a firm constructs the automobile (Ford Model T) out 21

36 of raw materials, arranges them and packages them together. Value is created during the activities performed in the production process. This concept is being challenged due to the changing role of the customer as discussed above (section 2.2.1); the march of the informed, connected, active and empowered consumers. This has led to a revision of the traditional dominant logic, now focused on intangible resources, CC of value and relationships referred to as the SDL. Service refers to the application of competences such as skills and knowledge by one entity for the benefit of another. These skills and knowledge are called operant resources, employed to act on operand resources (and other operant resources); they are often invisible and intangible. All exchange is based on service and when goods are involved, they are tools for the delivery and application of resources (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). If we go back to the example of the automobile, firms use knowledge, skills and capabilities to transform raw materials into a car. But according to the SDL, the manufactured automobile is only an input into the value creation that occurs as the customer uses the car: transport, self-identity The car would not have any value if the customer does not know how to drive, has no access to fuel and maintenance or even does not belong to a social group where the car has a particular meaning. In this way, value is co-created: companies apply their skills and knowledge in the production and branding of the car while customers use their operant resources in the context of their own lives. There is no value until an offering is used- experience and perception are essential to value determination (Vargo & Lusch, 2006, p.44). Consequently, in SDL the value driver is value-in-use. A summary of the differences between GDL and SDL are given in the figure below. [Insert Figure 7] 2.3 Building blocks of CC: the DART model As the locus of value creation are the interactions between the customer and company, one needs to understand the CC process through its key building blocks: Dialogue, Access, Risk Assessment and Transparency. Along with the discussion about these key elements the example of Summerset, the world s largest builder of houseboats 8, will be applied to have a better understanding of each building block as they manage to fit all the pieces of the CC model together (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2002, 2004a/b/c). 8 Visit <http://www.sumerset.com/models-custom.php>. Accessed 27/03/

37 1. Dialogue Dialogue is not just listening to your customers. It is creating a shared meaning; people listen and learn from each other. It means interactivity, deep engagement and a propensity to act on both sides (company and customer). What do consumers really experience? The company needs to recognize and understand the social, emotional and cultural context that shapes the experiences. A loyal community can be created and maintained through dialogue. If you want to create your own unique houseboat together with the Summerset Company, you can contact the Summerset s development group and discuss your ideas for the boat - size, furnishings, budget... so that over several conversations you and the engineers codeveloped the specifications according to your needs and preferences. 2. Access Traditionally, companies created and transferred ownership of products to consumers. Now, customers do not necessarily want the ownership, but access to desirable experiences. You do not need to own something to access an experience. Once your houseboat specifications are made, you can access the manufacturing plant through the Web. Here you can watch your boat being built and track its progress. You can also get access to a community of house boaters. When joining this, you can obtain new ideas about how to design and accessorize your boat. 3. Risk assessment Risk refers in this third building block to the probability of harm to the consumer (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004a). In the past firms managed the risks of their products. When communicating with potential customers they gave prominence to the benefits, largely ignoring the risks. As consumers are now more involved in CC experiences with companies, should they also take more responsibility for managing those risks if the company reveals more information about the risks associated with the product? One thing is for sure; the customer can help the company through continuous dialogue to reduce risk. Problems can be identified and corrected proactively. In the case of Summerset, motor exhausts are very toxic. After the death of two people due to carbon monoxide poisoning, Summerset redesigned the exhaust system so that the carbon dioxide now escapes via a top-mounted stack nine feet above the deck. Or, while designing your houseboat with Summerset, employees can inform you about the risks associated with a certain preference. For example, placing a whirlpool in the front of the boat 23

38 can cause serious balance problems. Thus, proactive risk communications and management is an opportunity for companies to differentiate themselves. 4. Transparency Earlier, companies benefited from the information asymmetry between the firm and consumers. As consumers now have more access to information about products, technologies and business systems, the asymmetry is fading. If companies make important business-process information visible to consumers, they cede control of the value creation before the traditional point of exchange. At Summerset, customers can follow the product development process of their own boat so that they can intervene more often and intensely than normal. Transparency is needed on both sides: the customer has to know what is happening at all times and why while Summerset must know the customers desires, concerns, and requirements. In the example of Summerset, not only a houseboat is co-created. Experiences are created, next to the physical good. Even before one is the owner of a new houseboat, an emotional attachment is formed to their boat while building their stake in the output of the value creation process. As Summerset is able to combine all building blocks of CC, they can better engage customers as collaborators. Some companies can be outstanding for one of the CC building blocks, but if the DART blocks are combined, new and important capabilities can emerge as shown in the figure below (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004c). [Insert Figure 8] 2.4 Customer motives/benefits for CC/CP Why do customers participate in a CC process? As mentioned already (supra, section 2.2), one can take part in CC because of dissatisfaction with existing products (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Ernst et al., 2010). When engaging in CC, offerings will be developed that are more aligned to the consumer needs (Hoyer et al, 2010; Van Der Wal, 2005). Successful NPD depends on a deep understanding of consumer needs and development efforts that meet those needs. New product ideas can be generated that have a bigger chance to be valued by consumers and thereby increasing the likelihood of product success (Hoyer et al., 2010). Secondly, consumers can engage in CC to reduce risks associated with receiving inappropriate products or service failures or to increase control over products and services 24

39 (Etgar, 2008). These risks include physical, financial, psychological, performance, social, and time-related risks (Stone & Gronhaug, 1993). Physical risk is the risk whereby the body gets harmed, for example when a consumer allergic to peanuts consumes a product that contains traces of peanuts while you can read on the product itself that it does not contain any traces of peanuts. Financial risks refer to the possibility that a product needs to be repaired or left unused. Performance risk happens when the product does not fulfill your needs. This can be the case when you bought a new computer that is not as fast as you expected. Social and psychological risks are related to instances where the self-esteem of the consumer can be harmed as in Will my friends laugh at me with my new T-shirt? Last, time risk is associated with the devaluation of the product over time. Thirdly, consumers can be motivated to CC because of the expected benefits, such as distinct different services and better service quality (Etgar, 2008). These three motives dissatisfaction with existing products, risk reduction, and expected benefits relate to the use of co-creating products and are therefore called pragmatic motives. A second reason for the consumer to co-create has to do with economic motives. Financial rewards can be given to the customer for the effort made in the CC process. These rewards can be direct, like receiving a monetary prize as it is the case with RedesignMe (supra, p.14) or profit sharing from the firm that engages in CC with them. A very recent example is the Lays action Create your own taste. Until today there is no such thing as the real Belgian chips taste. From 10 January 2011 on, every Belgian had the ability to be creative and develop a taste that can become part of the Lays product range in Belgium. A jury of three famous Belgian cooks chooses the two best flavors and those will be launched in October Again consumers are involved to vote for their favorite taste and the winning taste will be on the market as Limited Edition from the beginning of The winning participant will receive a prize and 1 % of the turnover 9. Financial rewards can also be indirectly through the intellectual property they might receive from engaging and especially winning in CC competitions (Hoyer et al., 2010). Next, consumers can expect cost reductions when co-creating as consumers perform an activity (Etgar, 2008). For the organization of your holiday, you can go to a travel agent who is concerned with the purchase of your airline tickets and booking of your hotel room. Instead of paying these rather expensive resources, customers can replace this service by making use of lower cost resources. The customer organizes the holiday himself by buying the airline tickets and hotel room directly on an Internet-based web site. 9 Visit <www.lays.be/press>. Accessed 05/04/

40 The desire for a better status, recognition and social esteem can be classified as personal motives (Etgar, 2008; Hoyer et al., 2010; Nambisan & Baron, 2009). In online CC customers can expose their knowledge of products and problem-solving skills. If they contribute to product support, an increase in their expertise-related status and reputation among peer customers as well as with the manufacturer is possible. They can influence peer customers products usage behavior and the product improvement plans of the vendor. As a consequence, a sense of self-efficacy may be realized (Kollock, 1999). A firm can give a form of recognition on individual, valuable contributors. For example, Amazon.com s Top 100 reviewer and other formal recognitions can give a feeling of pride to many of their receivers, because they get a visible symbol of their uniqueness relative to other consumers. Cognitive motives are found among customers motivated to co-create if they can gain technology, product or service knowledge through participating in development groups and forums run by the manufacturer (Hoyer et al., 2010). They can also acquire new skills (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010). Also strengthening of the understanding of the environment can be seen as a cognitive motive (Nambisan & Baron, 2009). For example, Blackberry has a forum where consumers can be part in all stages of the CC process. By exchanging ideas and inputs from others in the community, gains in technology knowledge can be achieved. Social motives refer to the expectation of enjoyment of sharing activities with people of similar interests and desires, referred to as social contact values (Berthon & John, 2006). Consumers can join actual or virtual CC communities and social networks, such as Harley- Davidson bike riders. These are non-commercial communities organized around particular experiences characterized by a collective consciousness, rituals and traditions, and a sense of moral responsibility (Etgar, 2008). Social motives also include the advantages derived from the social and relational ties that are formed over time among customers. Enhancements of a sense of belongingness or social identity are examples (Kollock, 1999). Customers CC motives can also be based on hedonic or affective motives as they long for pleasure, play and fun. Interactions between consumers can be a source of highly pleasurable as well as mentally stimulating experiences (Nambisan & Baron, 2009). Studies on brand communities show that customers derive an amount of pleasure when conversing about the product, its features and peculiarities of the usage context (Muniz & O Guinn, 2001). Next, the problem solving that is the basis of product support CC can be a source of mental or intellectual stimulation that forms another aspect of hedonic benefits. 26

41 Dependent variable 1: Enjoyment H1a: Regardless of the technology, customers that dispose of a high level to cocreate have a higher enjoyment than customers with a low level to co-create. (Main effect) H1b: There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology on the one hand, and customer enjoyment on the other hand. Füller (2010) also recently elaborated on consumer expectations from online CC and how their motivations and personalities influence those expectations. He states that consumer motives for CC may be heterogeneous and depend on their personality. With selfdetermination theory as starting point - a macro-theory of human motivation recently developed in the psychology (Vansteenkiste, Niemiecc & Soenens, 2010) - consumers engagement in CC is a function of intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation. A consumer is intrinsically motivated when he values an activity because of the gratification of the experience. Motivation is present inside. For example, you are a teacher because you like teaching and working with children. The second source of motivation, extrinsic motivation, implies that people will engage in CC activities not because of gratification and joy, but because a certain results needs to be obtained. For example, as a teacher you prepare the lessons well in order to get a positive evaluation at the end of the year. As intrinsic motivation originates from the person himself, extrinsic motivation is controlled from outside. Self-determination states that a part of the extrinsically initiated activities and behaviors can be internalized so that people will undertake extrinsic motivated actions and behaviors by themselves. In this way, autonomous or self-determined extrinsic motivation arises. It is a combination of intrinsic, internalized extrinsic and extrinsic motivation that drives people to engage in online CC activities. A summary of the ten motivation categories identified intrinsic playful, curiosity, self-efficacy, skill development, information seeking, recognition (visibility), community support, making friends, personal need (dissatisfaction), and compensation (monetary reward) - are represented in the figure below. [Insert Figure 9] 27

42 A cluster analysis grouped these motives to four different consumer types based on the degree of web-exploration and innovation behavior. [Insert Figure 10] Reward oriented consumers are very motivated to engage in online CC. They have a high interest in innovation activities and for their knowledge input they desire monetary rewards. Need-driven consumers engage in CC mainly because of dissatisfaction with existing products solutions available on the market. Curiosity interested consumers participate in CC because of curiosity. Finally, intrinsically motivated consumers yield high on emotional aspects connected with the innovation activity and are not interested in monetary rewards. 2.5 Cost-benefit analysis As the benefits of CC/CP for the customer are defined, they need to be weighed against the costs that are associated with engaging in a CC process. The end result is a cost-benefit analysis that determines whether the customer will engage in such CC process or rather avoid the involvement. In the definition of customer value (supra, p.15) financial, time, energy and psychic costs were distinguished. Etgar (2008) handles a similar classification making a distinction between economic and non-economic costs. Economic costs are the cost of using their operand material resources and the time customers have to spend on the CC process. Time is evaluated subjectively while material resources can be sometimes objectively compared with the market price. The non-economic costs concern the psychological and social losses a customer can experience in their CC effort. First of all, there is a loss of freedom as customers cannot choose between the different brands and suppliers that result from linking up with particular production partners. Another non-economic cost is the risks of misperformance. CC involvement demands cognitive effort and ability of the customers. If they are unskilled so that the customers do not know how to handle the experience environment provided by the company, no desired output can be obtained (Etgar, 2008). Hilton and Hughes (2008) state that the cognitive resources available to the individual are an important factor in using technological interfaces and thus in online CC. Some are more enthusiastic and capable in 28

43 using these interfaces, some are technologically anxious or lack experience in technology. It is clear that (online) CC asks physical effort of the customer, and maybe it is too exhaustive for the customer to take part in such a process. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a) suggest that access to computer and electronic communications technology skills are nowadays important to dialogue with firms and to engage in CC processes. This leads to the following proposition. Dependent variable 2: Cognitive effort and ability H2a: Regardless of the technology, customers that dispose of a high level to co create need more cognitive effort and ability than customers with a low level to co-create. (Main effect) H2b: Regardless of the degree of CC, customers that co-create online need more cognitive effort and ability than customers that co-create offline. (Main effect) H2c: There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology on the one hand, and customer cognitive effort and ability on the other hand. Another interesting question about these costs is how much a customer wants to pay for a product he made based on CC. Does he want a lower price because of the time and effort made in the CC process or does he want to pay more for the creation because the involvement gives him more value (McGraw & Tetlock, 2005)? Dependent variable 3: WTP H3a: Regardless of the technology, customers that dispose of a high level to cocreate are willing to pay more than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create. (Main effect) H3b: Regardless of the degree of CC, customers that co-create offline are more WTP than customers that co-create online. H3c: There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology on the one hand, and customer WTP on the other hand. 29

44 2.6 Where and with whom does CC occur in the value chain? Consumers now seek to exercise their influence in every part of the business system, not only at the point of exchange (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004b). I would like to make a distinction between CC for personal use and CC in NPD for commercialization. Concerning CC for personal use, such as the introduction examples of CC (supra, p.13), anyone can be part of a CC activity, based upon the net result between motives and benefits minus costs associated with engaging in a CC process as discussed above. Looking at the building blocks of CC (supra, section 2.3) some prefer not to dialogue at length about the product. If a person decides to engage in a CC activity, it does not necessarily mean that the CC experience will be positive. For example, if the customer believes that the interactions with the company did not go as they should, because the company dialogued unilaterally, behaved unfairly, or did not discuss the risks overtly, then the CC experience may be very negative. An interesting question is whether CC is the future for every single product (Interview with Mr. Goedertier, 10/02/2011, Vlerick Leuven Management School; Van Der Wal, 2007). How does CE differ from CC in a high involvement product as opposed to a low involvement product? High product involvement has been researched to lead to greater perception of differences in attributes, perception of greater product importance and greater commitment to brand choice (Howard & Seth, 1969). Bauer et al. (2006) set up a measurement model for product involvement and came to the conclusion that product involvement is a function of sign value, importance and pleasure of the product to a particular person. This leads to the last variable. In the experiment this variable can be used to check its influence on the hypotheses as stated above. Moderating variable: Product involvement Next, the area of NPD is a context where consumer CC is essential (Hoyer et al., 2010). Now consumers have the opportunity and willingness to brainstorm on and discuss ideas for new goods and services that may fulfill needs that not yet have been met by the market or ameliorate existing offerings (Ernst et al., 2010). In the context of NPD, O Hern and Rindfleisch (2009, p.4) define CC as A collaborative new product development (NDP) activity in which consumers actively contribute and select various elements of a new product 30

45 offering. The customer is in other words an active player in the NPD process. A great example in which customers are involved in all steps of a NPD process - idea generation, screening and investigation, specification of features, product development, beta testing or field testing, product launch and evaluation (Dwyer & Tanner, 2009) - is the collaboration between customer groups and the Volvo Company concerning the XC90 NPD process. A group of people was invited for several meetings over time. Expectations and opinions were extracted about SUVs in general to be used in the concept development phase. Focus groups around interior and exterior design were organized and ultimately a test drive was offered in the final version of the XC90. Every participant received $ 50 but this was less of an incentive than the social value that was derived from the meetings and the opportunity to be heard. But who will take part in this form of CC, CC as innovation? Not everybody is interested or able to be part of a CC process in NPD. In firms that possess a huge customer base, only a relative small amount of people will be willing to be fully engaged in or have the skills to be useful in the product development and launch processes (Etgar, 2008; O Hern & Rindfleisch, 2009). Investigators have recently identified segments of consumers that might be especially willing and able to engage in these CC activities. 1. Innovators Rogers (1995) set up a theory in his book Diffusion of Innovations about how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technologies spread through cultures. He defines an adopter category as the classifications of members of a social system on the basis of innovativeness. A total of five categories of adopters in order to standardize the usage of adopter categories in diffusion research were distinguished: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. An S-curve is the reproduction of the innovation adoptions when plotted over a length of time as shown in the figure below. [Insert Figure 11] Innovators are the consumers who are the earliest to adopt new products. They have many characteristics: very young, risk loving, highest social class, great financial lucidity, very social, closest contact to scientific sources and interaction with other innovators (Rogers, 1995). 31

46 2. Lead users A term developed by Von Hippel (1986). These people face needs that will eventually be general in a marketplace. They face these needs before the majority of the marketplace recognizes them and are therefore well positioned to solve these needs themselves. 3. Emergent consumers These are consumers that are capable of applying judgment and intuition for the improvement of product concepts that mainstream consumers will find pleasing and helpful (Hoffman et al., 2010). 4. Market mavens The last segment of consumers that especially will be willing and able to engage in NPD CC activities are the market mavens. These people possess a lot of information about a wide range of products, shopping places and other facets of the market. They also have a high propensity to set up discussions and respond to information requests from other consumers (Feick & Price, 1987). 32

47 Part II: Empirical study 3. Purpose of the study A research study starts with the preparation of a management question. Through collecting appropriate information, this question should be answered by the research study with a high degree of certainty. Starting from the management question, a hierarchy of other questions can be derived. First of all, the management question needs to be translated to the research question. Next, the research question is translated into investigative questions, a more specific description of the different needs questions that need to be answered. Finally, the investigative questions are converted into measurement questions, specific questions and examination procedures by which the information will be collected (De Pelsmacker & Van Kenhove, 2006). 3.1 Management question The purpose of this study is to understand the impact of customer participation on customer experience. The management question can be formulated as follows: What is the effect of evolving from mass customization (referred to as low degree of CC) to CC (referred to as high degree of CC) concerning a customer s experience? Is it useful to go one step further? 3.2 Research questions The research questions will determine the type of information which the research must provide to answer the management question (De Pelsmacker & Van Kenhove, 2006). 1. What is the impact of the degree of CC and technology on customer enjoyment? 2. What is the impact of the degree of CC and technology on customer WTP? 3. What is the impact of the degree of CC and technology on customer cognitive effort and ability? 4. What is the impact of customer product involvement on the relationship between degree of CC on the one hand, and WTP and customer enjoyment on the other hand? 33

48 3.3 Investigative questions The investigative questions are in fact the implicit hypotheses that support the model and will be tested during the research (De Pelsmacker & Van Kenhove, 2006). All these hypotheses were developed based on a literature study in the previous section. A summary of the developed hypotheses for each dependent variable is given together with tables for clarification. 1. Enjoyment H1a: Regardless of the technology, customers that dispose of a high level to cocreate have a higher enjoyment than customers with a low level to co-create. (Main effect) Degree of CC High Low Customer enjoyment Customer enjoyment Table 1: H1a H1b: There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology on the one hand, and customer enjoyment on the other hand. 2. Cognitive effort & ability H2a: Regardless of the technology, customers that dispose of a high level to cocreate need more cognitive effort and ability than customers with a low level to co-create. (Main effect) Degree of CC High Low Cognitive effort & ability Cognitive effort & ability Table 2: H2a H2b: Regardless of the degree of CC, customers that co-create online need more cognitive effort and ability than customers that co-create offline. (Main effect) Technology Online Offline Cognitive effort & ability Cognitive effort & ability Table 3: H2b H2c: There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology on the one hand, and customer cognitive effort and ability on the other hand. 34

49 3. WTP H3a: Regardless of the technology, customers that dispose of a high level to cocreate are willing to pay more than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create. (Main effect) Degree of CC High Low Cognitive effort & ability Cognitive effort & ability Table 4: H3a H3b: Regardless of the degree of CC, customers that co-create offline are more WTP than customers that co-create online. (Main effect) Technology Online Offline Cognitive effort & ability Cognitive effort & ability Table 5: H3b H3c: There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology on the one hand, and customer WTP on the other hand. If there is indeed an interaction effect as hypotheses H1b, H2c and H3c state, the following hypotheses are set up for the interaction effect. 1. Enjoyment H1c: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an online environment have a higher enjoyment than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an online environment. H1d: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an offline environment have a higher enjoyment than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an offline environment. Technology/Degree of CC High Low Online Customer enjoyment Customer enjoyment Offline Customer enjoyment Customer enjoyment Table 6: H1c/H1d 35

50 H1e: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an online environment have a higher enjoyment than customers that dispose of a high level of CC in an offline environment. H1f: Customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an online environment have a higher enjoyment than customers that dispose of a low level of CC in an offline environment. Degree of CC/Technology Online Offline High Customer enjoyment Customer enjoyment Low Customer enjoyment Customer enjoyment Table 7: H1e/H1f 2. Cognitive effort and ability H2d: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an online environment need more cognitive effort and ability than customers with a low level to co-create in an online environment. H2e: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an offline environment need more cognitive effort and ability than customers with a low level to co-create in an offline environment. Technology/Degree of CC High Low Online Cognitive effort & ability Cognitive effort & ability Offline Cognitive effort & ability Cognitive effort & ability Table 8: H2d/H2e H2f: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an online environment need more cognitive effort and ability than customers with a high level to co-create in an offline environment. H2g: Customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an online environment need more cognitive effort and ability than customers with a low level to co-create in an offline environment. Degree of CC/Technology Online Offline High Cognitive effort & ability Cognitive effort & ability Low Cognitive effort & ability Cognitive effort & ability Table 9: H2f/H2g 36

51 3. WTP H3d: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an online environment have a higher WTP than customers that dispose of a low level of co- creation in an online environment. H3e: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an offline environment have a higher WTP than customers that dispose of a low level of co- creation in an offline environment. Technology/Degree of CC High Low Online WTP WTP Offline WTP WTP Table 10: H3d/H3e H3f: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an offline environment have a higher WTP than customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an online environment. H3g: Customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an offline environment have a higher WTP than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an online environment. Degree of CC/Technology Online Offline High WTP WTP Low WTP WTP Table 11: H3f/H3g 3.4 Measurement questions These are the specific survey questions that can be found in appendix A. 37

52 4. Data analysis 4.1 Sample & procedure To find an answer to these questions an online survey was used for data collection. After an offline pre-test with 10 participants, data collection with the final, adjusted questionnaire was conducted within 2 weeks. As manipulation check, respondents had to perceive a difference between high and low degree of CC. Both high and low degree was presented in the pre-test and scenarios were adjusted until a difference in the independent variable degree of CC was clear. Starting point for the experimental design (i.e. the online survey) was a 2* 2 full factorial design, derived from the figure below. [Insert Figure 12] Two variables Degree of CC and Technology were manipulated. Each variable was measured on two levels; degree of CC: high versus low, and technology: online versus offline. This resulted in four scenarios (X1, X2, X3, X4): Degree of CC/ Technology Online Offline High X1 X2 Low X3 X4 Table 12: Set up experiment Each respondent was presented one scenario randomly (X1, X2, X3 or X4). To analyze the data with a sufficient statistical certainty, a minimum of 2*2*30 or 120 observations were needed in total. Consequently, at least 30 observations per condition were collected as shown in table 12. Degree of CC/ Technology Online Offline High degree of CC N=34 N=42 Low degree of CC N=30 N=43 Table 13: N-values per condition in the experiment A total of 149 people filled in the questionnaire completely. 26 were excluded. Possible reasons are lack of time and/or Basic English to fill in the survey. A non-restrictive sample was taken. 38

53 Within the total sample, 56 % of the respondents were male, 44 % female. On average, participants were years old (SD=13.00 years) and well educated: 49 % held a college degree. In each questionnaire, the respondent was presented one of the following combinations of independent variables: High degree of CC + Online (X1); High degree of CC + Offline (X2); Low degree of CC + Online (X3); or Low degree of CC + Offline (X4). The survey started with an introduction in which people were encouraged to carefully read the scenario they would be given. Next, some demographics were asked: gender, age, education and profession. Then a first scenario was shown (accompanied by a picture for the clarity and empathy) with a specific product to co-create: a garment. Starting question for this scenario had to do with the first dependent variable Enjoyment regarding CC for a garment. The following questions concerned the second dependent variable WTP. Then, questions for the third dependent variable Cognitive effort and ability were presented. The last questions consisted of the fourth dependent variable Product involvement. After the first scenario 3 similar scenarios were presented, each scenario with another product to co-create: a computer, a ball pen and a car. For each of these scenarios identical questions as the ones above were presented except some questions about cognitive effort and ability as this depends on the independent variables (X1, X2, X3 or X4). The purpose of the presentation of these four products for CC is to collect both high involvement and low involvement products. Finally, respondents were thanked for their contribution to the experiment. Summarized, each respondent was presented 1 scenario X1, X2, X3 or X4 as a combination of 2 independent variables as explained above; within this scenario, 4 small scenarios where only the product to co-create changed (garment, computer, ball pen and car) were presented. In total, 4 dependent variables were used: enjoyment, WTP, cognitive effort and ability and product involvement. Independent variables Dependent variables Moderating variables Degree of CC Enjoyment Product involvement Technology WTP Cognitive effort and ability Table 14: Summary variables experiment 39

54 4.2 Results All questions for the 4 dependent variables were adapted from existing, tested questionnaires (consult appendix B): 1. Enjoyment: 7-point interval scaled (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree). The following questions were combined to form the dependent variable Enjoyment : According to the scenario you just read (X1, X2, X3 or X4), this will be A. Enjoyable B. Entertaining C. Fun D. Interesting 2. WTP: ratio scaled. The following technique was used to measure the WTP: Suppose that the average market price in a shopping store for the product you will co-create is Y euros. A. Would you pay Y + 20% euros for your creation according to the scenario? (= medium price increase) B. If answer is yes on question A: Would you pay Y + 40%? (= high price increase) C. If answer is no on question A: Would you pay Y + 10%? (= low price increase) D. What is the maximum amount you want to pay (in ) for your creation according to the scenario? The last question (D) was used for the analysis. 3. Cognitive effort and ability: 7-point interval scaled (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree). The following questions were taken together to form the dependent variable Cognitive effort and ability : In case of the online scenarios X1(internet software) and X3 (option menu): A. I would become confused when I use the internet software/option menu. B. I would find it cumbersome to use the internet software/option menu. C. I find it easy to get the internet software/option menu to do what I want it to do. D. I would find the internet software/option menu rigid and inflexible to interact with. E. Interacting with the internet software/option menu will be frustrating. F. I will find it easy to learn how to work with the internet software/option menu. 40

55 G. Interacting with the internet software/option menu will be easy for me to understand. H. Overall, I find internet software/option menus easy to use. Questions C, E, F and G were converted into the same direction as the other questions. In case of the offline scenarios X2 and X4: A. I would find it cumbersome to interact with the employee. B. I would it hard to create the garment together with the employee exactly the way I want it to look. C. It will be easy to interact with the employee about what the garment should look like. D. Creating a garment together with an employee will be frustrating. E. It will cost me a lot of effort to create the garment piece with the employee. Question C was converted into the same direction as the other questions. 4. Product involvement: 7-point interval scaled (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree): The following questions were taken together to form the dependent variable Product involvement : In the scenario you were asked to create Y (garment, computer, ball pen or car). The next questions are general questions about Y. Y A. Helps me express my personality. B. Tells other people something about me. C. Is part of my self-image D. Does not reflect my personality E. Is not relevant to me. F. Matters to me G. Is of no concern to me. H. Is important to me. I. Is fun. J. Is fascinating. K. Is exciting. L. Is interesting. Questions D, E and G were converted into the same direction as the other questions. 41

56 First a data control was conducted. In the questions for WTP, some people did not fill in a price because they did not know what amount they would be willing to pay in the scenario they were presented. Some people also filled in an amount of zero in the WTP questions. As these are outliers and reflected that they were not interested (reasons like no time or low product involvement) rather than really willing to pay nothing, these answers were excluded from data analysis. As the questions were adapted from existing questionnaires, only a Cronbach Alpha analysis was conducted to measure whether the interval scaled items (questions) form the same construct (dependent variable). In other words, are the items internally consistent? As an example, Cronbach Alpha is represented in table 15 below per construct (interval scaled dependent variable) for scenario X1 and the products that were presented for CC. SCENARIO X1 Enjoyment Cognitive effort and ability Product involvement Garment, computer, ball pen and car Table 15: Cronbach alpha interval scaled items From the table above I can conclude that the internal consistency of the three constructs Enjoyment, Cognitive effort and ability, and Product involvement are reliable. See appendix C for more detail. The internal consistency in the other scenarios for the different constructs is also reliable. For an overview, consult appendix D. 42

57 For the full factorial design, is it appropriate to analyze the data with the General Linear Univariate Model. The advantage of this two-way analysis of variance is that next to the main effect of one independent variable on a dependent variable, possible interaction effects of the two independent variables on a dependent variable can be retrieved. In other words, a twoway analysis of variance executes two one-way analysis of variance tests and a test for interaction all put together in one single table. The goal is to check whether the means of different groups are equal. Consequently, the hypothesis that the means are equal is refuted when the p-value < First, the effect of degree of CC and technology on customer enjoyment will be investigated. The following table shows the results. DF F p Intercept <.01 DegreeCC Technology DegreeCC * Technology <.01 Table 16: Output dependent variable enjoyment The explanatory power of this model is 7.3%. Table 16 shows that the degree of CC has a significant effect on customer enjoyment (F(1) = 4.13; p = 0.04). When you dispose of a high degree to co-create (M = 4.82), people have a higher enjoyment than when you dispose of a low degree to co-create (M = 4.53) which is in line with hypothesis H1a. Technology does not have a significant effect on customer enjoyment (F(1) = 0.20; p = 0.65). There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology, and customer enjoyment (F(1) = 8.41; p <.01), which confirms hypothesis H1b. Where the interaction occurs can be derived from figure 13 below supported by the 95% confidence intervals. 43

58 People with a high degree of CC in an online environment (M = 5.14) have a higher enjoyment than people with a low degree to co-create in an online environment (M = 4.28), which confirms hypothesis H1c. People with a high degree to co-create in an offline environment (M = 4.56) enjoy it less than people with a low degree to co-create in an offline environment (M = 4.71). If we compare the 95% confidence intervals, there is an overlap between the confidence interval of high degree of CC + offline and low degree of CC + offline. Consequently, this difference is not significant so that hypothesis H1d is refuted. Hypothesis H1e which states that customers online enjoyment in a high degree of CC (M = 5.14) will be higher than customers offline enjoyment in a high degree of CC (M = 4.56), is refuted as there is again an overlap in the 95% confidence intervals. Finally, hypothesis H1f is refuted as customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in online environment (M = 4.28) have a lower enjoyment than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an offline environment (M = 4.71) and this difference is not significant. More detail of the results can be found in appendix E. 44

59 The second analysis is also a two-way analysis of variance that examines the effect of degree of CC and technology on customer cognitive effort and ability. DF F p Intercept <.01 DegreeCC Technology DegreeCC * Technology Table 17: Output dependent variable cognitive effort and ability The explanatory power of this model is 10.6%. Table 17 shows that the degree of CC has a significant effect on customer cognitive effort and ability (F(1) = 6.31; p = 0.01). People who dispose of a high degree to co-create (M = 4.04), have to put in more effort than when they dispose of a low degree to co-create (M = 3.47) which aligns with hypothesis H2a. Technology also has a significant effect on customer enjoyment (F(1) = 4.12; p = 0.04). When people co-create online (M = 3.53) they need less cognitive effort and ability than people that co-create offline (M = 3.94), regardless of the degree of CC so that hypothesis H2b is disproved. Hypothesis H2c is confirmed as there is also an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology, and a customer s cognitive effort and ability needed (F(1) = 4.95; p = 0.03). The occurrence of interaction can be derived from figure 14 below. 45

60 People with a high degree of CC in an online environment (M = 3.56) need more cognitive effort and ability than people with a low degree to co-create in an online environment (M = 3.50). As this difference is not significant, hypothesis H2d is refuted. People with a high degree to co-create in an offline environment (M = 4.43) need more effort than people with a low degree to co-create in an offline environment (M = 3.46), which confirms hypothesis H2e. Hypothesis H2f which states that customers online cognitive effort and ability in a high degree of CC (M = 3.56) will be higher than customers offline enjoyment in a high degree of CC (M = 4.43), is refuted. Finally, hypothesis H2g who says that customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in online environment (M = 3.50) need more effort than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an offline environment (M = 3.46), is refuted as there is a strong overlap in the 95% confidence intervals of low degree of CC + online and low degree of CC + offline. More detail of the results of the second dependent variable can be found in appendix F. A third analysis examines the effect of degree of CC and technology on customer WTP. Here, the effect of degree of CC and technology on the WTP for a garment, computer, ball pen and car is investigated. 1. WTP garment DF F p Intercept <.01 DegreeCC <.01 Technology DegreeCC * Technology Table 18: Output dependent variable WTP garment The R square of this model is 9.0%. Table 18 shows that the degree of CC has a significant effect on customer WTP (F(1) = 1.03; p = <.01). When you dispose of a high degree to cocreate (M = 45.26), people are willing to pay more than when you dispose of a low degree to co-create (M = 34.51) which aligns with hypothesis H3a. Technology has no significant effect on customer WTP (F(1) = 0.11; p = 0.74). Consequently, hypothesis H3b is disproved. There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology, and the WTP of customers (F(1) = 4.95; p = 0.03) which confirms hypothesis H3c. Where the interaction occurs can be derived from figure 15 below. 46

61 People with a high degree of CC in an online environment (M = 50.29) are willing to pay more than people with a low degree to co-create in an online environment (M = 30.53) so hypothesis H3d is confirmed. People with a high degree to co-create in an offline environment (M = 41.19) have a higher WTP than people with a low degree to co-create in an offline environment (M = 37.28). If we look at the confidence intervals, this difference is not significant so hypothesis H3e is refuted. Hypothesis H3f which states that customer s online WTP in a high degree of CC (M = 50.29) will be lower than a customer s offline WTP in a high degree of CC (M = 41.19), is refuted as this difference is not significant. Finally, hypothesis H3g who says that customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in online environment (M = 30.53) have a lower WTP than customers that dispose of a low level to cocreate in an offline environment (M = 37.28), is also refuted as there is an overlap in the 95% confidence intervals of low degree of CC + online and low degree of CC + offline. More detail of the results of WTP of a garment can be found in appendix G. 47

62 2. WTP computer DF F p Intercept <.01 DegreeCC Technology DegreeCC * Technology Table 19: Output dependent variable WTP computer The explanatory power of this model is only 3.3%. Table 19 shows that the degree of CC does not have a significant effect on customer WTP for a computer (F(1) = 2.28; p = 0.13) so hypothesis H3a is refuted. Hypothesis H3b is also refuted as technology has no significant effect on the WTP (F(1) = 1.14; p = 0.29). Hypothesis H3c together with H3d-g are refuted as there is no interaction effect between degree of CC and technology, and WTP for a computer (F(1) = 0.66; p = 0.42). More details of the results of WTP of a garment can be found in appendix H. 3. WTP ball pen DF F p Intercept DegreeCC Technology DegreeCC * Technology Table 20: Output dependent variable WTP ball pen The explanatory power of this model is only 2.7%. Table 20 shows that the degree of CC does not have a significant effect on customer WTP for a ball pen (F(1) = 1.87; p = 0.18) so hypothesis H3a is refuted. Hypothesis H3b is also refuted as technology has no significant effect on the WTP (F(1) = 0.01; p = 0.92). Hypothesis H3c together with H3d-g are refuted as there is no interaction effect between degree of CC and technology, and WTP for a ball pen (F(1) = 1.01; p = 0.32). More details of the results of WTP of a ball pen can be found in appendix I. 48

63 4. WTP car DF F p Intercept <.01 DegreeCC Technology DegreeCC * Technology Table 21: Output dependent variable WTP car The explanatory power of this model is only 2.9%. Table 21 shows that the degree of CC does not have a significant effect on customer WTP for a car (F(1) = 3.59; p = 0.06) so hypothesis H3a is refuted. Hypothesis H3b is also refuted as technology has no significant effect on the WTP (F(1) = 0.13; p = 0.72). Hypothesis H3c together with H3d-g are refuted as there is no interaction effect between degree of CC and technology, and WTP for a car (F(1) = 0.22; p = 0.64). More details of the results of WTP of a car can be found in appendix J. A summary of all the hypotheses with results can be found in appendix K. 4.3 Partial conclusions experiment - discussion As I suspected, the results proof that people have a higher enjoyment when they dispose of a high level to co-create (H1a: main effect), especially in an online environment (H1c: interaction effect). Nowadays you can find a lot of low degree of CC examples, referred to as mass customization, in which people are limited to the choices a company provides. It is the company that decides what can be customized in order to suit the supply chain. In this case the degree of freedom of a customer is limited. A high degree of CC along with the technologies used as a platform for experience environments has enabled the realization of a basic human need, which is the need to be creative, the need to be socially involved, the need to participate which results in a higher enjoyment. If you give someone the means to interact with the company and other people co-creatively, people will utilize this (Interview with Francis Gouillart about the power of CC, 2010). The Self-Determination Theory as discussed above (supra, p.26), reveals that autonomous motivation is determined by the extent to which people s three basic psychological needs are fulfilled. These needs are the extent to which people feel competent, feel related to others and have the feeling that they 49

64 can act autonomously (Vansteenkiste, Ryan, Deci, 2008). People with a high degree of CC will have a higher autonomy, because a high degree of CC fosters a sense of freedom. Customers are no longer limited to the customization options of a company. Secondly, the need for relatedness is more fulfilled due to the existence of the building blocks of CC: dialogue, access, risk-assessment and transparency. The need for competence has increased also as people can now fully on what the co-created product must look like; customers have more control over the situation. The better fulfillment of these three needs enhances the autonomous motivation of people. As enjoyment is the purest form of intrinsic motivation (see Figure 9) and intrinsic motivation is part of autonomous motivation (see figure below), the higher enjoyment of people with a high degree of CC can also be explained from a Self-Determination Theory perspective. [Insert Figure 16] As I suspected, there is no difference in enjoyment between online and offline CC. A possible reason may be that some people like to chat with other unknown people, but have a social anxiety or dislike to communicate with strangers face to face. Others may be very social and prefer to co-create offline. Therefore, the choice between online and offline CC can depend on the person s personality. I expected that people who have a high degree of CC need more cognitive effort and ability (H2a: main effect) and this hypothesis is confirmed. When you dispose of a low degree of CC, this does not really require a lot of effort as people just have to pick their choices from the option menu provided by the company. When you dispose of a high level to co-create, people need more physical and psychological effort. Especially in online CC, it will depend upon the cognitive resources available to the individual and his capabilities to use new technologies. Some people may be technologically fearful while others may be more willing to experiment with new technologies (Hilton, Hughes, 2008). There must be a match between the cognitive resources available to the individual and the amount of cognitive resources a new technology demands from the customer. It is the company s task to reduce this cost associated with CC to a minimum. Companies will have to build an experience environment in which people need a minimum of effort to co-create a unique personalized experience. An important factor in the realization of this goal is to educate the customer by giving him support and training. Also in a world in which the population ages this is an interesting challenge. Apparently, and this was unexpected, people need more cognitive effort and ability in an offline environment (H2b: main effect). A logical explanation for this 50

65 result is the high education of the respondents (49.0% held a college degree) and the fact that 36.2 % of the respondents can be classified under Generation Y, which is twice the percentage of the population belonging to that age group (18.6% based on figures for ). People from generation Y are now between 16 and 30 years old and are characterized by being technological savvy (De Pelsmacker, Geuens, Van den Bergh). Consequently, they are familiar with different technologies so that their online effort will be smaller than the offline effort needed for CC. Concerning the WTP for each of the co-created products garment, computer, ball pen and car the results only show a significant higher WTP for a garment when customers dispose of a high degree of CC as opposed to a low degree of CC (H3a: main effect), especially in an online environment (H3d). Nor for a computer, ball pen or car, the results show a significant higher WTP. A post hoc analysis should try to reveal the reason for this ambiguity. A factor that can affect the dependent variable WTP is the income of the respondent and this variable was not taken into account. For example, people with a high income may willing to pay a lot more for co-creating a product, although they have a low product involvement. Conversely, people with a very high product involvement will have a high interest for CC but their low income does not allow them to pay more for a co-created product than market price. Technology has no influence on the WTP (H3b: main effect). A possible reason for this may be that some people prefer not to buy products on the web because they do not trust online purchases. People may be afraid of giving their credit card number, thinking that their data will be abused or they will never receive their order. Other people might prefer online purchases because of convenience, speed and time savings. These two effects may cancel each other out so that no difference in technology is recognized. Technology only has an impact on the cognitive effort and ability (not on enjoyment and WTP) where people need more effort an offline environment (H2b: main effect). As it will be too expensive for companies to pay their employees for letting a customer co-create products with them for personal use, and as people need more effort for offline CC (technological skills seem to be higher than social skills nowadays), I conclude that the future of CC lies in the World Wide Web. Companies must try to build an online experience environment where people can cocreate a unique personalized experience. 10 Visit <http://economie.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/cijfers/bevolking/structuur/leeftijdgeslacht/pyramide>. Accessed 10/05/

66 4.4 Post hoc analysis The fact that customers are only willing to pay more for a garment in a high degree of CC and the WTP for a computer, ball pen and car is the same in both high and low degree of CC raises the question as to what causes this determination. A factor that can have an important influence in the relationship between degree of CC and technology on the one hand, and the WTP on the other hand is a customer s product involvement. To start the analysis, some variables are recoded. The construct Product involvement is interval scaled on a 7-point scale. Product involvement for a garment, computer, ball pen and car were recoded. All values equal or above a 5 mean a high product involvement; with a value less than 5 we talk about low product involvement. A two-way analysis of variance checks the effect of degree of CC and technology on the WTP for people who have a high product involvement for a garment, computer, ball pen and car. WTP garment DF F P Intercept <.01 DegreeCC Technology DegreeCC * Technology Table 22: Output moderating variable: High product involvement garment. WTP computer DF F P Intercept ,<.01 DegreeCC Technology DegreeCC * Technology Table 23: Output moderating variable: High product involvement computer. 52

67 WTP ball pen DF F P Intercept DegreeCC Technology DegreeCC * Technology Table 24: Output moderating variable: High product involvement ball pen. WTP car DF F P Intercept <.01 DegreeCC Technology DegreeCC * Technology Table 25: Output moderating variable: High product involvement car. If you take another look at the results of the dependent variable WTP now for people who have a high product involvement, there is not only a significant difference in the WTP for a garment (F(1) = 6.69; p = 0.01) depending on the degree of CC, but also for a computer (F(1) = 4.55; p = 0.04) and a car (F(1) = 4.42; p = 0.04). Hypothesis H3a which states that people with a high degree of CC are willing to pay more than people with a low degree of CC can now not only be confirmed for a garment (M high degree of CC = 47.55; M low degree of CC = 36.48), but also for a computer (M high degree of CC = ; M low degree of CC = ) and car (M high degree of CC = ; M low degree of CC = ) if we take into account only people with a high product involvement. For a ball pen, the difference between high and low degree of CC is not significant (F(1) = 0.14; p = 0.73). The reason for this is that only 7 out of the 149 respondent classify a ball pen as high involvement product so that generally this product is perceived as a low involvement product. More detail can be found in appendices L, M, N and O. What is also remarkable in the post hoc analysis is the fact that people with a high product involvement are generally willing to pay more. The following table shows the differences in the means of the WTP of all the respondents for a garment, computer and car versus the mean in WTP for a garment, computer and car for people with a high product involvement. 53

68 WTP (in ) Degree of CC All Respondents High product involved respondents WTP Garment High Low WTP Computer High Low WTP Car High Low Table 26: Means WTP all respondents versus high product involved respondents. Also the enjoyment of people with a high product involvement is higher than the mean of all respondents. For more detail, see appendix P. Degree of CC All respondents High product involved respondents Enjoyment (7-point High scale) Low Table 27: Means Enjoyment all respondents versus high product involved respondents. The WTP for a ball pen as low involvement product does not show any differences for a high versus low degree of CC. This raises the question whether there are any differences in the enjoyment for the CC of a ball pen. In the previous analysis the construct enjoyment was analyzed for the four products together. Now, I want to what the effect on the enjoyment is for a ball pen only. An independent samples T-test checks the impact of the degree of CC on the enjoyment of co-creating a ball pen. People with a high degree of CC (M = 3.87) do not have a significant higher enjoyment than people with a low degree to co-create a ball pen (M = 3.49) (t(147) = 1.38; p = 0.17). Consult appendix Q for more detail. 4.5 Partial conclusions post hoc analysis - discussion The determination in the previous analysis of the WTP was that there is no difference in WTP depending on the degree of CC. This is due to the fact that in the previous analysis people with both high and low product involvement cancelled each other out so that there was no significant difference. Now that only people with a high degree of CC are taken into account, significant differences in the WTP for a garment, computer and car are clear. Consequently, I 54

69 can state that there is a higher WTP for a product when a person disposes of a high degree of CC as opposed to a low degree of CC if that person has a high product involvement. In this way the previous analysis of the WTP is refined. People with a high product involvement are the potential customers. Those people have a high interest in a particular product and therefore have a higher likelihood to co-create that product. As high product involved people show even a higher WTP and enjoyment for CC than in the previous where both high and low involved people were taken into account, this strengthens the results: CC was proved to lead to a higher enjoyment and WTP (WTP after a post hoc analysis) and this is even higher for high product involved people. The fact that a ball pen does not show any differences between high and low degree of CC concerning the WTP and enjoyment, this means that it is not useful as a company to take the opportunity to let customers co-create a ball pen for personal use. Mass customization is enough. This is in line with Etgar (2008) who states that CP will occur mainly in product categories where there are large and noticeable differences of product attributes among different items or brands, whether physical or perceived (Etgar, 2008, p. 100). Similarly, a ball pen has not a lot of attributes so that Etgars conclusions can be extended from CP to CC. Other products like detergents or toilet paper also do not have many different attributes. Consequently, I can conclude that low involvements products will not be the future of CC. 4.6 Main conclusion In general, I can conclude that the answer on the management question whether it is useful to go from mass customization towards CC is a definite Yes. Indeed, it is a necessity. Companies do not dictate any longer how value is created so they have to learn co-creating value together with their customers. It is becoming a competitive imperative. As the role of consumers changed from passive to active and their influence on value creation has never been greater than today, companies should listen to them by embracing the concept of CC. Thanks to the Internet word-of-mouth, dialogues, comments, ideas reveal what consumers value and this information is freely available in information networks. If you, as a company, do not take into account this intelligence to create an even better customer experience, you will be passed by your competitors who will. For the customer, CC enhances the enjoyment as opposed to mass customization and the positive outcome for a company is the higher WTP. However, the latter should be refined and state that a high product involvement leads to a higher WTP. But this is not a problem as people with a high product involvement are 55

70 most likely to be interested in co-creating that particular product. Consequently, low involvement products are not appropriate for CC. Applications of CC can happen online or offline, but the future will be online as people nowadays have more technological skills and would need more effort to co-create in an offline customer-employee relationship. Put simply, companies should build online experience environments where people can co-create their own unique personalized experience. 56

71 5. Limitations and further research 5.1 Limitations of the research In this master dissertation, CC was approached by a B2C side from a customer s perspective. As mentioned under section 2.6, people can co-create for personal use and in NPD. The experiment only captures CC for personal use. The questionnaire was solely completed by Belgian respondents. As this master thesis is written in English and thus the survey too, an understanding of Basic English to fill out the survey was required. As a consequence, people with little or no acquaintance of this language were excluded from participation. A third limitation is about the online fulfilment of the questionnaire. In the first trimester of 2010, Eurostat calculated that 73% of the Belgian households dispose of an internet connection 11. Consequently, 27% of the households were prevented from participating. A last limitation is the fact that the scenario based experiment talks about making your own garment, computer, ball pen and car in general. There were no existing brands for each of the products mentioned or taken into account. Etgar (2008) indicates the importance of product linked factors as a prior condition for consumers to be willing to co-create. The existence of powerful brands such as designer clothing (for example Armani) have developed brand personalities to convince consumers with a specific product attribute matrix to fit the customer needs best (Ries & Trout, 2000; Aaker, 1996). In this case, consumers will not be interested in changing or customizing a famous brand because it will lose its social or psychological benefits of using or wearing such a brand. In the experiment, people were asked to imagine creating their own garment. As a starting position they could make the association with their own clothing brands or car brand. These can include such brand personalities and may therefore have an influence on the results. 11 < Accessed 10/05/

72 5.2 Directions for further research and managerial implications The book The Power of Co-Creation: Build It With Them to Boost Growth, Productivity, and Profits (Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010) is an illustration for managers how CC of value is the next business paradigm for all enterprises in the 21st century, and how the next generation of organizations entails building capabilities for a co-creative enterprise 12. The question is whether the company is ready to embrace the new framework of CC. Traditional roles of the firm are being challenged (supra, p.20) as the points of interaction between company and consumer increase. These contact points provide opportunities for collaboration and negotiation between company and consumer as well as opportunities for those processes to break down (Prahalad & Ramswamy, 2004c). I think that a part of the answer may be found in the culture of an organization. Schein (2010, p ) defines it as A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way you perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. If everything in the organization is directed from top management, better known as top-down approach, the need to change from a company-centric view to a customercentric view might not be visible or if it is recognized by lower levels, not accepted by the institutional leaders of the firm. Lower levels of management are closer to the consumers, communicate more with them and thus know more about changes in the marketplace. Put simply, how does organization culture affect the ability to adapt the new EE along with the concept of CC? Many of the current mass customization and emerging CC applications occur online. At this moment almost 2 billion people out of a worldwide population of 6.85 billion people have an internet connection 13. This penetration amount will still grow in the future. As the web can provide an unprecedented number of touch-points between firm and end-consumer, so it will be interesting for companies to have the ability to co-create on a global scale in order to boost profits. CC/CP takes place in mature economies and not in emerging or growing markets (Johansson, 2006). In emerging markets, the focus is on the consumption of basic products to fulfill the needs of people. In the early stages of a country s economic development, customers are not that interested in customizing products but rather survive with existing 12 Visit <http://www.powerofcocreation.com/content/about-book>. Accessed 09/04/ Visit <http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm>. Accessed 11/04/

73 regular products. In growth markets CC is not an issue. Growth economies provide developments that create mass markets. Customers want to improve their living standards by buying low cost, mass produced and standardized goods (Etgar, 2008). Brazil, Russia, India and China - better known as the BRIC countries - are examples of such fast growing markets. Once they reach the phase of maturity, it is just a question of how companies will respond to these evolutions and try to get a first mover advantage by leveraging the concept of CC. As CC initiatives in NPD for market launch may rise to successful new ideas and outputs, one can ask oneself whether the company or the consumer as co-creator/co-innovator has the right of ownership of intellectual property. Some people may be co-creating because of motives discussed in section 2.4 where little or no importance is given to economic motives. Other people might be co-creating only because of extrinsic motivation, in particular financial rewards, and this can cause some potential problems. Suppose your submission for a famous company has become a great success and you are rewarded only 500. Is this sufficient to motivate people to generate successful ideas? This can create perceptions of unfairness among contributing consumers. Do they want to retain full ownership over intellectual property? Should there be a policy of consistency in intellectual property? As firms and CC contributors want the intellectual property rights for themselves, this issue should be carefully investigated so that it may not become a serious impediment for engaging in CC activities (Interview with Mr. Goedertier, 10/02/2011, Vlerick Leuven Management School; Hoyer, 2010). 59

74 References Aaker, D., 1996, Building strong brands, The Free Press, New York. Addis, M., & Holbrook, M.B., 2001, On the conceptual link between mass customization and experiential consumption: An explosion of subjectivity, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 1(1), pp Bauer, H.H., Sauer, N.E., & Becker, C., 2006, Investigating the relationship between product involvement and consumer decision-making styles, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 5, pp Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R., 2003, Psychological Implications of Customer Participation in Co-Production, Journal of Marketing, 67(1), pp Berthon, P., & John, J., 2006, From Entities to Interfaces, M.S. Sharpe, New York. Boswijk, A., Thijssen, T., & Peelen, E., 2007, The Experience Economy A new perspective, Pearson Education Benelux, Amsterdam. Boswijk, A., Thijssen, T., & Peelen, E., 2007, The Experience Economy A new perspective: DVD: Presentation Prof. Joseph Pine The progression of economic value + Interview: the Experience Economy by Venkat Ramaswamy, Pearson Education Benelux, Amsterdam. Boswijk, A., & Peelen, E., Albert Boswijk & Ed Peelen over Experiences, Interview, URL: <http://www.managementenliteratuur.nl/925/albert_boswijk_en_ed_peelen_over_%e2%80% 98experiences%E2%80%99 >. (15/02/2011) Bruggeman, W., Slagmulder, R., & Hoozée, S., 2010, Handboek beheerscontrole: doelgericht sturen van bedrijfsprestaties, Intersentia, Antwerpen, Oxford. Caru, A., & Cova, B., 2003, Revisiting consumption experience: A more humble but complete view of the concept, Marketing Theory 3(2), pp Caru, A., & Cova, B., 2007, Consuming experience, Routledge, London. XII

75 Cornelis, A., 1988, Logica van het gevoel. Stabiliteitslagen in de cultuur als nesteling der emoties, Stichting Essence, Diemen. Dabholkar, P.A., 1996, Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options: An investigation of alternative models of service quality, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13, pp. 39. Davis, F.D., 1989, Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology, Management Information Systems Research Center, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp De Pelsmacker, P, Geuens, M., Van den Bergh, J., 2010, Marketing communications: A Europen Perspective (4 th edition), Pearson Education, Harlow. De Pelsmacker, P. & Van Kenhove, P., 2006, Marktonderzoek: Methoden en Toepassingen, Pearson Education, Benelux. Dwyer, F.R, & Tanner, J.F., 2009, Business Marketing: Connecting Strategy, Relationships and Learning, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York. Elofson, G., & Robinson, W., 2007, Collective customer collaboration impacts on supplychain performance, International Journal of Production Research, 45(11), pp Ernst, Holger, Hoyer, W.D., Krafft, M., & Soll, J.H., 2010, Consumer Idea Generation, working paper, WHU, Vallendar. Etgar, M., 2008, A Descriptive Model of the Consumer Co-Production Process, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (Spring), pp Feick, L., & Linda Price, 1987, The Market Maven: A Diffuser of Marketplace Information, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 (1), pp Ford, H. & Crowther, S., 1922, My Life and Work, Doubleday, Page & Company, pp XIII

76 Foreit, K.F, & Foreit, J.R., 2004, Willingness to pay surveys for setting prices for reproductive health products and services; A user s manual, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Fornerino, M.,Helme-Guizon, A., & de Gaudemaris, C., 2006, Mesurer L immersion dans une experience de consommation: Premiers developpements, Proceedings of the XXIIth Congress de l AFM, Nantes, May Frijda, N.H., 1986, The emotions: Studies in emotion and social interaction, Cambridge University Press, New York. Füller, J., 2010, Refining Virtual Co-Creation from a consumer perspective, California Management Review, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp Gentile, C., Spiller, N., & Noci, G., 2007, How to sustain the Customer Experience: An overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer, European Management Journal, pp Ghazawneh, A., 2008, Managing Mass Collaboration: Toward a Process Framework, PhD Thesis, University of Lund, Sweden, URL:<http://biblioteket.ehl.lu.se/olle/papers/ pdf>.(20/03/2011)> Gouillart, 2010, Francis Gouillart about The Power of Co-creation, Youtube video, URL: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wga-f0tlj-c&feature=player_embedded>. (11/04/2011) Hoffman, Donna, L., Kopalle, P.K., & Novak, T.P., 2010, The Right Consumers for Better Concepts: Identifying and Using Consumers High in Emergent Nature to Further Develop New Product Concepts, Journal of Marketing Research, forthcoming. Howard, John A., & Jagdish N. Sheth, 1969, The Theory of Buyer Behavior, John Wiley, NY. Hoyer, W.D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S.S., 2010, Consumer Co-creation in New Product Development, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13, pp Jensen, R., 1999, The Dream Society: How the coming shift from information to imagination will transform your business, McGraw-Hill, New York. XIV

77 Johansson, J., 2006, Global Marketing, McGraw-Hill International Edition, Boston. Kambil, A., Friesen, G.B., & Sundaram, A., 1999, Co-creation: A new source of value, Accenture Outlook, Nr. 2, pp URL: <https://ap2ps.com/nr/rdonlyres/63eba8bd d A0C65FF8049/0/cocreation2.pdf>. (20/03/2011) Kollock, P., 1999, The Economies of Online Cooperation, Routledge, London, pp Kotha, S., 1995, Mass Customisation Implementing the Emerging Paradigm for Competitive Advantage, Strategic Management Journal, p.22. LaSalle, D., & Britton, T.A., 2003, Priceless: Turning ordinary products into extraordinary experiences, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. LEGO Factory, 2007 URL: <http://designbyme.lego.com/en-us/default.aspx>. (22/03/2011) LSE Enterprise, Promise, 2009, Co-creation: New pathways to value. An overview URL: <www.promisecorp.com/newpathways>. (10/02/2011) Maslow, A.H., 1962, Towards a Psychology of Being, Van Nostrand, New York. McGraw, A.P., & Tetlock, P.E., 2005, Taboo trade-offs, relational framing, and the acceptability of exchanges, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15(1), pp Meyer, C. & Schwager, A., 2007, Understanding Customer Experience, Harvard Business Review, pp Nambisan, S., & Baron, R.A., 2009, Virtual Customer Environments: Testing a Model of Voluntary Participation in Value Co-creation Activities, Journal of product Innovation Management, Vol. 26, pp Needham, A., & Medeiros, A.C.M., 2008, The Co-creation Revolution, Paper presented at INNOVATE 2008 ESOMAR World Research Conference. XV

78 Website, URL: <http://www.facegroup.co.uk/up_video/learn/afn.am%20esomar%20paper%20final.pdf>. (19/03/2011) Pine II, B.J., & Gilmore, J.H., 1999, The Experience Economy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Porter, M.E., 1998, Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance: with a new introduction, Simon & Schuster, Free Press, New York. Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V., 2002, The Co-creation Connection, Strategy & Business, issue 27. Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V., 2004a, The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V., 2004b, Co-creation Experiences: The next practice in value creation, Journal of interactive Marketing, Vol.18, No.3. Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V., 2004c, Co-creating unique value with customers, Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp Ramaswamy, V., 2005, Co-creating Experiences with Customers: New Paradigm of Value Creation, The TMTC Journal of Management, pp Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F., 2010, The Power of Co-Creation: Build It with Them to Boost Growth, Productivity, and Profits, Simon & Schuster, Free Press, New York. Ries, A., & Trout, J., 2000, Positioning: The battle for your mind, Mc Graw-Hill, New York. Rogers, E., 1995, Diffusion of Innovations (4 th Edition), Simon & Schuster, Free Press, New York. Sanchez, R., & Heene, A., 2004, The new Strategic Management: Organization, Competition and Competence, R.R. Donnelly & Sons, New York. XVI

79 Schein, E.H., 2010, Organizational Culture and Leadership (4 th Edition), Jossey Bass, San Francisco. Schmitt, B.H., 1999, Experiential Marketing, The Free Press, New York. Shaw, C., & Ivens, J., 2005, Building Great Customer Experiences, MacMillan, New York. Stone, R. N., & Gronhaug, K., 1993, Perceived risk: Further considerations for the marketing discipline, European Journal of Marketing, 27(3), pp Toffler, A., 1970, Future Shock, Bantam Books, New York. Van Der Wal, 2007, Wordt het nog wat met mass customization en co-creation? URL: < (13/04/2011) Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiecc, C.P., & Soenens, B., 2010, The development of the five minitheories of self-determination theory: an historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions, Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol.16A, pp Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L., 2008, Self-determination theory and the explanatory role of psychological needs in human well-being, In L. Bruni, F. Comim, & M. Pugno (Eds.), Capabilities and happiness (pp ), Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press. Vargo, S.L., & Lusch. R.F., 2008, Service dominant logic: continuing the evolution, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, pp Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., Schlesinger, L.A., 2009, Customer Experience Creation: Determinants, Dynamics and Management strategies, Journal of Retailing 85 (1), pp Von Hippel, E., 1986, Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts, Journal of Management Science, Vol. 32, pp Wolf, M.J., 1999, The entertainment economy. The mega media forces that are reshaping our lives, Penguin Group, London. Wunsch-Vincent, S., & Vickery, G., 2007, Participative Web: User-Generated Content. XVII

80 Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, p.4 URL: <www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/14/ pdf> Zwass, V., 2010, Co Creation: Toward a Taxonomy and an Integrated Research Perspective, International Journal of Electronic Commerce. Vol. 15, No. 1, pp Zwick, D., Bonsu S.K., & Darmody, A., 2008, Putting Consumers to Work: Co-creation and new marketing govern-mentality, Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol 8(2):pp ,pp XVIII

81 Figures XIX

82 Figure 1: The process of experiencing. (Boswijk et al., 2007) Figure 2: Motives of people. (Boswijk et al., 2007) XX

83 Figure 3: Actors in the creation of a meaningful experience. (Boswijk et al., 2007) Degree of direction 100% Staging of experience setting by supplier 0% Staging First generation CC Second generation Selfdirection Third generation 0% 100% Staging of experience setting by individual Figure 4: Progression of economic value. (Pine & Gilmore, 1999) XXI

84 Figure 5: The coffee progression. (Pine & Gilmore, 1999) Figure 6: CC matrix. (LSE Enterprise, 2008) XXII

85 Figure 7: GDL versus SDL on value creation. (Vargo, Maglio & Akaka, 2008) Figure 8: Building blocks of the DART model combined. (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004c) Combined building blocks/ Effect New capabilities Dialogue & risk assessment Debate and co-develop public and private choices Access & dialogue Develop and maintain thematic communities Risk assessment & Transparency Co-develop trust Transparency & access Make informed choices XXIII

86 Figure 9: Motive categories for engaging in virtual CC projects. (Füller, 2010) XXIV

87 Figure 10: Proposed impact of personal characteristics on consumer motives. (Füller, 2010) Figure 11: Relationship between types of adopters classified by innovativeness and their location on the adoption curve. (Rogers, 1995) XXV

88 Figure 12: Classification of experimental designs. (Based on De Pelsmacker & Van Kenhove, 2006) Natural classical design True classical design True statistical design Time series or trend: Before-after design with Completely randomized design control group - After only design Four group six study Full factorial design design - Before - after design After only design with Fractional factorial design control group - Panel Randomized block design - Ex post facto Latin square Cross sectional design Figure 13: Interaction effect degree of CC and technology on customer enjoyment. XXVI

89 Figure 14: Interaction effect degree of CC and technology on cognitive effort and ability. Figure 15: Interaction effect degree of CC and technology on WTP Garment. XXVII

90 Figure 16: Types of motivation and regulation within SDT. (Vansteenkiste, Ryan & Deci, 2008) XXVIII

91 Appendices XXIX

92 Appendix A: Survey scenario based experiment Two independent variables: Degree of CC (High/Low) * Technology (Online/Offline) results in four scenarios. Online Offline High CC degree X1 X2 Low CC degree X3 X4 In all scenarios (X1, X2, X3 and X4) the following socio-demographics were asked: gender, age, education and profession. In the two online scenarios (X1 and X3) respondents were asked if they have already bought once something online, if they possess a credit card and frequency of internet usage. Scenario X1: High degree of CC + Online Imagine that you're sitting at your desk behind your computer connected to the World Wide Web and you want to buy a garment. You search for the site where you have the chance to create a garment. You start from a white screen. To support the process of creating your own piece, the website provides you with a software package that contains everything you need to make a garment (you can create any garment you like: T-shirt, trousers...). You decide FULLY about the shape, colors, design, materials... while making your creation. It is not just an option menu from which you choose the colors or designs. You imagine how your ideal garment looks like and with the support of the software you can draw, design, shape... until your desired result is obtained. In other words, there are NO limitations on your creation! You can make your own garment look like whatever you want. You can dialogue with other people s creation, give comments, ideas, You can also check the progress of your creation on the manufacturing plant s website and dialogue with employees about the eventual risks associated with your creation. XXX

93 After you made your own garment, you get the option to let the company manufacture it for you and buy it. Please keep this information in mind when answering the next questions. A. Enjoyment (Dabholkar,1996) On a 7-point scale, according to the scenario (create garment online, no limitations, support of software) this will be: 1. Enjoyable. 2. Entertaining. 3. Fun. 4. Interesting. B. WTP (McGraw&Tetlock,2005) Suppose that the average market price in a shopping store for the type (T-shirt, trousers...) of garment you want to create is Would you pay 30 for your creation according to the scenario? (= medium price increase of 20%) 2. If answer is yes on question 1: Would you pay 35? (= high price increase of 40%) 3. If answer is no on question 1: Would you pay 27.5? (= low price increase of 10%) 4. What is the maximum amount you want to pay (in ) for your creation according to the scenario? C. Cognitive effort and ability (Davis,1989) On a 7-point scale, according to the scenario (creating your garment online with the support of a software package 1. I would become confused when I use the internet software. 2. I would find it cumbersome to use the internet. 3. I find it easy to get the internet software to do what I want it to do. 4. I would find the internet software rigid and inflexible to interact with. 5. Interacting with internet software will be frustrating. 6. I will find it easy to learn how to work with the internet software. 7. Interacting with internet software will be easy for me to understand. 8. Overall, I find internet software easy to use. D. Involvement (Bauer, Sauer, Becker, 2006) In the scenario you were asked to create any garment you like. The next questions are general questions about garments. On a 7-point scale, a garment... XXXI

94 1. Tells other people something about me. 2. Helps me express my personality. 3. Does not reflect my personality. 4. Is part of my self-image. 5. Is not relevant to me. 6. Does not matter to me. 7. Is of no concern to me. 8. Is important to me. 9. Is fun. 10. Is fascinating. 11. Is exciting. 12. Is interesting. After these questions, the survey (except the questions under C. Cognitive effort and ability) is repeated for the following products: Computer (WTP: Suppose average market price is 700) Ball pen (WTP: Suppose average market price is 2) Car (WTP: Suppose average market price is ) XXXII

95 Scenario X2: High degree of CC + Offline Imagine that you go outside to a clothing shop A that provides a service to create your own garment together with an employee. You sit together with the employee at a desk with a white page in front of you and supporting materials to make drawings. You give your ideas to the employee and create together with the employee your own garment piece. You decide FULLY about the shape, colors, design, materials and so on. It is not just an option menu from which you choose the colors or designs. You imagine how your ideal garment looks like and with the support of the software you can draw, design, shape... until your desired result is obtained. In other words, there are NO limitations on your creation! You make your own garment look like whatever you want. You can dialogue with the employee about eventual risks associatd with your creation. After you made your own garment, you get the option to let the company manufacture it for you and buy it. Please keep this information in mind when answering the following questions. A. Enjoyment (Dabholkar,1994) On a 7-point scale, according to the scenario (create garment together with an employee, no limitations, supporting materials) this will be: 1. Enjoyable. 2. Entertaining. 3. Fun. 4. Interesting. XXXIII

96 B. WTP (McGraw&Tetlock,2005) Suppose that the average market price in a shopping store for the type (T-shirt, trousers...) of garment you want to create is Would you pay 30 for your creation according to the scenario? (= medium price increase of 20%) 2. If answer is yes on question 1: Would you pay 35? (= high price increase of 40%) 3. If answer is no on question 1: Would you pay 27.5? (= low price increase of 10%) 4. What is the maximum amount you want to pay (in ) for your creation according to the scenario? C. Cognitive effort and ability (Davis,1989) On a 7-point scale, according to the scenario (creating your garment together with an employee, no limitations 1. I would find it cumbersome to interact with the employee. 2. I would it hard to create the garment together with the employee exactly the way I want it to look like. 3. I will be easy to interact with the employee about how the garment must look like. 4. Creating a garment together with an employee will be frustrating. 5. It will cost me a lot of effort to create the garment piece with the employee. D. Product involvement (Bauer,Sauer,Becker,2006) In the scenario you were asked to create any garment you like. The next questions are general questions about garments. On a 7-point scale, a garment Tells other people something about me. 2. Helps me express my personality. 3. Does not reflect my personality. 4. Is part of my self-image. 5. Is not relevant to me. 6. Does not matter to me. 7. Is of no concern to me. 8. Is important to me. 9. Is fun. 10. Is fascinating. 11. Is exciting. 12. Is interesting. XXXIV

97 After these questions, the survey (except the questions under C. Cognitive effort and ability) is repeated for the following products: Computer (WTP: Suppose average market price is 700) Ball pen (WTP: Suppose average market price is 2) Car (WTP: Suppose average market price is ) Scenario X3: Low degree of CC + Online Imagine that you're sitting at your desk behind your computer connected to the world wide web and you want to buy a garment. You search for the site where you have the chance to create a garment. There are limitations on your creation. The website provides you with an option menu from which you can choose between X different types of garments, X different colors, X different shapes, X different materials, X different designs... to customize your own garment. For example: you could choose between 20 colors and chose dark blue, you picked design number 14, shape 2... After you made your own garment by choosing from the option menu, you get the option to let the company manufacture it for you and buy it. Please keep this information in mind when answering the next questions. The same questions as in scenario X1 were asked, putting emphasis on the characteristics of this scenario: creation with limitations instead of no limitations and support of option menu instead of software package. XXXV

98 Scenario X4: Low degree of CC + Offline Imagine that you go outside to a clothing shop A that provides a service to create your own garment together with an employee. You sit together with the employee at a desk to create the garment. There are limitations on your creation. The employee gives you an option menu from which you choose between X different types of garments, X different colors, X different designs, X different shapes to customize your own garment. For example: you could choose between 20 colors and chose dark blue, you picked design number 14, shape 2... After you made your own garment, you get the option to let the company manufacture it for you and buy it. Please keep this information in mind when answering the following questions. The same questions as in scenario X2 were asked, putting emphasis on the characteristics of this scenario: creation with limitations instead of no limitations and support of option menu instead of software package. XXXVI

99 Appendix B: Scales used for the questionnaire 1. Enjoyment: based on Dabholkar (1996, p. 39) 2. WTP: based on Foreit (2004, p. 6) XXXVII

100 3. Cognitive effort and ability: based on Davis (1989, p. 324) 4. Product involvement: based on Bauer et al. (2006, p. 350) XXXVIII

101 Appendix C: SPSS output internal consistency constructs in scenario X1 Enjoyment Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 34 22,8 Excluded a ,2 Total ,0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items, Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted X1 Garment - Enjoyable 72,47 280,499,801,934 X1 Garment - Entertaining 72,38 281,516,848,933 X1 Garment - Fun 72,44 282,618,790,934 X1 Garment - Interesting 72,53 281,772,696,936 X1 Computer - Enjoyable 73,62 289,092,622,938 X1 Computer - Entertaining 73,59 285,765,714,936 X1 Computer - Fun 73,59 286,734,675,937 X1 Computer - Interesting 72,94 289,390,611,938 X1 Ball pen - Enjoyable 73,62 273,395,782,934 X1 Ball pen - Entertaining 73,62 278,546,714,936 X1 Ball pen - Fun 73,41 280,250,718,936 X1 Ball pen - Interesting 74,06 284,966,686,936 X1 Car - Enjoyable 72,15 297,644,575,939 X1 Car - Entertaining 72,15 296,857,619,938 X1 Car - Fun 72,21 298,714,571,939 X1 Car - Interesting 72,15 302,735,489,940 XXXIX

102 Cognitive effort and ability Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 34 22,8 Excluded a ,2 Total ,0 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items,913 8 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted X1 - I would become confused when I use the internet software X1 - I would find it cumbersome (lastig) to use the internet software X1 - I would find it hard to get the internet software to do what I want it to do X1 - I would find the internet software rigid and inflexible to interact with X1 - Interacting with the internet software will be frustrating X1 - I will find it hard how to work with the internet software X1 - Interacting with the internet software will be hard for me to understand X1 - Overall, I find internet software hard to use 24,59 66,856,741,899 24,85 63,584,920,883 24,79 65,926,839,891 25,09 81,962,206,936 24,59 69,522,645,907 25,06 67,269,713,902 25,06 66,360,790,895 25,06 65,451,860,889 XL

103 Product involvement Case Processing Summary N % Cases Valid 34 22,8 Excluded a ,2 Total ,0 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items, a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. Item-Total Statistics Cronbach's Scale Mean if Scale Variance if Corrected Item- Alpha if Item Item Deleted Item Deleted Total Correlation Deleted X1 Garment - helps me to express my personality X1 Garment - tells other people something about me 199, ,971,571, , ,348,646,930 X1 Garment - is part of my self- image 199, ,799,499,930 X1 Garment reflects my personality 199, ,272,405,931 X1 Garment is relevant for me 199, ,739,584,930 X1 Garment - matters to me 199, ,769,704,929 X1 Garment is of concern to me 199, ,227,633,929 X1 Garment - is important to me 199, ,017,670,929 X1 Garment - is fun 199, ,895,655,929 X1 Garment - is fascinating 200, ,150,633,929 X1 Garment - is interesting 199, ,241,624,929 X1 Garment - is exciting 200, ,305,543,930 X1 Computer - helps me to express my personality X1 Computer - tells other people something about me X1 Computer - is part of my selfimage X1 Computer reflects my personality 202, ,852,610, , ,443,532, , ,599,501, , ,817,233,932 XLI

104 X1 Computer is relevant for me 200, ,269,334,932 X1 Computer - matters to me 200, ,619,448,931 X1 Computer is of concern to me 200, ,882,564,929 X1 Computer - is important to me 200, ,401,388,931 X1 Computer - is fun 200, ,227,456,930 X1 Computer - is fascinating 200, ,410,425,931 X1 Computer - interesting 200, ,744,410,931 X1 Computer is exciting 201, ,069,389,931 X1 Ball pen - helps me to express my personality X1 Ball pen - tells other people something about me 202, ,583,200, , ,865,311,931 X1 Ball pen - is part of my self- image 202, ,496,490,930 X1 Ball pen reflects my personality 202, ,826,270,932 X1 Ball pen is relevant for me 201, ,347,428,931 X1 Ball pen - matters to me 202, ,299,612,929 X1 Ball pen is of concern to me 201, ,660,532,930 X1 Ball pen - is important to me 201, ,908,643,929 X1 Ball pen - is fun 201, ,396,089,934 X1 Ball pen - is fascinating 201, ,107,300,932 X1 Ball pen - is interesting 201, ,276,105,933 X1 Ball pen - is exciting 202, ,319,312,931 X1 Car - helps me to express my personality X1 Car - tells other people something about me 199, ,332,345, , ,531,491,930 X1 Car - is part of my self- image 200, ,791,391,931 X1 Car reflects my personality 200, ,184,355,931 X1 Car is relevant for me 200, ,663,651,929 X1 Car - matters to me 199, ,875,670,929 X1 Car is of concern to me 199, ,574,606,929 X1 Car - is important to me 200, ,281,602,929 X1 Car - is fun 199, ,258,326,931 X1 Car - is fascinating 199, ,362,411,931 X1 Car - is interesting 199, ,653,306,931 X1 Car - is exciting 200, ,879,517,930 XLII

105 Appendix D: Internal consistency constructs in scenarios X2, X3 and X4 SCENARIO X2 Enjoyment Cognitive effort and ability Product involvement Garment, computer, ball pen and car SCENARIO X3 Enjoyment Cognitive effort and ability Product involvement Garment, computer, ball pen and car SCENARIO X4 Enjoyment Cognitive effort and ability Product involvement Garment, computer, ball pen and car XLIII

106 Appendix E: SPSS output dependent variable Enjoyment Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Degree of CC 1 High 76 2 Low 73 Technology 1 Online 64 2 Offline 85 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable:SSEnjoymentX1234 Degree of CC Technology Mean Std. Deviation N High Online 5,1400 1, Offline 4,5551, Total 4,8167 1, Low Online 4,2792, Offline 4,7064, Total 4,5308, Total Online 4,7365 1, Offline 4,6316, Total 4,6767 1, Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a Dependent Variable:SSEnjoymentX1234 F df1 df2 Sig. 2, ,083 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + DegreeCC + Technology + DegreeCC * Technology XLIV

107 Dependent Variable:SSEnjoymentX1234 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 12,698 a 3 4,233 3,817,011,073 Intercept 3177, , ,628,000,952 DegreeCC 4, ,584 4,134,044,028 Technology,227 1,227,204,652,001 DegreeCC * Technology 9, ,330 8,413,004,055 Error 160, ,109 Total 3432, Corrected Total 173, a. R Squared =,073 (Adjusted R Squared =,054) Dependent Variable:SSEnjoymentX1234 Parameter Estimates 95% Confidence Interval Parameter B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Intercept 4,706,161 29,306,000 4,389 5,024 [DegreeCC=1] -,151,228 -,662,509 -,603,300 [DegreeCC=2] 0 a..... [Technology=1] -,427,251-1,705,090 -,922,068 [Technology=2] 0 a..... [DegreeCC=1] * [Technology=1] [DegreeCC=1] * [Technology=2] [DegreeCC=2] * [Technology=1] [DegreeCC=2] * [Technology=2] 1,012,349 2,900,004,322 1,702 0 a a a..... a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant. XLV

108 Estimated Marginal Means Grand Mean Dependent Variable:SSEnjoymentX % Confidence Interval Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 4,670,087 4,498 4,843 Degree of CC Estimates Dependent Variable:SSEnjoymentX1234 Degree of CC Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound High 4,848,121 4,607 5,088 Low 4,493,125 4,245 4,740 Dependent Variable:SSEnjoymentX1234 Pairwise Comparisons (I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a Degree Degree Mean Difference (I- of CC of CC J) Std. Error Sig. a Lower Bound Upper Bound High Low,355 *,174,044,010,700 Low High -,355 *,174,044 -,700 -,010 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the,05 level. a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:SSEnjoymentX1234 Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Contrast 4, ,584 4,134,044 Error 160, ,109 The F tests the effect of Degree of CC. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. XLVI

109 Technology Estimates Dependent Variable:SSEnjoymentX1234 Technolog y Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Online 4,710,132 4,449 4,970 Offline 4,631,114 4,405 4,856 Dependent Variable:SSEnjoymentX1234 Pairwise Comparisons (I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a Technolog Technolog Mean Difference (I- y y J) Std. Error Sig. a Lower Bound Upper Bound Online Offline,079,174,652 -,266,424 Offline Online -,079,174,652 -,424,266 Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:SSEnjoymentX1234 Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Contrast,227 1,227,204,652 Error 160, ,109 The F tests the effect of Technology. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. Dependent Variable:SSEnjoymentX1234 Degree of CC * Technology Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound High Online 5,140,181 4,783 5,497 Offline 4,555,162 4,234 4,876 Low Online 4,279,192 3,899 4,659 Offline 4,706,161 4,389 5,024 XLVII

110 XLVIII

111 XLIX

112 Appendix F: SPSS output dependent variable Cognitive effort and ability Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Degree of CC 1 High degree of CC 76 2 Low degree of CC 73 Technology 1 Online 64 2 Offline 85 Dependent Variable:SSEffortX1234 Descriptive Statistics Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Deviation N High degree of CC Online 3,5551 1, Offline 4,4333 1, Total 4,0405 1, Low degree of CC Online 3,4958 1, Offline 3,4558 1, Total 3,4723 1, Total Online 3,5273 1, Offline 3,9388 1, Total 3,7621 1, Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a Dependent Variable:SSEffortX1234 F df1 df2 Sig., ,862 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + DegreeCC + Technology + DegreeCC * Technology L

113 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:SSEffortX1234 Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 26,540 a 3 8,847 5,703,001,106 Intercept 2032, , ,313,000,900 DegreeCC 9, ,790 6,311,013,042 Technology 6, ,398 4,124,044,028 DegreeCC * Technology 7, ,678 4,949,028,033 Error 224, ,551 Total 2360, Corrected Total 251, a. R Squared =,106 (Adjusted R Squared =,087) Estimated Marginal Means 1. Grand Mean Dependent Variable:SSEffortX % Confidence Interval Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 3,735,103 3,531 3,939 Degree of CC Estimates Dependent Variable:SSEffortX % Confidence Interval Degree of CC Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound High degree of CC 3,994,144 3,710 4,278 Low degree of CC 3,476,148 3,183 3,769 LI

114 Parameter Estimates Dependent Variable:SSEffortX % Confidence Interval Parameter B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Intercept 3,456,190 18,194,000 3,080 3,831 [DegreeCC=1],978,270 3,618,000,443 1,512 [DegreeCC=2] 0 a..... [Technology=1],040,296,135,893 -,546,626 [Technology=2] 0 a..... [DegreeCC=1] * [Technology=1] -,918,413-2,225,028-1,734 -,102 [DegreeCC=1] * [Technology=2] 0 a..... [DegreeCC=2] * [Technology=1] 0 a..... [DegreeCC=2] * [Technology=2] 0 a..... a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant. Dependent Variable:SSEffortX1234 Pairwise Comparisons 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Difference Difference a (I) Degree of CC (J) Degree of CC (I-J) Std. Error Sig. a Lower Bound Upper Bound High degree of CC Low degree of CC,518 *,206,013,111,926 Low degree of CC High degree of CC -,518 *,206,013 -,926 -,111 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the,05 level. a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:SSEffortX1234 Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Contrast 9, ,790 6,311,013 Error 224, ,551 The F tests the effect of Degree of CC. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. LII

115 Technology Dependent Variable:SSEffortX1234 Estimates Technolo gy Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Online 3,525,156 3,217 3,834 Offline 3,945,135 3,678 4,212 Dependent Variable:SSEffortX1234 Pairwise Comparisons (I) Technolo (J) Technolo Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a gy gy (I-J) Std. Error Sig. a Lower Bound Upper Bound Online Offline -,419 *,206,044 -,827 -,011 Offline Online,419 *,206,044,011,827 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the,05 level. a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:SSEffortX1234 Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Contrast 6, ,398 4,124,044 Error 224, ,551 The F tests the effect of Technology. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. Dependent Variable:SSEffortX1234 Degree of CC * Technology Degree of CC Technolo gy Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound High degree of CC Online 3,555,214 3,133 3,977 Offline 4,433,192 4,053 4,813 Low degree of CC Online 3,496,227 3,046 3,945 Offline 3,456,190 3,080 3,831 LIII

116 LIV

117 LV

118 Appendix G: SPSS output dependent variable WTP Garment Between-Subjects Factors N 1= High degree of CC; 2= Low degree of CC = Online; 2= Offline Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarment Descriptive Statistics 1= High degree of CC; 2= Low degree of CC 1= Online; 2= Offline Mean Std. Deviation N , , , , Total 45, , , , , , Total 34, , Total 1 41, , , , Total 39, , Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarment F df1 df2 Sig. 3, ,010 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + DegreeCC + Technology + DegreeCC * Technology LVI

119 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarment Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 6669,340 a ,113 4,806,003,090 Intercept , , ,605,000,775 DegreeCC 5103, ,091 11,033,001,071 Technology 50, ,630,109,741,001 DegreeCC * Technology 2287, ,604 4,946,028,033 Error 67067, ,536 Total , Corrected Total 73736, a. R Squared =,090 (Adjusted R Squared =,072) Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarment Parameter Estimates 95% Confidence Interval Parameter B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Intercept 37,279 3,280 11,366,000 30,797 43,761 [DegreeCC=1] 3,911 4,666,838,403-5,310 13,133 [DegreeCC=2] 0 a..... [Technology=1] -6,746 5,116-1,319,189-16,858 3,366 [Technology=2] 0 a..... [DegreeCC=1] * [Technology=1] [DegreeCC=1] * [Technology=2] [DegreeCC=2] * [Technology=1] [DegreeCC=2] * [Technology=2] 15,849 7,127 2,224,028 1,764 29,935 0 a a a..... a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant. LVII

120 Estimated Marginal Means 1. Grand Mean Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarment 95% Confidence Interval Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 39,824 1,782 36,303 43,346 Degree of CC Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarment Estimates Degree of CC Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound High 45,742 2,481 40,839 50,645 Low 33,906 2,558 28,850 38,962 Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarment Pairwise Comparisons (I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a Degree Degree Mean Difference (I- of CC of CC J) Std. Error Sig. a Lower Bound Upper Bound High Low 11,836 * 3,563,001 4,793 18,879 Low High -11,836 * 3,563,001-18,879-4,793 Based on estimated marginal means *. The mean difference is significant at the,05 level. a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarment Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Contrast 5103, ,091 11,033,001 Error 67067, ,536 The F tests the effect of Degree of CC. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. LVIII

121 Technology Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarment Estimates Technolog y Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Online 40,414 2,694 35,090 45,738 Offline 39,235 2,333 34,624 43,846 Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarment Pairwise Comparisons (I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a Technolog Technolog Mean Difference (I- y y J) Std. Error Sig. a Lower Bound Upper Bound Online Offline 1,179 3,563,741-5,864 8,222 Offline Online -1,179 3,563,741-8,222 5,864 Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarment Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Contrast 50, ,630,109,741 Error 67067, ,536 The F tests the effect of Technology. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarment Degree of CC * Technology Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Error Lower Bound 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound High Online 50,294 3,688 43,004 57,584 Offline 41,190 3,319 34,632 47,749 Low Online 30,533 3,927 22,773 38,294 Offline 37,279 3,280 30,797 43,761 LIX

122 LX

123 LXI

124 Appendix H: SPSS output dependent variable WTP Computer Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Degree of CC 1 High 68 2 Low 67 Technology 1 Online 57 2 Offline 78 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputer Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Deviation N High Online 807, , Offline 878, , Total 847, , Low Online 781, , Offline 791, , Total 787, , Total Online 795, , Offline 833, , Total 817, , Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputer F df1 df2 Sig. 3, ,010 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + DegreeCC + Technology + DegreeCC * Technology LXII

125 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputer Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model ,332 a ,111 1,485,221,033 Intercept 8,729E7 1 8,729E7 1904,746,000,936 DegreeCC , ,720 2,280,133,017 Technology 52394, ,263 1,143,287,009 DegreeCC * Technology 30379, ,888,663,417,005 Error , ,863 Total 9,644E7 135 Corrected Total , a. R Squared =,033 (Adjusted R Squared =,011) Parameter Estimates Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputer 95% Confidence Parameter B Std. Error t Sig. Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Partial eta squared Intercept 791, ,849 23,38 0, , ,336,807 [DegreeCC=1] 86,783 48,495 1,790,076-9, ,718,024 [DegreeCC=2] 0 a [Technology=1] -9,523 53,321 -,179, ,005 95,959,000 [Technology=2] 0 a [DegreeCC=1] * [Technology=1] -60,801 74,678 -,814, ,533 86,930,005 [DegreeCC=1] * [Technology=2] 0 a [DegreeCC=2] * [Technology=1] 0 a [DegreeCC=2] * [Technology=2] 0 a a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant. LXIII

126 Estimated Marginal Means 1. Grand Mean Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputer 95% Confidence Interval Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 814,805 18, , ,737 Degree of CC Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputer Estimates Degree of CC Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound High 842,996 26, , ,712 Low 786,613 26, , ,354 Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputer Pairwise Comparisons (I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a Degree Degree Mean Difference (I- of CC of CC J) Std. Error Sig. a Lower Bound Upper Bound High Low 56,382 37,339,133-17, ,248 Low High -56,382 37,339, ,248 17,484 Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputer Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Contrast , ,720 2,280,133,017 Error , ,863 The F tests the effect of Degree of CC. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. LXIV

127 Technology Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputer Estimates Technolog y Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Online 794,843 28, , ,014 Offline 834,766 24, , ,734 Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputer Pairwise Comparisons (I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a Technolog Technolog Mean Difference (I- y y J) Std. Error Sig. a Lower Bound Upper Bound Online Offline -39,924 37,339, ,790 33,942 Offline Online 39,924 37,339,287-33, ,790 Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputer Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Contrast 52394, ,263 1,143,287,009 Error , ,863 The F tests the effect of Technology. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. Degree of CC * Technology Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputer Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound High Online 807,833 39, , ,153 Offline 878,158 34, , ,859 Low Online 781,852 41, , ,354 Offline 791,375 33, , ,336 LXV

128 LXVI

129 LXVII

130 Appendix I: SPSS output dependent variable WTP Ball pen Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Degree of CC 1 High 56 2 Low 47 Technology 1 Online 47 2 Offline 56 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpen Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Deviation N High Online 4,5833 4, Offline 3,4016 3, Total 3,9080 3, Low Online 3,6957 5, Offline 2,6750 1, Total 3,1745 4, Total Online 4,1489 5, Offline 3,0902 2, Total 3,5733 4, Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpen F df1 df2 Sig. 2, ,113 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + DegreeCC + Technology + DegreeCC * Technology LXVIII

131 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpen Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 45,139 a 3 15,046,917,436,027 Intercept 1303, ,807 79,448,000,445 DegreeCC 16, ,486 1,005,319,010 Technology 30, ,688 1,870,175,019 DegreeCC * Technology,164 1,164,010,921,000 Error 1624, ,411 Total 2984, Corrected Total 1669, a. R Squared =,027 (Adjusted R Squared = -,002) Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpen Parameter Estimates Parameter B Std. Error t Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Partial Eta Squared Intercept 2,675,827 3,235,002 1,034 4,316,096 [DegreeCC=1],727 1,094,664,508-1,444 2,897,004 [DegreeCC=2] 0 a [Technology=1] 1,021 1,182,863,390-1,325 3,366,007 [Technology=2] 0 a [DegreeCC=1] * [Technology=1] [DegreeCC=1] * [Technology=2] [DegreeCC=2] * [Technology=1] [DegreeCC=2] * [Technology=2],161 1,611,100,921-3,035 3,357,000 0 a a a a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant. LXIX

132 Estimated Marginal Means 1. Grand Mean Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpen 95% Confidence Interval Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 3,589,403 2,790 4,388 Degree of CC Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpen Estimates Degree of CC Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound High 3,992,547 2,907 5,078 Low 3,185,591 2,013 4,358 Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpen Pairwise Comparisons (I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a Degree Degree Mean Difference (I- of CC of CC J) Std. Error Sig. a Lower Bound Upper Bound High Low,807,805,319 -,791 2,405 Low High -,807,805,319-2,405,791 Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpen Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Contrast 16, ,486 1,005,319,010 Error 1624, ,411 The F tests the effect of Degree of CC. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. LXX

133 Technology Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpen Estimates Technolog y Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Online 4,139,591 2,967 5,312 Offline 3,038,547 1,953 4,124 Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpen Pairwise Comparisons (I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a Technolog Technolog Mean Difference (I- y y J) Std. Error Sig. a Lower Bound Upper Bound Online Offline 1,101,805,175 -,497 2,699 Offline Online -1,101,805,175-2,699,497 Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpen Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Contrast 30, ,688 1,870,175,019 Error 1624, ,411 The F tests the effect of Technology. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. Degree of CC * Technology Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpen Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound High Online 4,583,827 2,943 6,224 Offline 3,402,716 1,981 4,823 Low Online 3,696,845 2,020 5,372 Offline 2,675,827 1,034 4,316 LXXI

134 LXXII

135 LXXIII

136 Appendix J: SPSS output dependent variable WTP Car Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Degree of CC 1 High 69 2 Low 65 Technology 1 Online 59 2 Offline 75 Dependent Variable:SSWTPCar Descriptive Statistics Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Deviation N High Online 43822, , Offline 38644, , Total 40971, , Low Online 29142, , Offline 29837, , Total 29538, , Total Online 36855, , Offline 34300, , Total 35425, , Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a Dependent Variable:SSWTPCar F df1 df2 Sig. 4, ,006 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + DegreeCC + Technology + DegreeCC * Technology LXXIV

137 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:SSWTPCar Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 4,840E9 3 1,613E9 1,272,287,029 Intercept 1,649E11 1 1,649E11 130,016,000,500 DegreeCC 4,547E9 1 4,547E9 3,585,061,027 Technology 1,657E8 1 1,657E8,131,718,001 DegreeCC * Technology 2,843E8 1 2,843E8,224,637,002 Error 1,649E ,268E9 Total 3,379E Corrected Total 1,697E a. R Squared =,029 (Adjusted R Squared =,006) Dependent Variable:SSWTPCar Parameter Estimates 95% Confidence Interval Parameter B Std. Error t Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound Intercept 29837, ,168 5,096, , ,587 [DegreeCC=1] 8806, ,801 1,071, , ,662 [DegreeCC=2] 0 a..... [Technology=1] -694, ,071 -,078, , ,292 [Technology=2] 0 a..... [DegreeCC=1] * [Technology=1] 5872, ,028,473, , ,689 [DegreeCC=1] * [Technology=2] 0 a..... [DegreeCC=2] * [Technology=1] 0 a..... [DegreeCC=2] * [Technology=2] 0 a..... a. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant. LXXV

138 Estimated Marginal Means 1. Grand Mean Dependent Variable:SSWTPCar 95% Confidence Interval Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 35362, , , ,469 Degree of CC Dependent Variable:SSWTPCar Estimates Degree of CC Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound High 41233, , , ,181 Low 29490, , , ,984 Dependent Variable:SSWTPCar Pairwise Comparisons (I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a Degree Degree Mean Difference (I- of CC of CC J) Std. Error Sig. a Lower Bound Upper Bound High Low 11743, ,514, , ,244 Low High , ,514, , ,621 Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:SSWTPCar Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Contrast 4,547E9 1 4,547E9 3,585,061 Error 1,649E ,268E9 The F tests the effect of Degree of CC. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. LXXVI

139 Technology Estimates Dependent Variable:SSWTPCar Technolog y Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Online 36482, , , ,867 Offline 34241, , , ,169 Dependent Variable:SSWTPCar Pairwise Comparisons (I) (J) 95% Confidence Interval for Difference a Technolog Technolog Mean Difference (I- y y J) Std. Error Sig. a Lower Bound Upper Bound Online Offline 2241, ,514, , ,364 Offline Online -2241, ,514, , ,501 Based on estimated marginal means a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. Univariate Tests Dependent Variable:SSWTPCar Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Contrast 1,657E8 1 1,657E8,131,718 Error 1,649E ,268E9 The F tests the effect of Technology. This test is based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means. Dependent Variable:SSWTPCar Degree of CC * Technology Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound High Online 43822, , , ,785 Offline 38644, , , ,052 Low Online 29142, , , ,772 Offline 29837, , , ,587 LXXVII

140 LXXVIII

141 LXXIX

142 Appendix K: Summary hypotheses with results. Dependent Hypothesis Confirmed P-value variable or refuted Enjoyment H1a: Regardless of the technology, customers that dispose of a high level to co-create have 0.04 a higher enjoyment than customers with a low level to co-create. H1b: There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology on the one hand, and customer enjoyment on the other hand. < H1c: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an online environment have a higher enjoyment than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an online environment. Sign. H1d: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an offline environment have a higher enjoyment than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an offline environment. Not sign H1e: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an online environment have a higher enjoyment than customer that dispose of a high level of CC in an offline environment. Not sign. H1f: Customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an online environment have a higher enjoyment than customer that dispose of a low level of CC in an offline environment. Not sign. Cognitive H2a: Regardless the technology, customers that dispose of a high level to co-create need 0.01 effort and ability more cognitive effort and ability than customers with a low level to co-create. H2b: Regardless of the degree of CC, customers that co-create online need more cognitive effort and ability than customers that co-create offline H2c: There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology on the one hand, and customer cognitive effort and ability on the other hand LXXXI

143 H2d: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an online environment need more cognitive effort and ability than customers with a low level to co-create in an online environment. H2e: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an offline environment need more cognitive effort and ability than customers with a low level to co-create in an offline environment. H2f: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an online environment need more cognitive effort and ability than customers with a high level to co-create in an offline environment. H2g: Customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an online environment need more cognitive effort and ability than customers with a low level to co-create in an offline environment. Not sign. Sign. Sign. Not sign. WTP garment H3a: Regardless of the technology, customers that dispose of a high level to co-create are willing to pay more than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create. H3b: Regardless of the degree of CC, customers that co-create offline are more WTP than customers that co-create online. H3c: There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology on the one hand, and customer WTP on the other hand. H3d: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an online environment have a higher WTP than customers that dispose of a low level of co- creation in an online environment. H3e: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an offline environment have a higher WTP than customers that dispose of a low level of co- creation in an offline environment. H3f: Customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an offline environment have a higher WTP than customers that dispose of a high level to co-create in an online environment. < Sign. Not sign. Not sign. LXXXII

144 WTP computer H3g: Customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an offline environment have a higher WTP than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create in an online environment. H3a: Regardless of the technology, customers that dispose of a high level to co-create are willing to pay more than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create. H3b: Regardless of the degree of CC, customers that co-create offline are more WTP than customers that co-create online. H3c: There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology on the one hand, and customer WTP on the other hand. H3d-H3g Not sign Not sign. WTP ball pen H3a: Regardless of the technology, customers that dispose of a high level to co-create are willing to pay more than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create. H3b: Regardless of the degree of CC, customers that co-create offline are more WTP than customers that co-create online. H3c: There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology on the one hand, and customer WTP on the other hand. H3d-H3g Not sign. LXXXIII

145 WTP car H3a: Regardless of the technology, customers that dispose of a high level to co-create are willing to pay more than customers that dispose of a low level to co-create. H3b: Regardless of the degree of CC, customers that co-create offline are more WTP than customers that co-create online. H3c: There is an interaction effect between degree of CC and technology on the one hand, and customer WTP on the other hand. H3d-H3g Not sign. LXXXIV

146 Appendix L: SPSS output moderating variable High product involvement on WTP Garment Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Degree of CC 1 High 53 2 Low 48 Technology 1 Online 41 2 Offline 60 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarmentHighinvolv Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Deviation N High Online 53, , Offline 42, , Total 47, , Low Online 33, , Offline 38, , Total 36, , Total Online 45, , Offline 40, , Total 42, , Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarmentHighinvolv F df1 df2 Sig. 4, ,010 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + DegreeCC + Technology + DegreeCC * Technology LXXXV

147 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarmentHighinvolv Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 4864,151 a ,384 3,039,033,086 Intercept , , ,718,000,765 DegreeCC 3566, ,525 6,685,011,064 Technology 265, ,342,497,482,005 DegreeCC * Technology 1390, ,589 2,606,110,026 Error 51750, ,511 Total , Corrected Total 56614, a. R Squared =,086 (Adjusted R Squared =,058) Estimated Marginal Means Grand Mean Dependent Variable:SSWTPGarmentHighinvolv 95% Confidence Interval Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 41,958 2,361 37,272 46,645 LXXXVI

148 LXXXVII

149 Appendix M: SPSS output moderating variable High product involvement on WTP Computer Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Degree of CC 1 High 36 2 Low 37 Technology 1 Online 33 2 Offline 40 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputerHighinvolv Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Deviation N High Online 907, , Offline 972, , Total 943, , Low Online 818, , Offline 827, , Total 823, , Total Online 861, , Offline 899, , Total 882, , Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputerHighinvolv F df1 df2 Sig. 1, ,147 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + DegreeCC + Technology + DegreeCC * Technology LXXXVIII

150 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputerHighinvolv Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model ,106 a ,702 1,848,147,074 Intercept 5,615E7 1 5,615E7 1034,470,000,937 DegreeCC , ,234 4,549,037,062 Technology 24584, ,968,453,503,007 DegreeCC * Technology 13784, ,968,254,616,004 Error , ,870 Total 6,089E7 73 Corrected Total , a. R Squared =,074 (Adjusted R Squared =,034) Estimated Marginal Means Grand Mean Dependent Variable:SSWTPComputerHighinvolv 95% Confidence Interval Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 881,309 27, , ,973 LXXXIX

151 XC

152 Appendix N: SPSS output moderating variable High product involvement on WTP Ball pen Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Degree of CC 1 High 3 2 Low 4 Technology 1 Online 2 2 Offline 5 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpenHighinvolvement Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Deviation N High Online 3, Offline 3,0000, Total 3,0000, Low Online 3, Offline 5,1667 4, Total 4,6250 3, Total Online 3,0000, Offline 4,3000 3, Total 3,9286 2, Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpenHighinvolvement F df1 df2 Sig. 4, ,127 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. XCI

153 Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpenHighinvolvement F df1 df2 Sig. 4, ,127 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + DegreeCC + Technology + DegreeCC * Technology Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpenHighinvolvement Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 8,048 a 3 2,683,229,871,186 Intercept 70, ,833 6,043,091,668 DegreeCC 1, ,657,141,732,045 Technology 1, ,657,141,732,045 DegreeCC * Technology 1, ,657,141,732,045 Error 35, ,722 Total 151,250 7 Corrected Total 43,214 6 a. R Squared =,186 (Adjusted R Squared = -,628) Estimated Marginal Means 1. Grand Mean Dependent Variable:SSWTPBallpenHighinvolvement 95% Confidence Interval Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 3,542 1,441-1,043 8,127 XCII

154 XCIII

155 XCIV

156 Appendix O: SPSS output moderating variable High product involvement on WTP Car Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Degree of CC 1 High 39 2 Low 40 Technology 1 Online 36 2 Offline 43 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable:SSWTPCarHighinvolv Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Deviation N High Online 58277, , Offline 47785, , Total 52628, , Low Online 30444, , Offline 33204, , Total 31962, , Total Online 44361, , Offline 40325, , Total 42164, , Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a Dependent Variable:SSWTPCarHighinvolv F df1 df2 Sig. 4, ,006 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + DegreeCC + Technology + DegreeCC * Technology XCV

157 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:SSWTPCarHighinvolv Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 9,576E9 3 3,192E9 1,601,196,060 Intercept 1,411E11 1 1,411E11 70,753,000,485 DegreeCC 8,811E9 1 8,811E9 4,419,039,056 Technology 2,928E8 1 2,928E8,147,703,002 DegreeCC * Technology 8,601E8 1 8,601E8,431,513,006 Error 1,495E ,994E9 Total 2,996E11 79 Corrected Total 1,591E11 78 a. R Squared =,060 (Adjusted R Squared =,023) Estimated Marginal Means Grand Mean Dependent Variable:SSWTPCarHighinvolv 95% Confidence Interval Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound 42428, , , ,455 XCVI

158 XCVII

159 Appendix P: SPSS output moderating variable High product involvement Enjoyment Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N Degree of CC 1 High 14 2 Low 10 Technology 1 Online 8 2 Offline 16 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable:SSEnjoyHighInvolv Degree of CC Technolog y Mean Std. Deviation N High Online 6,1563, Offline 5,2422, Total 5,6339, Low Online 3,9688 1, Offline 5,9453, Total 5,5500, Total Online 5,6094 1, Offline 5,5937, Total 5,5990, Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a Dependent Variable:SSEnjoyHighInvolv F df1 df2 Sig. 1, ,148 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups. a. Design: Intercept + DegreeCC + Technology + DegreeCC * Technology XCVIII

160 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable:SSEnjoyHighInvolv Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared Corrected Model 9,157 a 3 3,052 6,849,002,507 Intercept 495, , ,883,000,982 DegreeCC 2, ,404 5,394,031,212 Technology 1, ,232 2,763,112,121 DegreeCC * Technology 9, ,115 20,454,000,506 Error 8,913 20,446 Total 770, Corrected Total 18, a. R Squared =,507 (Adjusted R Squared =,433) XCIX

GMP-Z Annex 15: Kwalificatie en validatie

GMP-Z Annex 15: Kwalificatie en validatie -Z Annex 15: Kwalificatie en validatie item Gewijzigd richtsnoer -Z Toelichting Principle 1. This Annex describes the principles of qualification and validation which are applicable to the manufacture

More information

Relationele Databases 2002/2003

Relationele Databases 2002/2003 1 Relationele Databases 2002/2003 Hoorcollege 5 22 mei 2003 Jaap Kamps & Maarten de Rijke April Juli 2003 Plan voor Vandaag Praktische dingen 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 4.1, 4.4 en 4.5 SQL Aantekeningen 3 Meer Queries.

More information

UvA college Governance and Portfolio Management

UvA college Governance and Portfolio Management UvA college Han Verniers Principal Consultant Han.Verniers@LogicaCMG.com Programma Governance IT Governance, wat is dat? Governance: structuren, processen, instrumenten Portfolio Management Portfolio Management,

More information

IP-NBM. Copyright Capgemini 2012. All Rights Reserved

IP-NBM. Copyright Capgemini 2012. All Rights Reserved IP-NBM 1 De bescheidenheid van een schaker 2 Maar wat betekent dat nu 3 De drie elementen richting onsterfelijkheid Genomics Artifical Intelligence (nano)robotics 4 De impact van automatisering en robotisering

More information

IC Rating NPSP Composieten BV. 9 juni 2010 Variopool

IC Rating NPSP Composieten BV. 9 juni 2010 Variopool IC Rating NPSP Composieten BV 9 juni 2010 Variopool AGENDA: The future of NPSP Future IC Rating TM NPSP Composieten BV 2 Bottom line 3 Bottom line 4 Definition of Intangibles The factors not shown in the

More information

Kantoor of Koffiebar. Alain Swolfs Market Unit Leader Banking & Insurance alain.swolfs@capgemini.com

Kantoor of Koffiebar. Alain Swolfs Market Unit Leader Banking & Insurance alain.swolfs@capgemini.com Kantoor of Koffiebar Alain Swolfs Market Unit Leader Banking & Insurance alain.swolfs@capgemini.com Bessenveldstraat Brussels, Belgium Mobile:+32 (0)494 32 13 85 North America 10,384 UK & Ireland 8,766

More information

employager 1.0 design challenge

employager 1.0 design challenge employager 1.0 design challenge a voyage to employ(ment) EMPLOYAGER 1.0 On the initiative of the City of Eindhoven, the Red Bluejay Foundation organizes a new design challenge around people with a distance

More information

How to manage Business Apps - Case for a Mobile Access Strategy -

How to manage Business Apps - Case for a Mobile Access Strategy - How to manage Business Apps - Case for a Mobile Access Strategy - Hans Heising, Product Manager Gábor Vida, Manager Software Development RAM Mobile Data 2011 Content Introduction 2 Bring your own device

More information

Making, Moving and Shaking a Community of Young Global Citizens Resultaten Nulmeting GET IT DONE

Making, Moving and Shaking a Community of Young Global Citizens Resultaten Nulmeting GET IT DONE Making, Moving and Shaking a Community of Young Global Citizens Resultaten Nulmeting GET IT DONE Rianne Verwijs Freek Hermens Inhoud Summary 5 1 Introductie en leeswijzer 7 2 Achtergrond en onderzoeksopzet

More information

Welkom in de wereld van EDI en de zakelijke kansen op langer termijn

Welkom in de wereld van EDI en de zakelijke kansen op langer termijn Welkom in de wereld van EDI en de zakelijke kansen op langer termijn Sectorsessie mode 23 maart 2016 ISRID VAN GEUNS IS WORKS IS BOUTIQUES Let s get connected! Triumph Without EDI Triumph Let s get connected

More information

7th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research (AWBR) Ontario, Canada, June 12-15, 2013

7th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research (AWBR) Ontario, Canada, June 12-15, 2013 1 7th International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research (AWBR) Ontario, Canada, June 12-15, 2013 BRANDED MARKETING EVENTS: FACILITATING CUSTOMER BRAND ENGAGEMENT Teagan Altschwager University

More information

Data Driven Strategy. BlinkLane Consul.ng Amsterdam, 10 december 2013. Ralph Hofman Arent van t Spijker

Data Driven Strategy. BlinkLane Consul.ng Amsterdam, 10 december 2013. Ralph Hofman Arent van t Spijker Data Driven Strategy BlinkLane Consul.ng Amsterdam, 10 december 2013 Ralph Hofman Arent van t Spijker 1 Data Driven Strategy 08.00 08.05 Welkom 08:05 08.20 Data Driven Strategy 08.20 08.30 Het Business

More information

Experience Economy. How to survive in the 21 st century

Experience Economy. How to survive in the 21 st century Experience Economy How to survive in the 21 st century Agenda: Experience Economy Background for the development: From commodity to experience Indirect use of experiences: Experience as value adding Experience

More information

IT-waardeketen management op basis van eeuwenoude supply chain kennis

IT-waardeketen management op basis van eeuwenoude supply chain kennis IT-waardeketen management op basis van eeuwenoude supply chain kennis Hans van Aken / November 28, 2012 Copyright 2012 Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. The information contained herein is subject

More information

Successful Steps and Simple Ideas to Maximise your Direct Marketing Return On Investment

Successful Steps and Simple Ideas to Maximise your Direct Marketing Return On Investment Successful Steps and Simple Ideas to Maximise your Direct Marketing Return On Investment By German Sacristan, X1 Head of Marketing and Customer Experience, UK and author of The Digital & Direct Marketing

More information

The state of DIY. Mix Express DIY event Maarssen 14 mei 2014

The state of DIY. Mix Express DIY event Maarssen 14 mei 2014 The state of DIY!! Mix Express DIY event Maarssen 14 mei 2014 Inleiding Mix press DIY sessie Maarssen 14 mei 2014 Deze presentatie is gemaakt voor het Mix DIY congres en gebaseerd op onze analyse van de

More information

101 Inspirerende Quotes - Eelco de boer - winst.nl/ebooks/ Inleiding

101 Inspirerende Quotes - Eelco de boer - winst.nl/ebooks/ Inleiding Inleiding Elke keer dat ik een uitspraak of een inspirerende quote hoor of zie dan noteer ik deze (iets wat ik iedereen aanraad om te doen). Ik ben hier even doorheen gegaan en het leek me een leuk idee

More information

HR Transformation and Future of HR Brussel, 25 april 2013 Material part 1/2

HR Transformation and Future of HR Brussel, 25 april 2013 Material part 1/2 HR Transformation and Future of HR Brussel, 25 april 2013 Material part 1/2 Doelstellingen Ideeën uitwisselen over hoe een HR transformatie te starten Ervaringen delen over hoe HR toegevoegde waarde kan

More information

THE EMOTIONAL VALUE OF PAID FOR MAGAZINES. Intomart GfK 2013 Emotionele Waarde Betaald vs. Gratis Tijdschrift April 2013 1

THE EMOTIONAL VALUE OF PAID FOR MAGAZINES. Intomart GfK 2013 Emotionele Waarde Betaald vs. Gratis Tijdschrift April 2013 1 THE EMOTIONAL VALUE OF PAID FOR MAGAZINES Intomart GfK 2013 Emotionele Waarde Betaald vs. Gratis Tijdschrift April 2013 1 CONTENT 1. CONCLUSIONS 2. RESULTS Reading behaviour Appreciation Engagement Advertising

More information

Uw partner in system management oplossingen

Uw partner in system management oplossingen Uw partner in system management oplossingen User Centric IT Bring your Own - Corporate Owned Onderzoek Forrester Welke applicatie gebruik je het meest op mobiele devices? Email 76% SMS 67% IM / Chat 48%

More information

Private Equity Survey 2011

Private Equity Survey 2011 Private Equity Survey 2011 Success of portfolio companies through quality of management and organization. Herman D. Koning Ron Jansen February 9, 2011 1 This afternoon 14.30 Reception 15.00 Welcome by

More information

GMP-Z Hoofdstuk 4 Documentatie. Inleiding

GMP-Z Hoofdstuk 4 Documentatie. Inleiding -Z Hoofdstuk 4 Documentatie Inleiding Het hoofdstuk Documentatie uit de -richtsnoeren is in zijn algemeenheid goed toepasbaar in de ziekenhuisapotheek. Verschil met de industriële is dat de bereidingen

More information

Making Leaders Successful Every Day

Making Leaders Successful Every Day Making Leaders Successful Every Day Smart Governments Embrace And Enable Digital Disruption In The Age of the Citizen Forrester Research Jennifer Belissent Principal Analyst March 27, 2014 Those who don

More information

The information in this report is confidential. So keep this report in a safe place!

The information in this report is confidential. So keep this report in a safe place! Bram Voorbeeld About this Bridge 360 report 2 CONTENT About this Bridge 360 report... 2 Introduction to the Bridge 360... 3 About the Bridge 360 Profile...4 Bridge Behaviour Profile-Directing...6 Bridge

More information

Dutch Mortgage Market Pricing On the NMa report. Marco Haan University of Groningen November 18, 2011

Dutch Mortgage Market Pricing On the NMa report. Marco Haan University of Groningen November 18, 2011 Dutch Mortgage Market Pricing On the NMa report Marco Haan University of Groningen November 18, 2011 Introductory remarks My comments are complementary: I do not focus so much on this market as such, more

More information

Hoorcollege marketing 5 de uitgebreide marketingmix. Sunday, December 9, 12

Hoorcollege marketing 5 de uitgebreide marketingmix. Sunday, December 9, 12 Hoorcollege marketing 5 de uitgebreide marketingmix Sunday, December 9, 12 De traditionele marketing mix Sunday, December 9, 12 Waarom was dat niet genoeg dan? Sunday, December 9, 12 Omdat er vooruitgang

More information

ead management een digital wereld

ead management een digital wereld ead management een digital wereld april 2015 Andeta LauraNuhaan social Selling Today Marketing and Sales need to change Lead management and nurturing Content Marketing /Story telling Social Selling Yelpi

More information

CO-BRANDING RICHTLIJNEN

CO-BRANDING RICHTLIJNEN A minimum margin surrounding the logo keeps CO-BRANDING RICHTLIJNEN 22 Last mei revised, 2013 30 April 2013 The preferred version of the co-branding logo is white on a Magenta background. Depending on

More information

Is het nodig risico s te beheersen op basis van een aanname..

Is het nodig risico s te beheersen op basis van een aanname.. Is het nodig risico s te beheersen op basis van een aanname.. De mens en IT in de Zorg Ngi 19 april 2011 René van Koppen Agenda Er zijn geen feiten, slechts interpretaties. Nietzsche Geen enkele interpretatie

More information

Lean in het digitale tijdperk. Hans Toebak, Arjen Markus, 13 november 2013

Lean in het digitale tijdperk. Hans Toebak, Arjen Markus, 13 november 2013 Lean in het digitale tijdperk Hans Toebak, Arjen Markus, 13 november 2013 Back to the future 2 2054 lijkt in 2013 toch al erg dichtbij 3 Klanten passen zich sneller aan dan ooit. 4 5 6 De hedendaagse consument

More information

VIDEO CREATIVE IN A DIGITAL WORLD Digital analytics afternoon. Hugo.schurink@millwardbrown.com emmy.brand@millwardbrown.com

VIDEO CREATIVE IN A DIGITAL WORLD Digital analytics afternoon. Hugo.schurink@millwardbrown.com emmy.brand@millwardbrown.com VIDEO CREATIVE IN A DIGITAL WORLD Digital analytics afternoon Hugo.schurink@millwardbrown.com emmy.brand@millwardbrown.com AdReaction Video: 42 countries 13,000+ Multiscreen Users 2 3 Screentime is enormous

More information

Spread. B&R Beurs. March 2010

Spread. B&R Beurs. March 2010 B&R Beurs March 2010 Spread Find out about the latest investment proposals of B&R's investment groups. Check the agenda, and the upcoming activities we organized for you! B&R Beurs Website: www.bnrbeurs.nl

More information

Concept Design. Gert Landheer Mark van den Brink Koen van Boerdonk

Concept Design. Gert Landheer Mark van den Brink Koen van Boerdonk Concept Design Gert Landheer Mark van den Brink Koen van Boerdonk Content Richness of Data Concept Design Fast creation of rich data which eventually can be used to create a final model Creo Product Family

More information

Maatschappelijke Innovatie

Maatschappelijke Innovatie Maatschappelijke Innovatie Lecture: Sociaal Ondernemerschap / Economisch perspectief Niels Bosma 30-04-2015 Vandaag: accent op sociaal ondernemen Economisch perspectief Begripsbepaling Economische relevantie

More information

September 26. More information about the events on www.provu.nl

September 26. More information about the events on www.provu.nl September 2015 Agenda September 10 -- ProVU SUMMER BBQ September 26 -- Zuiderzeeklassieker (Bike race) October 3&5 -- i-provu PhD introduction days October 16 -- Explore program Beta sciences October 22

More information

PinkRoccade Offshore Facilities Optimizing the Software Development Chain. PROF proposition. neral presentation

PinkRoccade Offshore Facilities Optimizing the Software Development Chain. PROF proposition. neral presentation Optimizing the Software Development Chain PROF proposition neral presentation OF PinkRoccade Offshore: Near Offshore future Facilities Gartner: Offshore is no longer a strategic advantage it is a competitive

More information

Customer Experience Management-As a Key strategy to build Brands in International Markets

Customer Experience Management-As a Key strategy to build Brands in International Markets Customer Experience Management-As a Key strategy to build Brands in International Markets Ms.Sunitha Chakravarthy* Prof.G.V.Bhavani Prasad** * Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Kakatiya Institute

More information

Maximizer Synergy. info@adafi.be BE 0415.642.030. Houwaartstraat 200/1 BE 3270 Scherpenheuvel. Tel: +32 495 300612 Fax: +32 13 777372

Maximizer Synergy. info@adafi.be BE 0415.642.030. Houwaartstraat 200/1 BE 3270 Scherpenheuvel. Tel: +32 495 300612 Fax: +32 13 777372 Maximizer Synergy Adafi Software is een samenwerking gestart met Advoco Solutions, een Maximizer Business Partner uit Groot Brittannië. Advoco Solutions heeft een technologie ontwikkeld, genaamd Synergy,

More information

PoliticalMashup. Make implicit structure and information explicit. Content

PoliticalMashup. Make implicit structure and information explicit. Content 1 2 Content Connecting promises and actions of politicians and how the society reacts on them Maarten Marx Universiteit van Amsterdam Overview project Zooming in on one cultural heritage dataset A few

More information

(Optioneel: We will include the review report and the financial statements reviewed by us in an overall report that will be conveyed to you.

(Optioneel: We will include the review report and the financial statements reviewed by us in an overall report that will be conveyed to you. 1.2 Example of an Engagement Letter for a Review Engagement N.B.: Dit voorbeeld van een opdrachtbevestiging voor een beoordelingsopdracht is gebaseerd op de tekst uit Standaard 2400, Opdrachten tot het

More information

Principles of Fund Governance BNP Paribas Investment Partners Funds (Nederland) N.V.

Principles of Fund Governance BNP Paribas Investment Partners Funds (Nederland) N.V. Principles of Fund Governance BNP Paribas Investment Partners Funds (Nederland) N.V. Versie november 2012 Inleiding Het doel van de Principles of Fund Governance (verder Principles ) is het geven van nadere

More information

Design Document. Developing a Recruitment campaign for IKEA. Solve-

Design Document. Developing a Recruitment campaign for IKEA. Solve- Design Document Developing a Recruitment campaign for IKEA. Solve- 02 00 Chapter Index 01. INTRODUCTION 02. GENERAL INFORMATION Informational architecture Sitemap Use case Why use or not use Flash Flowchart

More information

Assuring the Cloud. Hans Bootsma Deloitte Risk Services hbootsma@deloitte.nl +31 (0)6 1098 0182

Assuring the Cloud. Hans Bootsma Deloitte Risk Services hbootsma@deloitte.nl +31 (0)6 1098 0182 Assuring the Cloud Hans Bootsma Deloitte Risk Services hbootsma@deloitte.nl +31 (0)6 1098 0182 Need for Assurance in Cloud Computing Demand Fast go to market Support innovation Lower costs Access everywhere

More information

OGH: : 11g in de praktijk

OGH: : 11g in de praktijk OGH: : 11g in de praktijk Real Application Testing SPREKER : E-MAIL : PATRICK MUNNE PMUNNE@TRANSFER-SOLUTIONS.COM DATUM : 14-09-2010 WWW.TRANSFER-SOLUTIONS.COM Real Application Testing Uitleg Real Application

More information

Shopper Marketing Model: case Chocomel Hot. Eric van Blanken 20th October 2009

Shopper Marketing Model: case Chocomel Hot. Eric van Blanken 20th October 2009 Shopper Marketing Model: case Chocomel Hot Eric van Blanken 20th October 2009 Introduction Chocomel Hot out-of-home: hot consumption > cold consumption 2004: launch of the Chocomel Hot machine for out-of-home

More information

If farming becomes surviving! Ton Duffhues Specialist Agriculture and society ZLTO Director Atelier Waarden van het Land 4 juni 2014, Wageningen

If farming becomes surviving! Ton Duffhues Specialist Agriculture and society ZLTO Director Atelier Waarden van het Land 4 juni 2014, Wageningen If farming becomes surviving! Ton Duffhues Specialist Agriculture and society ZLTO Director Atelier Waarden van het Land 4 juni 2014, Wageningen About myself Study - Cultural and social Anthropology, specialised

More information

Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Innovation & Management

Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Innovation & Management 846 An Empirical Research on Influencing Factors of Customer Experience of Retail Industry Aiming to Improve Customer Satisfaction: Taking Supermarket as an Example Tang Wenwei, Zheng Tongtong School of

More information

FROM CRM TO CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE: A NEW REALM

FROM CRM TO CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE: A NEW REALM Page 1 FROM CRM TO CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE: A NEW REALM FOR INNOVATION Alexandra Thusy and Langdon Morris Published in Business Digest, Paris - January 2004 As the economy evolves and global competition increases,

More information

Advanced Metering Infrastructure

Advanced Metering Infrastructure Advanced Metering Infrastructure Research Project 2 Vic Ding SNE, UvA February 8th 2012 Agenda Background Research motivation and questions Research methods Research findings Stakeholders Legislation Smart

More information

Examen Software Engineering 2010-2011 05/09/2011

Examen Software Engineering 2010-2011 05/09/2011 Belangrijk: Schrijf je antwoorden kort en bondig in de daartoe voorziene velden. Elke theorie-vraag staat op 2 punten (totaal op 24). De oefening staan in totaal op 16 punten. Het geheel staat op 40 punten.

More information

Citrix XenApp and XenDesktop Fast Track

Citrix XenApp and XenDesktop Fast Track Citrix XenApp and XenDesktop Fast Track Duration: 5 Days Course Code: CMB-207 Overview: Deze 5-daagse Fast Track training biedt studenten de basis die nodig is om effectief desktops en applicaties in het

More information

How emotions drive value. Benefits from Customer Experience & Involvement Dirk van der Laan Windesheim University of Applied Sciences April 2014

How emotions drive value. Benefits from Customer Experience & Involvement Dirk van der Laan Windesheim University of Applied Sciences April 2014 How emotions drive value. Benefits from Customer Experience & Involvement Dirk van der Laan Windesheim University of Applied Sciences April 2014 How to make the difference? 2 Content Introduction How customers

More information

Citrix Access Gateway: Implementing Enterprise Edition Feature 9.0

Citrix Access Gateway: Implementing Enterprise Edition Feature 9.0 coursemonstercom/uk Citrix Access Gateway: Implementing Enterprise Edition Feature 90 View training dates» Overview Nederlands Deze cursus behandelt informatie die beheerders en andere IT-professionals

More information

IMPLEMENTATIE PAL4 DEMENTIE BIJ CLIENTEN VAN ZORGORGANISATIE BEWEGING 3.0

IMPLEMENTATIE PAL4 DEMENTIE BIJ CLIENTEN VAN ZORGORGANISATIE BEWEGING 3.0 IMPLEMENTATIE PAL4 DEMENTIE BIJ CLIENTEN VAN ZORGORGANISATIE BEWEGING 3.0 ONDERZOEK NAAR IN HOEVERRE PAL4 ONDERSTEUNING KAN BIEDEN AAN DE ONVERVULDE BEHOEFTEN VAN MENSEN MET DEMENTIE EN HUN MANTELZORGERS

More information

Business to Business Marketing, an Entrepreneurial Process!?

Business to Business Marketing, an Entrepreneurial Process!? Business to Business Marketing, an Entrepreneurial Process!? A research on constructing and applying a framework for Business-to-Business marketing as an entrepreneurial process in the North West European

More information

~ We are all goddesses, the only problem is that we forget that when we grow up ~

~ We are all goddesses, the only problem is that we forget that when we grow up ~ ~ We are all goddesses, the only problem is that we forget that when we grow up ~ This brochure is Deze brochure is in in English and Dutch het Engels en Nederlands Come and re-discover your divine self

More information

Risk-Based Monitoring

Risk-Based Monitoring Risk-Based Monitoring Evolutions in monitoring approaches Voorkomen is beter dan genezen! Roelf Zondag 1 wat is Risk-Based Monitoring? en waarom doen we het? en doen we het al? en wat is lastig hieraan?

More information

Thomas van Manen Researcher & Digital Strategist @VINTlabs MA. New Media & Digital Culture

Thomas van Manen Researcher & Digital Strategist @VINTlabs MA. New Media & Digital Culture V I N T Vision Inspiration Navigation Trends Thomas van Manen Researcher & Digital Strategist @VINTlabs MA. New Media & Digital Culture V I N T Vision Inspiration Navigation Trends Gamifica'on /? /! /

More information

SUBJECT LINES DONE RIGHT (ENGELSTALIG)

SUBJECT LINES DONE RIGHT (ENGELSTALIG) SUBJECT LINES DONE RIGHT (ENGELSTALIG) Pagina 1 van 6 An email s subject line is like a first impression. It is one of the first things a recipiënt sees when they glance at their inbox and a determining

More information

The B Method. Rob Tiemens

The B Method. Rob Tiemens The B Method Rob Tiemens The B Method Overzicht 1 Introductie 2 Uitleg Abstract Machine Notation Generalised Substitution Language Refinement Proof obligations 3 Taal 4 Demo 5 Bronnen The B Method - Introductie

More information

Co-evolution of Author IDs and Research Information Infrastructure in the Netherlands

Co-evolution of Author IDs and Research Information Infrastructure in the Netherlands Co-evolution of Author IDs and Research Information Infrastructure in the Netherlands Clifford Tatum, SURF Market - L'identité du publiant à l'épreuve du numérique Enjeux et perspectives pour l'identification

More information

CMMI version 1.3. How agile is CMMI?

CMMI version 1.3. How agile is CMMI? CMMI version 1.3 How agile is CMMI? A small poll Who uses CMMI without Agile? Who uses Agile without CMMI? Who combines both? Who is interested in SCAMPI? 2 Agenda Big Picture of CMMI changes Details for

More information

SOCIAL MEDIA AND HEALTHCARE HYPE OR FUTURE?

SOCIAL MEDIA AND HEALTHCARE HYPE OR FUTURE? SOCIAL MEDIA AND HEALTHCARE HYPE OR FUTURE? Status update of the social media use in the healthcare industry. Melissa L. Verhaag Master Thesis Communication Studies University of Twente March 2014 0 Name:

More information

COOLS COOLS. Cools is nominated for the Brains Award! www.brainseindhoven.nl/nl/top_10/&id=507. www.cools-tools.nl. Coen Danckmer Voordouw

COOLS COOLS. Cools is nominated for the Brains Award! www.brainseindhoven.nl/nl/top_10/&id=507. www.cools-tools.nl. Coen Danckmer Voordouw Name Nationality Department Email Address Website Coen Danckmer Voordouw Dutch / Nederlands Man and Activity info@danckmer.nl www.danckmer.nl Project: Image: Photographer: Other images: COOLS CoenDVoordouw

More information

Word -Introduction. Contents

Word -Introduction. Contents Introduction Everything about tables Mail merge and labels Refreshment of the basics of Word Increasing my efficiency : tips & tricks New in Word 2007 Standard - corporate documents What is new in Word

More information

Cisco Small Business Fast Track Pricing Initiative

Cisco Small Business Fast Track Pricing Initiative Cisco Small Business Fast Track Pricing Initiative Highlights Het Cisco Small Business portfolio biedt u een breed scala aan producten waarmee u optimaal kunt inspelen op de vraag van uw mkb klanten. Zeker

More information

7 WAYS HOW DESIGN THINKING CAN BOOST INSURANCE BUSINESS

7 WAYS HOW DESIGN THINKING CAN BOOST INSURANCE BUSINESS 7 WAYS HOW DESIGN THINKING CAN BOOST INSURANCE BUSINESS The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing everyday and yet expecting different results, as Einstein stated. To get different results, you

More information

VR technologies create an alternative reality in

VR technologies create an alternative reality in Dossier: REPAR: Design through exploration Getting started with Virtual Reality As a designer you might be familiar with various forms of concept representations, such as (animated) sketches, storyboards

More information

Total service experience as a function of service experiences in service systems

Total service experience as a function of service experiences in service systems Total service experience as a function of service experiences in service systems Ronny Schueritz, ronny.schueritz@kit.edu, KIT Service firms act as part of one or more service systems for the purpose of

More information

15 Most Typically Used Interview Questions and Answers

15 Most Typically Used Interview Questions and Answers 15 Most Typically Used Interview Questions and Answers According to the reports of job seekers, made from thousands of job interviews, done at 97 big companies in the United States, we selected the 15

More information

The Little Red Book of Selling By Jeffrey Gitomer

The Little Red Book of Selling By Jeffrey Gitomer The Little Red Book of Selling By Jeffrey Gitomer Why do people buy? is a thousand times more important than How do I sell? 1. I like my sales rep. Liking is the single most powerful element in a sales

More information

How to deliver Self Service IT Automation

How to deliver Self Service IT Automation How to deliver Self IT Automation Roeland Verhoeven, Manager Cloud Supply Chain Simac ICT Rien du Pre, HP Cloud Solution Architect Datum: 17-06-2014 Hoe te komen tot een Self Customer Centric Portal Er

More information

SALES KIT. Richtlijnen verkooptools en accreditatieproces Voyages-sncf.eu. Vertrouwelijk document. Eigendom van de VSC Groep

SALES KIT. Richtlijnen verkooptools en accreditatieproces Voyages-sncf.eu. Vertrouwelijk document. Eigendom van de VSC Groep SALES KIT NL Richtlijnen verkooptools en accreditatieproces Voyages-sncf.eu Vertrouwelijk document. Eigendom van de VSC Groep INHOUD WEBSERVICES: WAT IS EEN WEBSERVICE? WEBSERVICES: EURONET PROCEDURE KLANTEN

More information

IMPLEMENTING AN EFFECTIVE INFORMATION SECURITY AWARENESS PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTING AN EFFECTIVE INFORMATION SECURITY AWARENESS PROGRAM IMPLEMENTING AN EFFECTIVE INFORMATION SECURITY AWARENESS PROGRAM by AMANDA WOLMARANS DISSERTATION Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE in COMPUTER SCIENCE in the

More information

IT Works check. December 12th, 2012

IT Works check. December 12th, 2012 IT Works check December 12th, 2012 RESOC RESOC-SERR Gent en rondom Gent RESOC Gent en rondom Gent = Committee for regional social-economic consultation Representatives of: City of Ghent + 9 municipalities

More information

Welcome to Marketeach! Here is the sample lesson plan that you requested be sent to you. The next page is a summary of the entire set of lesson plans.

Welcome to Marketeach! Here is the sample lesson plan that you requested be sent to you. The next page is a summary of the entire set of lesson plans. Dear Educator, Welcome to! Here is the sample lesson plan that you requested be sent to you. The next page is a summary of the entire set of lesson plans. We at created this program to allow teachers to

More information

CUSTOMER LOYALTY IN FINANCIAL SERVICES FROM A SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC PERSPECTIVE

CUSTOMER LOYALTY IN FINANCIAL SERVICES FROM A SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC PERSPECTIVE CUSTOMER LOYALTY IN FINANCIAL SERVICES FROM A SERVICE-DOMINANT LOGIC PERSPECTIVE Kat Mui Ling Graduate Student, Graduate School of Business, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Brian C. Imrie

More information

Graphical User Interfaces. Prof. dr. Paul De Bra Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Universiteit Antwerpen. 2005/2006 Graphical User Interfaces 2

Graphical User Interfaces. Prof. dr. Paul De Bra Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Universiteit Antwerpen. 2005/2006 Graphical User Interfaces 2 Graphical User Interfaces Prof. dr. Paul De Bra Technische Universiteit Eindhoven Universiteit Antwerpen 2005/2006 Graphical User Interfaces 2 Part 3: User Interface Evaluation Predictive evaluation, without

More information

user checks! improve your design significantly"

user checks! improve your design significantly user checks! improve your design significantly" Workshop by Userneeds - Anouschka Scholten Assisted by ArjanneAnouk Interact Arjanne de Wolf AmsterdamUX Meet up - June 3, 2015 Make people s lives better.

More information

Suriname Tourist visa Application

Suriname Tourist visa Application Suriname Tourist visa Application Please enter your contact information Name: Email: Tel: Mobile: The latest date you need your passport returned in time for your travel: Suriname tourist visa checklist

More information

Sample test Secretaries/administrative. Secretarial Staff Administrative Staff

Sample test Secretaries/administrative. Secretarial Staff Administrative Staff English Language Assessment Paper 3: Writing Time: 1¼ hour Secretarial Staff Administrative Staff Questions 1 17 Text 1 (questions 1 8) Assessment Paper 3 Writing Part 1 For questions 1-8, read the text

More information

Customer Experience Analytics

Customer Experience Analytics Customer Experience Analytics By eloyalty s Marketing Solutions Service Line 9.16.2003 OPTIMIZING CUSTOMER INTERACTIONS Customer Experience Analytics Abstract This paper will describe a method of quantifying

More information

Netherlands National Contact Point OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Lodewijk de Waal 23 October 2015

Netherlands National Contact Point OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Lodewijk de Waal 23 October 2015 Netherlands National Contact Point OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises Lodewijk de Waal 23 October 2015 De ondernemingsraad en MVO MVO moet geintegreerd onderdeel zijn van bedrijfsbeleid, het

More information

University of Twente

University of Twente University of Twente EEMCS / Electrical Engineering Control Engineering Systems Engineering and Design The search for a knowledge exchange model or Wessel Ganzevoort Pre-doc Supervisors prof.dr.ir. J.

More information

Specification by Example (methoden, technieken en tools) Remco Snelders Product owner & Business analyst

Specification by Example (methoden, technieken en tools) Remco Snelders Product owner & Business analyst Specification by Example (methoden, technieken en tools) Remco Snelders Product owner & Business analyst Terminologie Specification by Example (SBE) Acceptance Test Driven Development (ATDD) Behaviour

More information

HIPPO STUDY DG Education And Culture Study On The Cooperation Between HEIs And Public And Private Organisations In Europe. Valorisatie 9/26/2013

HIPPO STUDY DG Education And Culture Study On The Cooperation Between HEIs And Public And Private Organisations In Europe. Valorisatie 9/26/2013 Valorisatie Hoe goed doen we het in Nederland en doet het HBO het anders dan universiteiten? Peter van der Sijde Todd Davey HIPPO STUDY DG Education And Culture Study On The Cooperation Between HEIs And

More information

The network serves as a medium for new media art. This does not comprise a

The network serves as a medium for new media art. This does not comprise a OKNO werd opgericht om in collectief aan een gedeelde visie te kunnen werken. Als groep ge?ngageerde kunstenaars bouwen we aan onze vreemde, ongedefinieerde discipline en ruimen we er plaats voor in het

More information

Verticale tuin maken van een pallet

Verticale tuin maken van een pallet Daar krijg je dan je groendakmaterialen geleverd op een pallet. Waar moet je naar toe met zo'n pallet. Retour brengen? Gebruiken in de open haard? Maar je kunt creatiever zijn met pallets. Zo kun je er

More information

On Customer Experience

On Customer Experience On Customer Experience Benefits. Best Practices. Truth. Storyminers, Inc. All rights Reserved. 770.425.9830 mike@mikewittenstein.com On Customer Experience There s certainly nothing new about focusing

More information

A Comparative Case Study on the Relationship between EU Unity and its Effectiveness in Multilateral Negotiations

A Comparative Case Study on the Relationship between EU Unity and its Effectiveness in Multilateral Negotiations Is the Sum More than its Parts? A Comparative Case Study on the Relationship between EU Unity and its Effectiveness in Multilateral Negotiations PhD thesis by: Louise van Schaik, July 2010 Promoter/ PhD

More information

user checks! Get it RITE! Snel naar een sterk verbeterd ontwerp

user checks! Get it RITE! Snel naar een sterk verbeterd ontwerp Get it RITE! user checks! Snel naar een sterk verbeterd ontwerp Presentation by Userneeds - Anouschka Scholten Rabobank CX day Banking for Buttons - June 24, 2015 Getting to empathy! A key function of

More information

ABN AMRO Bank N.V. The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. ABN AMRO Holding N.V. RBS Holdings N.V. ABN AMRO Bank N.V.

ABN AMRO Bank N.V. The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. ABN AMRO Holding N.V. RBS Holdings N.V. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. Op 6 februari 2010 is de naam ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (geregistreerd bij de Kamer van Koophandel onder nummer 33002587) gewijzigd in The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V. Op 1 april 2010 is de naam van ABN AMRO Holding

More information

Format samenvatting aanvraag. Algemeen Soort aanvraag (kruis aan wat van toepassing is):

Format samenvatting aanvraag. Algemeen Soort aanvraag (kruis aan wat van toepassing is): Format samenvatting aanvraag Algemeen Soort aanvraag (kruis aan wat van toepassing is): Naam instelling Contactpersoon/contactpersonen Contactgegevens Opleiding Naam (Nederlands en evt. Engels) Graad Inhoud

More information

Managing Effective Brand Relationships. friend is someone you can rely on, truly enjoy being around, and depend on even when

Managing Effective Brand Relationships. friend is someone you can rely on, truly enjoy being around, and depend on even when Kristin Dziadul MK 440- Marketing Seminar Professor McKeon Marketing Theory Managing Effective Brand Relationships Think back to one of your first true friendships and what that meant to you. A true friend

More information

Strategic Interactions in Franchise Relationships. Evelien Croonen

Strategic Interactions in Franchise Relationships. Evelien Croonen Strategic Interactions in Franchise Relationships Evelien Croonen Publisher: Labyrinth Publications Pottenbakkerstraat 15 17 2984 AX Ridderkerk The Netherlands Print: Offsetdrukkerij Ridderprint B.V.,

More information

NL VMUG UserCon March 19 2015

NL VMUG UserCon March 19 2015 NL VMUG UserCon March 19 2015 VMware Microsoft Let's look beyond the war on checkbox compliancy. Introductie Insight24 Technologie is een middel, geen doel 3x M (Mensen, Methoden, Middelen) & Organisatie

More information

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE LANGUAGES EXAMINATIONS BOARD

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE LANGUAGES EXAMINATIONS BOARD Name: Candidate Registration Number: Date of Exam: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE LANGUAGES EXAMINATIONS BOARD SURVIVAL SLP1 DUTCH PAPER A Reading Task 1 Task 2 Time allowed Translation Comprehension 15 minutes Candidates

More information

Brokerage in a SME network across Design and High-Tech Industries

Brokerage in a SME network across Design and High-Tech Industries across Design and High-Tech Industries Article of drs.yvonne Kirkels and prof. dr. Geert Duijsters Eindhoven University of Technology Faculty of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences & Fontys Hogeschool

More information

Financial Freedom: Three Steps to Creating and Enjoying the Wealth You Deserve

Financial Freedom: Three Steps to Creating and Enjoying the Wealth You Deserve Financial Freedom: Three Steps to Creating and Enjoying the Wealth You Deserve What does financial freedom mean to you? Does it mean freedom from having to work, yet still being able to enjoy life without

More information

INSIDER TRADING POLICY ZIGGO N.V. EFFECTIVE AS OF 18.07.2013. Declaration of agreement with the Insider Trading Policy

INSIDER TRADING POLICY ZIGGO N.V. EFFECTIVE AS OF 18.07.2013. Declaration of agreement with the Insider Trading Policy INSIDER TRADING POLICY ZIGGO N.V. EFFECTIVE AS OF 18.07.2013 CONTENTS (1) Definitions (2) General rules applicable to all Employees (3) Additional rules for Insiders (4) Compliance Officer APPENDICES (I)

More information