1. What are the main questions and issues when we are speaking about co-creation?
2. What do you personally understand to be the concept of co-creation?
3. What do you consider to be the best practices in this field ?
4. What features do make this businesscases best practices?
5. Where is the value created for the individual, for the supplier, for the community.
6. How is this value created?
And what do we think that co-creation is? What is co-creation and what is not. After we have discussed your answers, we will give a short introduction to what we understand in our view as experience co-creation opposite to all sorts of marketing gimmicks and describe several proven businesscases like LEGO factory, KLM bluelab and some other inspirational examples.
The workshop will be introduced and facilitated by Albert Boswijk CEO of the European Centre for the Experience Economy and Raul Lansink managing partner of Favela Fabric. In detail will be discussed how to introduce and increase the lifecycle of a co-creation lab application. After a short break we will work with you on ways how you can actually introduce co -creative forms in your organisational practice. There will ample space for discussion The Power of Co-Creation, special lab by The European Centre for the Experience Economy and Favela Fabric. The workshop will be facilitated by Raul Lansink of Favela Fabric and Albert Boswijk. Costs € 95,-.

Register direct on https://enter.n200.com/?event_id=31&script_id=141&C=e485b8b60f80ed3c2d49e7d44613059f&d=&d=1
Register for Pic Nic Crossmedia week! 10% Reduced fee through ECEE. Your Bookingscode 271659

Specially for Alumni of former Executive courses; an advanced course at Castell d’Emporda Girona Spain. Themes; The truth about Authenticity.We will share the results of our recent research. The power of co-creation and social networking Featuring Michel Bauwens and Raul Lansink (Favela Fabric KLM Bluelab). Work on challenging businesscases and improve your own immaterial value creation. Faciliated by Steven Olthof, Ed Peelen and Albert Boswijk. Registration before the 15th of September. Detailed programme and registration will be sent to you.

Immaterial production deals with non-rival or even anti-rival goods that can be produced through the self-assemblage of interconnected brains, the result of which can then be made ‘universally available’. This works without any problem for software and what is generally called ‘content’.
But, what about immaterial value that is intrinsically interconnected to physical products, which are often ‘rival’ and in any case need systematic cost-recovery mechanisms? Any physical production of course has design aspects which can be produced through peer production, i.e. through open design communities that make their innovations universally accessible, just as software or content is.

Sunday morning 8.30 hours 11 closed its doors.(see ). After a zindering night of music and allnight dancing people didnot want to leave “their place” what has become the most attractive place for modern dance music over the last 4 years. The building blocks of the succes have been the sharp and attractive programming of upcoming dj’s. Not so well known but dedicated to their new form of music. The location on top of the post cs building with a great view over Amsterdam, plus the attractive and no nonsense food, and not to forget the team that the people behind 11 have build over the past period. A place where people felt home and wanted to spent their time. Writing this I feel sad that we cannot go there anymore and will not be able to invite friends and guests to this remarquable place. Thanks for what 11 has given us. There is a lot to learn from these guys how to create a social meeting place wit a mix of contempary culture, a true meaningful place.

The most important aspects of communities are living, working, marriage, family. There is no choice, it is for better or worse. There are multistranded relationships, which create a bundle of interdependent relationships. It empirically proved that we are only capable to manage 150 relationships of relevant others. Flexibility and variation is determined by your feet(limited mobility) and there are variations in being equal.The shapes of communities are dependent on their reason of existence. They are like a band and are very stable. They are internally very structured by families, clans, areas and have their own political structure base on age, ex, and experience. Communities changed through the change of their means of existence of energy and production. The so called “web communities ” are pure social networks.Wouter van Beek argues that these “communities” are complementary to existing communities and not an substitute.Participants are only engaged part of their time, there is what he calls a new sodality, geografically speaking there is almost ubiquity , contentwise they are limited,and interaction is seriously reduced, and they only touch one site of the personality.Through the web there are no functional communities. Wouter van Beek spoke at the yearly Vint conference of Sogeti, Leading the big Change. He is antropologist and studies the history and development of communities at the Tilburg University and the African Studies Centre of the University of Leiden.

As a frequent speaker on peer to peer issues, there is always a temptation to settle into routines, and if you do so many lectures, there is always a danger that your memory turns originally distinct experiences into a single blur.
There is one event in the year where I think this will not happen, and these are the memorable experiences of the annual gathering of the Center for the Experience Economy. One of the highlights was Mark Hansen, director of Business Development at Lego, who has been focusing his life’s work on spurring co-creation processes between Lego as a corporate community and the legions of fans that are normally operating independently of the company. This year Mark Hansen gave us an equally fascinating account of his progress. I have no longer any doubt that Lego is simply, at least if Mark’s projects can be further carried out, the paradigmatic example of the mutual adaptation of a business with its surrounding communities. Rather than prohibiting user involvement, Mark’s instinct go into the opposite direction of learning to tap further and further into it, and to develop mutually beneficial relationships.

The European Centre for the Experience Economy and Shiraz partners completed a research project with Motivaction on what the Dutch consumer considers to be the building blocks of authenticity. Which companies and brands does he or she consider to be very authentic and which are the least authentic? The top three concepts are “originaliteit” (original, new, fresh), “oorspronkelijkheid” (the original source, from the source), and “echt” (real, genuine) together with “betrouwbaarheid” (trustworthiness). The results also show which kinds of people (according to Motivaction’s mentality segments) embrace specific kinds of authenticity.

Ex en Lengkeek (2000) differentiate between material authenticity (made of the original material), conceptual authenticity( made according to the intention of the original maker), contextual authenticity (in the right context) and functional authenticity (being used in the traditional way). Furthermore they differntiate between historical (when aging is shown) and a-historical authenticity (when aging is hidden or the object is restored). We will study now if these concepts of authenticity confirm or falsify the theory of the five genres of Gilmore & Pine.

As the most authentic Dutch brands were mentioned: Albert Heijn, Douwe Egberts, Philips and Calvé. All specific Dutch companies that have a long history. We assume that a sort of Dutch nostalgia plays an important role. Perceived as the least authentic companies were the energy suppliers, telecoms and ICT suppliers. When asked about inauthenticity, respondents speak more about business sectors than about individual companies. The same research was done for the financial service industry. The most authentic bank is RABOBANK and the least authentic is ABN AMRO. We would like to replicate this research in other European Countries. Please contact us if you are interested.Further research will be done in the hospitality and retail industry.

“Authenticity is what consumers really want” . This is the claim Gilmore & Pine make in their new book. Is there really a need for more authenticity? Or is this a new marketing gimmic that we have to believe in and that people have to follow? Consumers have very little trust in companies and organisations. We believe that people can be authentic but is it possible that organisations can be authentic? The European Centre for the Experience Economy and Shiraz Partners directed a research project with Motivaction under Dutch consumers on what they believe are the building blocks of authenticity. And which brands and organisations they think are most authentic and which ones are not authentic at all. Next Tuesday at the Authenticity eventwww.authenticiteit-event.nl/Experienceeconomy we will present the results of this empirical research.The second part of this research will cover authenticity in the financial service industry. Joe Pine will direct an exclusive masterclass and include the results of our research. If you are interested in a full report please let us know.

This article by Steve Bosserman http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/steve_bosserman/2008/02/09/giving_it_away_making_money.htm is about the best that I have read about the issue of sustainability in a world of open design. It’s an article which should be read slowly, it is a slow buildup of simple but intricate arguments, and has the illustrative graphics to match. I want to retrace my own understanding of it. First, the broad context is this: open and free has been moving historically from content (now a mainstream reality) to software (open source software, not fully mainstream, but consolidating as we speak http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/technology/09free.html ), to design in general (an emerging reality right now).

Joe Pine lectured tonight(monday the 21st of Jan) at the Meeting up network in de Rode Hoed in Amsterdam He presented for the first time his new multiverse model where he has been working on now for seven years as he told me. The concept and ideas of multiverse origin and are inspired from the book Snowcrash of Neal Stephenson(1992). In this book the future is described of 3D-internet. The universe takes place in the dimensions time, space and matter. Imagine yourself time on the y axe and space on the x-axe and matter as the diagnol. Time, space and matter take place in the physical world. The opposite of matter(atoms) is non matter(bits) the virtual world. The opposite of time is no -time, non linear. The opposite of space is no-space. In the 1st quadrant of time, physical and matter we find the present physical reality.The 2nd quadrant is limited by two dimensions the physical and the no-time dimension, this is the dimension of the augmented and alternated reality. The 3rd quadrant of no -space and no-time, we find the dimension of the virtual world.( in this belong the 2nd life, and habbo hotel examples). The 3rd quadrant is limited by the non -physical, no-space and time, this dimension is called the augmented virtuality and the physical virtuality. In this four quadrants Pine differentiates between the physical virtuality, the alternate reality, augmented virtuality and the mirror world. It will take a while to really understand the model. The power of the model is the consistent logic reasoning into these different worlds which opens windows in how different media and experience providers can add value and experiences to their existing offerings. Joe is still looking for the real opposites of the augmented virtuality and the augmented or alternate reality. We promise to write more about this model. It takes a while to let it sink in. It is actually interesting to see the development of Pine’s thinking. The location hierarchy model proves to be a sort of in between step of this multiverse model.The lecture of Joe can be watched on Henk Jan’s Winkeldermaat webloghttp://eventbranche.blogs.com/eventbranche_weblog/2008/01/eindelijk-einde.html

Entreprise 2.0 is not just a new technological paradigm, but above all a new social paradigm. Simply integrating its new technological capabilities in an unchanged corporate culture, will not provide any of the substantial benefits that wider participation by employees and user communities can bring. Entreprise 2.0 is nothing less than a new paradigm for organizing work and value creation in our networked information economies. In order to understand the cultural challenge, it helps to understand 3 different cooperative cultures, and their associated social contracts and business models, i.e . sharism, commons production, and crowdsourcing.

1.What do we mean with social innovation? Innovation is traditionally defined as an entrepreneurial activity, and the latter is almost invariably described as an activity related to capital. Capital funds entrepreneurial innovation, while the state and its policies are concerned with the general conditions that allow innovation to flourish as a social process. In this article, we will content that a number of important social trends are undermining the validity of this general view.
Indeed, when we say that innovation is becoming social, we are saying that innovation is escaping from its entrepreneurial context, while at the same time, entrepreneurship itself is escaping the context of capitalism.
There a number of congruent objective and (inter)subjective social trends that are making innovation more and more of a social process.