Talk:Co-creation

Suggest Deletion=

Agree that this article reads more like a magazine entry than an encyclopedic entry. Would move for deletion. 66.90.151.6 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)APRIL 2014

Agree: this article is verbiage and sounds more like advertising than information. Suggest deletion or rewriting in actual English. Denis (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

open innovation vs. co-creation

Please help me: I don' understand the difference between Open Innovation and Co-Creation. Can anybody give me a hint or source where to get some information about my question? Thanks --78.53.130.246 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Co-creation in German wikipedia

Can anybody help to translate the english version of the article into german version of wikipedia? --78.53.130.246 (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC).

Co-creation is also a spiritual practice

this entry only references a business model, when I practice co-creation as a spiritual path. my definition would be to live in awareness of the interconnectedness of the universe, god, and all beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.132.184 (talk) 19:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not support delete

I cannot support recommendations to delete or merge this article.

Co-creation of value is a very important concept in marketing and economics. As such, the article should be retained. Efforts should be directed at improving this article. At the moment it consists largely of a string of quotations from various authors relating what they have said on the topic. A little bit of this is OK, but too much is not helpful as it starts to become repetitive, boring and doesn't add value.

The article needs to probe under the surface. Instead of focusing simply on definitions and trite explanations - it needs to explain how the concept of co-creation has changed marketing practices and strategies - how it has led to a qualitatively different understanding of the customer's role in value creation. BronHiggs (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Co-creation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704082003/http://ninety10group.com/thinking to http://ninety10group.com/thinking

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed way forward

Currently, there is a lot of non-encyclopedic and irrelevant content in this article. In particular, a large part of this article is not about co-creation itself, but about people who have written about it (currently most of it is under "History of the term"). Relatedly, the parts that are about co-creation itself are often written from one particular theory about co-creation, instead of combining multiple theories into one coherent perspective, or explaining how the various perspectives differ from each other. I think all the content currently under "History of the term" should eventually be either deleted or repurposed to be about co-creation itself.

For the rest, there is a lot of content that should be outright deleted from the article, or completely rewritten. The article should also be re-organised: there are a lot of sections that shouldn't exist, and some sections that should exist are missing.

Luckily, the one thing this article does have is a lot of good references. Many of them are under-used. To anyone who wants to contribute, I recommend diving into one of the many references, further reading materials or external links and bringing what's there into the article, of course taking care to write content about co-creation itself and not people who have written about it. On the other hand, some of the further reading materials, external links and also references seem to be irrelevant or redundant - those should be removed.

One last thing: the lead section. It used to be a whole article of its own, but I've now reduced it to 2 sentences which I think give a good description of the term. I would caution anyone against expanding the lead section for the time being, as the article is still very much a work in progress. While the lead section should reflect the whole article, bad content that shouldn't be in the article should also not make its way into the lead. If you want to improve the article, I think you should focus your attention on one section of the article, and only once that section is good enough you should include a short summary of it in the lead. PJvanMill (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletions to Entry Regarding Co-creation as a Model of Existence and Social Relationship

I would like to understand the basis upon with additions I made to this regarding co-creation being a model of existence and social relationship were reverted/removed from this entry. Please can you explain the reasons why you felt the contributions made not to be relevant to this subject? PJvanMill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tansegrity (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Tansegrity. It seems to me that Barbara Hubbard's concept of "co-creation" is something completely different from the "co-creation" that this article is about. This article is about the term as it is used in economics and business. What you call "co-creation" seems to be more of a complete worldview about the interconnectedness of life, which is very much not what business people mean when they use the term "co-creation".

Also, a little tip: you can sign your comments by putting ~~~~ at the end. At the start, a bot will do it for you if you forget. Kind regards from (the following is a signature that results from ~~~~) PJvanMill (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you PJvanMill for making clear your perspective and rationale. I hadn't realised that a topic should fork instantly on Wikipedia and thought that co-creation could be defined more generally covering its different applications (ie. business and other definitions). Based on what you have shared and suggested in another comment, I will start a new page specifically defining co-creation as a social model/worldview. I was being expedient when making an initial entry as I meet many people searching for information on co-creation and wanted to provide a placeholder entry to at least make clear co-creation is not just a business concept. Sorry therefore for my beginner's work, I will take some time to read the Wikipedia guidelines before going further. Thank you for your help. Tansegrity (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Origins/framing of the term

This entry focuses heavily on co-creation as involving customers in product/srrvice innovation. That's true, but it's only one application. Co-creation has a much wider application in organisational development, where it's understood to be any situation where people co-create a process and outcome. Its origins go back at least to 1994 and the Fifth Duscipline Fieldbook, and related work on leadership in learning organisations, and systems thinking. I'd have to do some digging to find the specific reference as it's covered as an essay in the FDF, to find the author and if there's any reference to him using it before the book, which was a collection of pre-existing tools and models. I don't edit here so I'm unsure what to do with this, other than posting this note. Thanks 2A00:23C4:499F:701:AD38:6DB2:AE28:50F3 (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)