Search results

The purpose of this paper is to qualitatively analyze and compare people’s objectives when participating in two sets of co-creation initiatives – business-to-consumer (B2C) and business-to-business (B2B) – to what the theory in the field states about that participation.

A qualitative approach has been adopted; it uses laddering, a qualitative technique, in a novel manner through the analysis of an abstract product: the co-creation process.

Results in B2C point to a disconnection between the motivation of participants and what the theory suggests that should be expected from a co-creation agenda. In the B2B setting, the disconnections are much smaller.

The research used small and narrow samples. Additionally, the research considers only the consumers’ perspective.

Considering the context in which they compete (industrial or consumer market), companies must come up with better selection criteria for co-creators and must be more specific in setting and pursuing the goals of the co-creation projects. By doing so, organizations can achieve more fruitful results in those innovation initiatives.

The present study is innovative in the use of laddering to understand not a product nor a service, but a process: co-creation. The study reveals that, despite the buzz about co-creation, practical examples suggest that this process may not be as fruitful or satisfying as the theories suggest.

The study aims to demonstrate how different arrangements and characteristics of institutions can generate or mitigate uncertainty thereby facilitating or hampering the possibilities of entrepreneurial action.

This is a conceptual paper that advances the theoretical understanding of the relationship between entrepreneurial uncertainty and the different institutional levels, their characteristics and their interplay.

Entrepreneurial uncertainty also comes from the institutional environment and this has direct impact on the propensity to take action. The characteristics of the different institutional levels, in specific, their quality, stability, alignment and the burden imposed by L2 impact in the emergence of entrepreneurial uncertainty.

This is a conceptual paper that makes a number of theoretical suggestions which need to be further analyzed by empirical work.

The findings suggest that different institutional levels need to be dealt with differently by research studies and institutional agents, including policy makers. Among others, the findings also suggest that stability is key to entrepreneurship and that the benefits of high quality regulation can be undermined by its excessive burden, reducing entrepreneurial action and harming development.

Institutional actors should provide stability and allow for the improvement of the environment overall. Specifically, policy makers should aim at good quality regulation that is valid across the board, that provides stability and gives room for improvement of the institutions. Policy makers should refrain from trying to foster specific industries; they should instead provide a leveled playing field without trying to direct the entrepreneurial efforts towards an industry or geographic region and without being overly demeaning.

This research breaks new ground. It unites ideas from entrepreneurship and institutions suggesting a novel, much more nuanced approach to their interplay. The results can be used by scholars in the fields of entrepreneurship, institutions and economic development. They also have the potential to help to educate policy makers in their quest to improve the context for entrepreneurs.