A study on the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector

A study on the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector Comparing co- creation with current procurement procedures and integrated contract frameworks

Steven Vis – 1395599 Construction Management & Engineering [email protected] March 2015

Graduation Committee Chairman: Professor mr. dr. Monika Chao-Duivis

Faculty of Architecture

Members: Assistant professor ir. Leon Hombergen

Faculty of Civil Engineering & Geosciences

dr. mr. Nienke Saanen

Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management

dr. ir. Jan-Reinout Deketh

Royal HaskoningDHV

2

Preface This is a MSc thesis report about the feasibility of co-creation in the Dutch infrastructure sector. I was inspired to go into this topic by the opinion article in Co-bouw of Jan Hendrik Dronkers, current General Director of Rijkswaterstaat, who stated that “Co-creation is the future for Rijkswaterstaat.” Since then, there have been several conferences that have stressed the actuality of co-creation in the infrastructure sector. Among others, current events which emphasized co-creation were the Rail and Infra forum 2014 of Vernieuwing Bouw, the National Road Congress 2014 of NIB and the Infratech 2015. The study was conducted for my master thesis at TU Delft, which constitutes the last step in completing the Construction Management and Engineering MSc program. It has been a challenging period during which I obtained significant knowledge on cooperation between public clients and private contractors, as well as procurement legislation and integrated contract frameworks. I would like to thank those that have contributed to this research both directly and indirectly. Of course Monika Chao-Duivis, thank you for your personal dedication and for being so enthusiastic about the topic of this research. Leon Hombergen, due to your network I was able to interview so many inspiring employees from Rijkswaterstaat. And Nienke Saanen, as a result of your strong methodological experiences, I managed to turn this report into an academic writing. The research was performed in the form of an internship at Royal HaskoningDHV, which I would like to thank for making this research possible and for introducing me to the world of infrastructure projects. Most importantly, I need to thank my supervisor in RHDHV, Jan-Reinout Deketh, for giving me inspiration, knowledge and important insights. I have really enjoyed working together. In addition, I would like to thank Johan Hekker for his trust and for facilitating my presence in the Business Line Infrastructure. I cannot omit thanking Martijn Ottenhoff in RHDHV for his help and support concerning specific contract conditions and his insights into practical situations. Focal point of this research are the two rounds of interviews conducted in person with public clients, contractors, engineering firms, legal experts, industry associations and knowledge institutes. I need to express my gratitude to each one of those professionals for their valuable input, their interest and their willingness to assist me. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family for their mental, moral and material support. Also, I would like to thanks my housemates for thinking along and my girlfriend Michelle for her support and understanding. Steven Vis Amersfoort, March 2015

3

[Blank Page]

4

Special thanks to: Martijn Ottenhoff

(Royal HaskoningDHV)

Ton Huijzer

(Vernieuwing Bouw)

Patrick van Dijk


Carlo Kuiper

(Bam)

Maarten Vis Abz.

(HVG advocaten)

Ton Swanenberg

(Rijkswaterstaat)

Marleen Hermans

(TU Delft)

Kim Roffel


Daniel Santurio Gonzalez

(Croon advocaten)

Corne van Iersel

(Nedmobiel)

Folkert Bolkestein

(Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn)

Arent van Wassenaer

(Allen & Overy)

Charles Petit

(Ministerie van Infrastructuur & Milieu)

Bertrand van Ee

(Climate-KIC)

Cees Brandsen

(Rijkswaterstaat)

Ed Nijpels

(NLingenieurs)

Rudolf Rijkens

(AT Osborne)

Ad de Rooij

(Rijkswaterstaat)

Paul Oortwijn

(NLingenieurs)

Annemieke Sietses

(Rijkswaterstaat)

5

Executive Summary Research Problem The starting point for this research is the growing interest of the infrastructure sector in the meaning of a new phenomenon: co-creation. The interest of the sector is particularly driven by the plea for cocreation by the current Director General of Rijkswaterstaat, Jan Hendrik Dronkers. As a leading client, Dronkers describes co-creation as “the future” for his organization. Dronkers furthermore stated that co-creation would result in a new client-contractor relationship in the infrastructure sector. Consequently, those who are active in the infrastructure sector are searching for the meaning of the concept of co-creation. One aspect of meaning of “co-creation” is the question of whether it is actually different from existing forms of cooperation. In recent years, experimental alliance agreements between client and contractor, and the introduction of supply chain collaboration, have emphasized closer cooperation between business partners. What makes co-creation different from these kinds of cooperation? According to Dronkers, working together as partners is the key to cost savings, growth, employment, sustainability, and safety. Therefore, the underlying assumption of this research is that co-creation might contribute to an improved client-contractor relationship by increasing the feasibility of project goals in the infrastructure sector. However, assuming that co-creation has its benefits does not ensure it also suits the existing legal framework of procurement procedures and integrated contracts. Because the existing legal framework does not address co-creation, there is a need to study the degree to which co-creation is compatible with existing project conditions and, in particular, with the legalities of procurement procedures and contract frameworks.

Research Objectives The objective of this research is to study the degree to which co-creation is feasible under the existing legal framework covering procurement procedures and integrated contracts. Based on preliminary research, the objective particularly emphasizes the feasibility of co-creation with respect to the competitive dialogue procedure and the innovation partnership procedure. Moreover, a particular emphasis was placed on the feasibility of co-creation in relation to the Design and Construct contract (DC), the Design, Build, Finance and Maintain contract (DBFM), and the alliance agreement. In relation to this specific objective, the following research question has been proposed: “What are the drivers for and barriers to co-creation under existing procurement legislation and integrated contract conditions between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector?” A two part procedure was developed to answer this research question: a literature review and a series of in-depth interviews with those doing business in the infrastructure sector. The literature study was conducted to establish a theoretical background on the topic of co-creation, procurement legislation, and integrated contract conditions. To get a more empirical view of the issue, interviews were conducted with public clients, contractors, engineering firms, legal experts, industry 6

associations and knowledge institutes. The research method used was based on the Delphi technique, a group process used to collect the opinions of experts on a particular subject. During this research, twenty-four interviews were conducted over two rounds. The interviewees were asked to provide input on a proposed definition of co-creation, and to identify the characteristics, drivers and barriers to co-creation between client and contractor during procurement and implementation. One of the major reasons for conducting a second round of interviews was to corroborate preliminary conclusions obtained from the first round of interviews.

What Is Co-creation?

Practice

Literature study

Before any kind of analysis of the feasibility of co-creation can be conducted, it is essential to be clear on what is meant by the term “co-creation.” This research has found different interpretations and perspectives on the meaning of co-creation. Indeed, so many different interpretations and perspectives were found that it was not possible to draft a single definition of co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector. Nevertheless, both the literature review and the interviews shed light on some of the fundamental characteristics of co-creation. The basic message from this research is that four categories form the “building blocks” for the meaning of co-creation. These categories form a four-cell matrix (see below) in which the rows are issues derived either from the literature review or the interviews, and the columns are either Consensus Characteristics (characteristics that are widely shared) or Controversial Characteristics (characteristics for which a divergence of opinions exist). Consensual characteristics 1  Meaning is created by interaction between the actors involved

Controversial characteristics 2  Who are the co-creators? Company-consumer or any collaboration with externals?



Co-creation is an undetermined process that develops over time



Is co-creation a collaboration or innovation form?



Degree of power and control of consumer



(Usually) project-based



Work from bottom-up (with consumers)



3 Cooperation between client and contractor in the project as early as possible



The solution is unknown in advance



Client and contractor are not equal but need to treat each other as if they were



By means of a dialogue and common goal, focus is on a solution that suits the client and contractor





4 Degree to which the client and contractor join strengths. Is an equivalent input of strengths an essential required characteristic of co-creation? Or is co-creation only about openness towards the problems of one another? Division of responsibilities between client and contractor. Is joint responsibility a required characteristic of co-creation?

To provide a better understanding on the meaning of co-creation, it is important to distinguish it from supply chain collaboration. Although it was questionable whether co-creation was truly different, the following observations were noted: 7

 

 

A collaboration in co-creation is “usually” project- based, whereas supply chain collaboration is conceived of as “ideally” covering a series of projects. The literature on co-creation emphasises company-consumer interactions, whereas the consumer is not considered as part of the chain in most discussions of supply chain collaboration. A collaboration in co-creation does not exclude the involvement of the client. Under supply chain collaboration, however, the client is not considered to be a part of the chain. Co-creation is as applicable to the exploratory, plan study, procurement or realization phases of a project. Supply chain collaboration, on the other hand, focuses mainly on detailed solutions to the execution of a project during the phase of realization. Consequently, compared to supply chain collaboration, co-creation is phase-independent.

Feasibility of Co-creation The table below provides an overview of the results of the analysis of the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor under the chosen procurement procedures and integrated contracts. Feasibility is indicated as being based on either the literature study (category 1 and 2) or the interviews (category 3 and 4). Consensual characteristics from literature: category 1

Feasibility of co-creation Competitive dialogue +/+/+ N.A.

Innovation partnership + ++ + N.A.

D&C

DBFM

Alliance

+/+/+ N.A.

+ N.A.

++ +/+ N.A.

1.a) Company-consumer relationship 1.b) Collaboration with externals in general 2.a) Collaboration form 2.b) Innovation form 3. Degree of power and control of consumer Consensual characteristics from practice: category 3

N.A. + + + N.A.

N.A. ++ + ++ N.A.

N.A. + + +/N.A.

N.A. + + +/N.A.

N.A. + + + N.A.

1. Cooperation in the project as early as possible 2. The solution is unknown in advance 3. Partners are not equal but need to treat each other equivalent 4. Focus is on a solution that suits the involved partners Controversial characteristics from practice: category 4

+ + +/-

++ ++ +/+

+/+ -

+/+ -

+ ++ ++

1.a) Equivalent input of strengths 1.b) No equivalent input but openness for interests and problems 2.a) Shared responsibilities 2.b) No shared responsibilities required Total

+/+/+ + +7

+/+/+ + +18

+ +/+ +3

-+ +/+ 0

+ ++ ++ +14

1. Meaning is created by interaction between the actors involved 2. Co-creation is an undetermined process that develops over time 3. (Usually) project-based 4. Working from bottom-up (with consumer) Controversial characteristics from literature: category 2

8

++ + +/-N.A.

Extremely feasible Feasible Dependent Infeasible Extremely infeasible Not applicable

The analysis shows the feasibility of co-creation by comparing the individual characteristics of cocreation with procurement procedure legislation and the main characteristics of integrated contracts. Because views about the meaning of co-creation differ, an overall answer on the feasibility of co-creation is not possible. However, conclusions with respect to the feasibility of the individual characteristics of co-creation can be drawn. This following paragraph identifies the most remarkable individual findings in the overall analysis. First, the results show that the procurement phase generally provides more opportunities for cocreation than the contract phase. A condition for applying the competitive dialogue procedure is that the public contract is particularly complex. A condition for applying the innovation partnership procedure is that the contracting authority shall identify the need for an innovative work that cannot be met by purchasing something already available on the market. In other words, to apply these procedures, “the solution must be unknown in advance.” This condition has emerged as a characteristic of co-creation, and is closely related to other emerged characteristics of co-creation. At the end of the procurement process, however, the “unknown solution” has metamorphosed into a “known solution.” Although integrated contracts generally attempt to keep possible solutions more open than other types of contracts, the procurement procedures discussed in this research are generally more feasible than the integrated contracts which take effect as the contracting authority has awarded the contract at the end of procurement. Second, the positive results of the analysis show that the competitive dialogue procedure and the innovation partnership procedure can be considered as “procurement forms of co-creation.” However, a notable observation is that an “equivalent treatment” as well as “openness for the interest and problems of the partner” is more feasible during the contracting phase. This research provided four reasons for a lack of openness between the contracting authority and the candidates during procurement:    

Different or even opposing interests. Heavy competition among the candidates. Lack of confidence in secrecy and application of the rules for a “level playing field” by the contracting authority. Accountability of employees in their own organizations.

From this perspective, many interviewees argued that, during procurement, co-creation is less feasible than it is during the contracting phase. Third, the results show that DBFM contracts score the lowest on feasibility. The results of D&C contracts are slightly better, because the DBFM contract has less focus on interaction with the client, and the contract is fixed for a longer period. Moreover, an equivalent input of strengths is less feasible when applying a DBFM. As expected, the results show that the alliance agreement provides

9

the most opportunities for collaboration between client and contractor based on the characteristics of co-creation. A final key insight from this analysis is that to a certain degree, co-creation is even feasible under the traditional UAV 1989 conditions. A number of interviewees recommend that an equivalent input of strengths is not required, instead, an open attitude towards the problems of the partner is the essence of co-creation. If co-creation does not require an equivalent input but solely requires an open attitude towards the problems of the partner, this (controversial) characteristic of co-creation is even feasible under the traditional UAV 1989 conditions which is characterised by a clear division in design and execution.

Conclusions Overall, the results of this research support three main conclusions. The first is that the diversity of thought concerning the meaning of co-creation shows that the emergence of co-creation can be considered as a symptom of a larger struggle currently affecting the infrastructure sector. This struggle concerns the search for an improved collaboration between the public client and the contractor. The second conclusion is that the legal framework of procurement procedures and contract conditions is slightly shifting from fixed price contracts, with pre-defined results, towards procurement procedures and integrated contracts which allow more freedom for the client and contractor to arrive at a solution over time. This development is reflected by an increasing application of procurement procedures characterised by interaction and dialogue (the competitive dialogue procedure and the upcoming innovation partnership procedure), and by contracts in which the solution is not fully determined in advance (integrated contracts). The third main conclusion concerns an explicit answer to the feasibility question of this study. The literature review (theory) and the interviews with experts (practice) show that although the current procurement procedures and integrated contracts (current legal framework) are not addressed to accommodate co-creation, a number of characteristics of co-creation are to some degree feasible within the current legal framework. To fully accommodate all characteristics of co-creation, however, the current legal framework is not yet sufficient. Nevertheless, the upcoming procurement procedure "innovative partnership" seems to offer more opportunities for co-creation between client and contractor in the future.

Recommendations Based on the results and conclusions that were discussed in the previous sections, three recommendations are made. 1. Although the EMAT (Economic Most Advantageous Tender) award mechanism indicates the will to deviate from the orientation on a price, the current legal framework of procurement procedures and contracts is oriented to concluding fixed price contracts with result obligations. 10

These contracts are basically inflexible and are usually managed with the emphasis on minimizing the number of contract modifications. Co-creation does not attempt to realize a contract into a specified result, but at the realization of an objective. The way in which this objective is accomplished is determined by a joint process of interaction over time. To fully accomplish this characteristic of co-creation, in my opinion, a legal framework is necessary which requires a fixed objective instead of a fixed result, and which therefore offers the opportunity to determine the best solution over time. 2. A number of interviewees recommended that co-creation means that the client and contractor create something together. Consequently, co-creation suggests that client and contractor are jointly responsible. Within a D&C contract, it can happen that part of the contract is not clearly designated as the responsibility of the client or the contractor. The solution is far from known, and it is difficult to estimate the risks that are incurred. In this situation, the client may want to have more influence and involvement on this part of the contract, and may therefore be willing to share responsibilities with the contractor. If responsibilities are shared, this would also mean that the client and contractor are both liable when things go wrong. However, the Model Basic Agreement currently provides no clear framework to cover this (controversial) characteristic of co-creation. Even though article 5 of the Model Basic Agreement provides flexibility in terms of three variations, and page 8 of the notes to the Model Basic Agreement describes that combinations of these variants within a single project are possible, none of them cover the issue of shared responsibility. I would therefore recommend to add a provision addressing shared responsibility to the Model Basic Agreement. Doing so will increase awareness throughout the infrastructure sector that shared responsibility is a viable option for appropriate portions of contracts. In line with this recommendation, the final concept version of the report “The hybrid demand of the client” states that there is a need for more precise customization than the current Model Basic Agreement for the UAV-GC 2005 provides (M.A.B. Chao-Duivis, W.A.I. Suy, & Meijerink, 2015, p. 2). The results of this research show several reasons to opt for a hybrid form of contract. A first reason concerns the clients desire to be self-managing in specific parts of a project and a second reason is the need for a mix of personal influence and outsourcing (M.A.B. Chao-Duivis et al., 2015, p. 7). Co-creation may therefore very well be used in only one part of a project and it is therefore considered multi-applicable. 3. Functional specifications are required to ensure that client-contractor interactions are, as expected under a co-creation agreement, used as a method of creating solutions. With “Market Unless”, Rijkswaterstaat frequently uses functional specifications for integrated contracts. If the client uses a D&C contract with its associated Model Basic Agreement and UAV-GC 2005, the first variant of Article 5 of the Model Basic Agreement provides the best opportunity for functional specifications. However, functional specifications lead to multiple reasonable interpretations. The confusion surrounding multiple interpretation could be reduced by the implementation of an interactive design process between the client and contractor that sharpens the expectations and interpretations of the specifications. However, the UAV-GC 2005 currently does not provide a description of the way in which the client and contractor can conduct such a process of interaction. Currently, the client tests and accepts only completed specifications. I recommend this should be included in the UAV-GC 2005 conditions.

11

Recommendations for Further Research Based on the results and conclusions that were discussed in the previous sections, several recommendations for further research are made. Moreover, this paragraph provides insight in the limitations of this research. As mentioned, the focus of this research is on the impact of procurement procedures and contract forms on the feasibility of co-creation between public client and contractor in the Dutch infrastructure sector. Clearly, procurement procedures and contract forms are not the only factors that can affect the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor. Although some of these additional factors are discussed in this research, the emphasis is on procurement legislation and contract conditions. Therefore, further research is recommended on the influencing factors which are not directly related to the legal framework of procurement procedures and integrated contracts. I especially recommend further research on the influence of financial aspects in relation to cocreation. More research is recommended towards the upcoming Innovation partnership procedure. The feasibility study of co-creation under the Innovation Partnership procedure is based only on Article 31 of the 2014/24/EU Directive which describes the procedural steps and conditions for the application of this procedure. Article 90 of the 2014/24/EU Directive states that on April 18th, 2016, the new Directive must be implemented in the Procurement Act. Further research on the potential of this procedure in relation to the characteristics of co-creation is recommended before this procedure is actually applicable. More research should also address the specific phases of the business cycle which most lend themselves to management by co-creation. The interviews conducted during the course of this research revealed that co-creation was thought of as being characterized by early cooperation between client and contractor. Thus, co-creation should be seen as being independent of phase, and specifically as being applicable to the phases of exploration and plan study. I therefore recommend further research on the feasibility of co-creation before the procurement phase. It must, however, be realized that the contractor can be excluded from procurement if he has more knowledge and information than his competitors. From the perspective of the infrastructure sector, it was therefore important to study the feasibility of co-creation during the procurement phase. Another recommendation for further research concerns the controversial opinions on the meaning of co-creation. A characteristic of co-creation with controversial opinions by the interviewees concerns the division of responsibilities. Therefore, further research on dealing with responsibilities (and related liabilities) in a co-creation agreement between client and contractor is recommended. The results from the literature review show that co-creation concerns interaction between an organization and its consumers or end-users. I therefore recommend further research towards the relationship between the client, contractor and end-user of infrastructure projects. How can interaction with the end-user contribute to the improvement of infrastructure projects? Moreover, further research is recommended towards a suitable business model which attracts and triggers the market (contractors, engineering firms or other actors that may contribute to an idea or 12

innovation) to co-create with the public client before the phase of procurement. As mentioned, the benefits of co-creation can be effective before the phase of procurement. However, what conditions must be set in order to trigger the market or end-users to share their knowledge, expertise or experiences during the phase of exploration or plan study? Finally, a limitation of this study is that co-creation is such a new concept that there is no consensus on the very meaning of the term. The newness of the concept of co-creation, as well as the fact that the feasibility analysis was not based on actual business experiences, should temper the reader’s interpretation of the findings of this study.

13

Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 6 1.

2.

3.

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 18 1.1

Background............................................................................................................................ 18

1.2

Problem Analyses .................................................................................................................. 20

1.3

Scope, Research Objectives, and Questions ......................................................................... 21

1.3.1

Scope ............................................................................................................................. 21

1.3.2

Research Objective ........................................................................................................ 21

1.3.3

Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 21

Research design ............................................................................................................................. 23 2.1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 23

2.2

Conceptual Research Design ................................................................................................. 23

2.3.

Technical Research Design .................................................................................................... 24

2.3.1.

Research Strategy .......................................................................................................... 24

2.3.2.

Research Material.......................................................................................................... 25

2.3.3.

Research Plan ................................................................................................................ 30

Literature Study: Co-creation in Scientific Literature .................................................................... 32 3.1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 32

3.2

Wierdsma .............................................................................................................................. 32

3.2.1

Context of Co-creation .................................................................................................. 33

3.2.2

Proof of Findings - Methodology and Theoretical Background .................................... 35

3.2.3

Description of Co-creation ............................................................................................ 36

3.2.4

Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 41

3.3.

Prahalad and Ramaswamy .................................................................................................... 41

3.3.1


3.3.2

Proof of Findings – Methodology and Theoretical Background .................................... 42

3.3.3


3.3.4

Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 43

3.4.

Volberda ................................................................................................................................ 44

3.4.1.


3.4.2.

Proof of Findings – Methodology and Theoretical Background .................................... 45

3.4.3.


3.4.4.

Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 46 14

3.5.

3.5.1.

Overview of Overall Characteristics of Co-creation ...................................................... 47

3.5.2.

Category 1: Consensual Characteristics from the Literature ........................................ 48

3.5.3.

Category 2: Controversial Characteristics from the Literature ..................................... 48

3.6. 4.

6.

7.

Other Literature on Co-creation ............................................................................................ 49

Practice: A Description of Co-creation by Practitioners in the Infrastructure Sector ................... 52 4.1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 52

4.2.

Category 3: Consensual Characteristics from the Practice ................................................... 53

4.3.

Category 4: Controversial Characteristics from the Practice ................................................ 55

4.4

Process of Formulating a Definition of Co-creation .............................................................. 56

4.4.1

Round 1 ......................................................................................................................... 56

4.4.2

Round 2 ......................................................................................................................... 58

4.5 5.

A Comparison of Leading Scholars on Co-creation ............................................................... 46

Drivers of Co-creation ........................................................................................................... 59

A Comparison between Literature and Practice ........................................................................... 63 5.1

Category 5: Consensual Characteristics from Literature and Practice .................................. 63

5.2

Category 6: Controversial Characteristics from Literature and Practice ............................... 64

5.3

Wrap-up: Summary of Categories ........................................................................................ 65

5.4

Goals of Co-creation .............................................................................................................. 66

A Comparison of Co-creation and Supply Chain Collaboration ..................................................... 67 6.1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 67

6.2.

Literature Study on Supply Chain Collaboration ................................................................... 68

6.3.

Opinions from the Practice.................................................................................................... 69

6.4.

A Comparison of Characteristics ........................................................................................... 70

Feasibility of Co-creation under Existing Procurement Laws ........................................................ 73 7.1

Introduction to Procurement Law ......................................................................................... 73

7.2.

The Competitive Dialogue Procedure ................................................................................... 75

7.2.1

A Study on Legislation ................................................................................................... 75

7.2.2

Opinions from the Practice............................................................................................ 76

7.2.3

Comparison of Characteristics....................................................................................... 77

7.3

The Innovation Partnership Procedure ................................................................................. 81

7.3.1

A Study on Legislation ................................................................................................... 81

7.3.2


7.3.3


7.4

Comparing Feasibility under Procurement Procedures ........................................................ 86 15

7.5 8.

Wrap up: Main Barriers to Co-creation under Procurement Procedures ............................. 87

Feasibility of Co-creation under Integrated Contracts .................................................................. 88 8.1

Introduction to Integrated Contracts .................................................................................... 88

8.2

The Design and Construct Contract....................................................................................... 88

8.2.1

A Study on the Characteristics ...................................................................................... 88

8.2.2

Opinions from the Practice ........................................................................................... 90

8.2.3


8.3

The DBFM Contract ............................................................................................................... 94

8.3.1

A study on the Characteristics ....................................................................................... 94

8.3.2


8.3.3


8.4

Alliance Agreements............................................................................................................ 100

8.4.1

A Study on the Characteristics .................................................................................... 100

8.4.2

Opinions from the Practice.......................................................................................... 102

8.4.3

Comparison of Characteristics..................................................................................... 102

8.5

Comparing Feasibility under Integrated Contracts ............................................................. 106

8.6

Wrap up: Main Barriers to Co-creation under Integrated Contracts .................................. 107

9.

Comparing Feasibility between Procurement Procedures and Integrated Contracts ................ 108

10.

Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations ......................................................................... 110

10.1

Results ................................................................................................................................. 110

10.2

Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 116

10.3

Recommendations............................................................................................................... 117

10.3.1

Recommendations for Further Research .................................................................... 118

Appendix I. List of interviewees .......................................................................................................... 121 Appendix II. Uitkomst van de gevoerde gesprekken ........................................................................... 122 Appendix III. Overzicht van naar voren gekomen kenmerken co-creatie ........................................... 139 Appendix IV. Resultaten en kernuitspraken interviews, gerubriceerd naar aanleiding van voorwaarden en kenmerken van co-creatie. ...................................................................................... 140 Appendix V. Overzicht van resultaten op gesloten op vragen ............................................................ 145 Appendix VI. Interview met opdrachtgever X (geaccordeerd) ............................................................ 146 References ........................................................................................................................................... 153

16

Figure 1: Overall picture of the research design (Verschuren and Doorewaard, 2010). ...................... 23 Figure 2: Research framework. ............................................................................................................. 24 Figure 3: Design of the overall literature study..................................................................................... 25 Figure 4: Research design for in-depth interviews................................................................................ 27 Figure 5: Research design to ascertain the nature of co-creation. ....................................................... 30 Figure 6: Assessing feasibility of co-creation by comparing its characteristics with procurement legislation and contract forms............................................................................................................... 31 Figure 7: Co-creation between client and contractor early in the project. .......................................... 53 Figure 8: Level of shared risk stimulates co-creative behavior. ............................................................ 61 Figure 9. Co-creation multi-applicable on particular parts within a contract. ...................................... 96

Table 1. Overview of main characteristics and definitions of co-creation by the leading scholars in the field. ....................................................................................................................................................... 47 Table 2. Overview of characteristics of co-creation divided into four categories. ............................... 63 Table 3. Summary of all 6 categories. ................................................................................................... 65 Table 4. Perspectives on the goals of co-creation................................................................................. 66 Table 5. Method of determining the distinctiveness of co-creation from supply chain collaboration. 67 Table 6. Feasibility of co-creation in the competitive dialogue procedure........................................... 78 Table 7. Meaning of the feasibility score. ............................................................................................. 78 Table 8. Feasibility of co-creation under the innovation partnership procedure. ................................ 83 Table 9. Comparison of the feasibility of co-creation by procurement procedure (competitive dialogue versus innovative partnership). .............................................................................................. 86 Table 10. Feasibility of co-creation under the D&C contracts. ............................................................. 91 Table 11. Feasibility of co-creation under DBFM contracts. ................................................................. 97 Table 12. Feasibility of co-creation under alliance agreements. ........................................................ 102 Table 13. Comparison of the feasibility of co-creation under three types of integrated contracts. .. 106 Table 14. Comparison of feasibility of co-creation under two different procurement procedures and three different types of integrated contracts. .................................................................................... 108 Table 15. List of interviewees .............................................................................................................. 121 Table 16. Overview of appointed characteristics during the interviews............................................ 139 Table 17. Results of closed questions and hypothesises procurement .............................................. 145 Table 18. Results on closed questions and hypothesises contract phase ........................................... 145

17

1. Introduction 1.1

Background

Since the beginning of the nineties, more tasks and responsibilities in design, construction and maintenance of infrastructure projects have been transferred from public clients to private contractors. With the introduction of the building team contract, contractors became involved with much more than just the execution of the work. Compared to the UAV 1989 conditions, the contractor now also plays a role in the development of the design. The contribution of the contractor is further enhanced by the introduction of the UAV-GC 2005. Under these conditions, the development of the design became the contractor’s responsibility, while the client was obligated to provide the necessary administrative, financial and operational conditions for an efficient and legitimate contract execution. In terms of design, the client stands relatively far away from execution. After the introduction of the UAV-GC 2005, the DBFM contract further increased the responsibility of the contractor by integrating the phases of design and execution with project maintenance. According to Lenferink et al. (2013), integrated contracts can lead to the development of more sustainable infrastructure because of the lifecycle optimization incentives provided by the linked stages of design, construction, and maintenance. In the Netherlands, integrated contracts are often used by such large contracting authorities as Rijkswaterstaat and ProRail. The changing role of the public client is expressed by Rijkswaterstaat in the policy of “Market, unless.” Basically, the phrase “Market, unless” means that tasks in the field of construction, management and maintenance, traditionally performed by Rijkswaterstaat, have been transferred to the market (Rijkswaterstaat, 2014b). “Market, unless” was driven by a large reorganization accompanied by a decrease in internal design capacity. The policy provided a way to handle the same task that had been managed before reorganisation. The underlying principle implies that Rijkswaterstaat only prescribes how something needs to work; it is up to the contractor to develop a viable solution (Rijkswaterstaat, 2014b). The role of Rijkswaterstaat has therefore changed to that of a “directing party.” On the other hand, there has been a growing interest in stimulating close cooperation between clients and contractors in infrastructure projects. Recent experiments with alliance structures are an expression of this interest (Bloemendaal & Van der Geest, 2011). Another expression of this interest is the recent phenomenon of co-creation. In the Dutch infrastructure sector, co-creation has been a hot topic, especially since the Director General of Rijkswaterstaat, Jan Hendrik Dronkers, stated that he saw interactive co-creation as “the future” for his organization (Dronkers, 2013). Dronkers also stated that co-creation would stimulate the development of a new client–contractor relationship in the infrastructure sector. Consequently, practitioners in the sector are searching for the meaning of this concept. It is therefore in the interest of the sector to study the concept of co-creation, and to examine whether it provides more opportunities than existing forms of cooperation. On one hand, Rijkswaterstaat transfers more responsibilities to the market by making increasing use of integrated contracts. On the other hand, Dronkers emphasises co-creation between partners. The demand for co-creation is part of a trend that seeks to stimulate and reshape close cooperation 18

between client and contractor. It would seem that there is a need for improved client-contractor relationships. Can co-creation be an answer to this need? To answer this question, research into the meaning of co-creation is necessary. Dronkers’s idea of co-creation may be “the future,” but what is it specifically, and what do leading scholars and sector practitioners think of the concept? Related to the issue of variable definitions of co-creation is the issue of whether or not co-creation differs from existing forms of cooperation. How does co-creation distinguish itself from the current palette of construction contract models? For example, the introduction of the alliance agreement made a substantial difference to infrastructure management compared to the UAV-GC 2005. Then supply chain collaboration made its entrance. Although opinions differ on the meaning of both “alliancing” and “supply chain collaboration,” the two clearly cover common ground. Now the sector faces the emergence of co-creation, which also seems to be a variation on theme of emphasizing the importance of collaboration between partners. From this perspective, the question arises as to whether co-creation is distinctive enough to be considered as something new. “Co-creation” might just be a buzz-word, a piece of deliberately vague jargon that no-one really understands. It is at least plausible that the real function of the concept of co-creation is to stimulate a re-thinking of the way we structure collaboration processes (Mertens, 2006). Thus the possibility must be considered that a unified definition of co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector does not exist. Nevertheless, even if only a small distinction between co-creation and other forms of collaboration is supported by available data, it is still in the interest of the infrastructure sector to describe these differences in as much detail as possible. And more specifically, it is worth asking whether and in what ways co-creation differs from supply chain collaboration and/or alliancing.

19

1.2

Problem Analyses

Rijkswaterstaat wants to improve cooperation with the market (Rijkswaterstaat, 2014a). According to Dronkers (2013), co-creation between Rijkswaterstaat and the market is the future. Dronkers also argued that co-creation will usher in an era of improved client-contractor relationships, based upon respect, trust and transparency. But why does Dronkers emphasize improving cooperation with the market? The following reasons can be identified: The first reason derives from the failure of several large infrastructure projects, especially DBFM contracts, to be completed on time and/or within budget. According to Koppenjan, Veeneman, Van der Voort, Ten Heuvelhof, and Leijten (2011), large engineering projects that are completed on time and without cost overruns or technical problems are rare. This is a problem for both client and contractor. As stated, the introduction of integrated contracts has shifted more responsibility to the contractor. Although the integration of project phases bring many opportunities, Lenferink (2013, p. 138) states that the danger of linking the design and execution in a single contract is that these activities become a “black box” for the public client as design and execution are no longer prepared or performed by them. Public and private parties acknowledge the importance of this issue: a loss of expertise in design and construction can lead to an impaired ability to recognize the quality of bids or to guide the phases of implementation. As Dronkers explains in Co-bouw (2013), the aim of working together as partners is for both parties to profit by sharing their methods and knowledge. From this perspective, better cooperation between client and contractor may contribute to achieving project goals more easily. A second reason for an improved client-contractor relationship is to stimulate innovation. Volberda et al. (2011, p. 100) state that nowadays organizations cannot afford to have a “go-it-alone strategy.” Research by the Erasmus competition and innovation monitor shows that 75% of innovation success is determined by social factors, leaving only 25% to the impact of the actual technical factors (H. W. Volberda, Heij, Van Den Bosch, & Jansen, 2012). Moreover, the authors state that independent development of new knowledge to respond to rapid changes in the environment is expensive and time-consuming. The probability of developing collaborative innovations increases when cooperation between partners is emphasized. Dronkers ends his opinion article in Co-bouw by saying that working together as partners is the key to cost savings, growth, employment, sustainability and safety. Therefore, the underlying assumption of this research is that the concept of co-creation may contribute to an improved client-contractor relationship in the infrastructure sector with the benefits described above. However, assuming that co-creation has its benefits does not ensure it is also compatible with existing procurement procedure legislation and integrated contracts. The existing legal framework is not been established from the idea to address co-creation explicitly. Therefore, there is a need to study the degree to which co-creation is feasible under existing project conditions, and especially with procurement legislation and contractual frameworks.

20

1.3

Scope, Research Objectives, and Questions

1.3.1

Scope

The purpose of this paragraph is to provide additional insight into the scope of this research. The scope can be disaggregated into three parts: the actors involved, the factors influencing feasibility of co-creation, and the phase of the project. Actors Due to Dronkers plea for co-creation between client and contractor, this research focusses on cocreation between Rijkswaterstaat, as the leading public client, and contractors in the Dutch infrastructure sector1. Therefore, the Building and Utility sector (B&U) is outside the scope of this research. Factors Affecting Feasibility Once again, this research examines the impact of procurement procedures and contract forms on the feasibility of co-creation between public clients and contractors in the Dutch infrastructure sector. Although the impact on the feasibility of co-creation attributable to factors other than procurement procedures or integrated contracts will be discussed, the clear focus will be on procurement and contract conditions. Project Phase The phase in which co-creation occurs should be described if the phenomenon is to be sufficiently well understood to evaluate properly. Although co-creation between client and contractor may well be appropriate and profitable at phases before design and execution (viz., during the exploration and planning phases), the focus of this study is on co-creation during the design and execution of a project. 1.3.2

Research Objective

Based on the findings as described, the goal of this graduation project is to provide insight into the degree to which co-creation between public clients and contractors is feasible under existing procurement laws or in the context of integrated contracts. In order to study feasibility, the first goal must be to define the precise meaning of co-creation. 1.3.3

Research Questions

Based on the exploration of the problem area, the identification of the knowledge gap and the established research objective, the main research question, supported by sub-questions, can be formulated. These questions can be regarded as guidelines for the graduation project.

1

Grond-, weg- en waterbouw sector (GWW)

21

The main research question must first be broken down into principal elements in order to provide a logical structure to the research. The following research question (RQ) and associated sub-questions (SQs) must be answered:

RQ:

What are the drivers and barriers for co-creation between client and contractor under existing procurement legislation and integrated contract conditions within the Dutch infrastructure sector?

SQ1:

What is co-creation?

SQ2:

What are the drivers for co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector?

SQ3:

What is the difference between co-creation and supply chain collaboration?

SQ4:

What existing procurement procedures and contract models are most interesting to study when working with co-creation?

SQ5:

What are the main characteristics of the chosen procurement procedures and contract models?

SQ6:

To what extent is co-creation feasible under the chosen procurement procedures and contract models?

SQ7:

What are the main barriers to co-creation under the chosen procurement procedures and contract models?

22

2. Research design 2.1

Introduction

This chapter describes the methodology of this research, which is based primarily on the guidelines described in “Designing a research project” by Verschuren, Doorewaard, and Mellion (2010). The design of a research project includes a conceptual design and a technical design (Figure 1). The conceptual design determines everything that the researcher aims to achieve, while the technical design determines how to realize these intentions. The overarching conceptual research design is established first. The technical design, defining the strategy, sources, and research plan necessary to complete the conceptual design, is then developed.

Figure 1: Overall picture of the research design (Verschuren and Doorewaard, 2010).

2.2

Conceptual Research Design

The objective of this research is to define co-creation and to determine its feasibility under existing procurement laws and integrated contract models. Additional research questions are stated in Section 1.3.3. The Research Framework describes the conceptual steps that need to be taken to achieve the research objectives. As Figure 2 shows, the Research Framework consists roughly of three parts, an identification of co-creation, an identification of procurement procedures and an identification of integrated contracts. Together, these three parts comprise the input for the assessment of the feasibility of co-creation in the infrastructure sector.

23

Figure 2: Research framework.

2.3.

Technical Research Design

The technical research design describes how the goals of this research are achieved. Therefore, this chapter provides insight into the research strategy, materials and plan that were used in this study. 2.3.1. Research Strategy

The research strategy involves a set of decisions concerning the way the research will be carried out. A fundamental choice in research strategy concerns the decision to use qualitative or quantitative methods. In light of their importance, both of these types of strategies will be described in the paragraph below. Qualitative research is exploratory in nature. It is used to gain an understanding of underlying reasons, opinions, and motivations. It also provides insight into the problem and helps to develop ideas or hypotheses for subsequent quantitative analysis. Qualitative Research is also used to uncover trends in thought and opinions, and to refine the elements of a particular problem (Adcock, 2001). Quantitative research is used to quantify the problem with numerical data or data that can be utilized by statistical procedures. It is used to quantify attitudes, opinions, behaviors, and other defined variables, and to generalize results from a sample to an entire population. Quantitative research uses measurable data to formulate facts and uncover patterns (Adcock, 2001). Because co-creation in the infrastructure sector is not recognized as a standard form of cooperation with a fixed set of characteristics, it is appropriate to use a qualitative approach. Thus the use of interviews with professionals in the infrastructure sector; information provided by respondents provided fundamental information on the meaning of co-creation and its feasibility in the infrastructure sector. In qualitative research, the means of data collection differ from the methods used in quantitative research. When qualitative research involves interviews, as in this thesis, the questions are open-ended. Open-ended questions do not have a predetermined set of possible 24

answers, and therefore produce qualitative information. Closed questions, which have only a limited number of possible answers (e.g., “yes” or “no”), lend themselves to quantitative comparisons, and are used in quantitative surveys. The information from the interviews conducted in this research was used primarily to identify and interpret patterns, but not to compare them in terms of numerical differences, as would occur in the statistical analysis of quantitative surveys. However, in order to provide more insight into preliminary hypothesises, some closed questions were asked of the interviewees in this study. Thus, while the overall approach of this thesis is qualitative, a limited number of quantifiable, closed questions were put to interviewees to provide some quantitative context to the qualitative results and to help interpret their meaning. 2.3.2. Research Material

The initial phase of this research consisted of an extensive literature review, which was followed by in-depth interviews with leading professionals in the infrastructure sector. Additional qualitative information was obtained by attending several events where the topic of co-creation was discussed. Additional details of both methods are described below. Literature study A literature study was conducted to summarize the theoretical background on the topic of cocreation. In order to answer the research questions, the literature study consisted of three parts, definition of co-creation, impact of procurement legislation, and impact of integrated contracts (see Figure 2). In addition, a literature study on supply chain collaboration was conducted.

Figure 3: Design of the overall literature study.

25

The writings of four leading scholars on co-creation - Wiersma, Prahalad, Ramaswamy and Volberda as well as the ideas of others writing on related topics, were reviewed to obtain a refined understanding of the nature of co-creation and its theoretical underpinnings. This research found that the four authors are widely credited with being the top authorities and are therefore identified as the leading scholars in the field of co-creation. Their interpretation of co-creation influences many other scholars studying this topic. Various scholars describe co-creation by citing one of the appointed leading scholars. The characteristics of co-creation that these scholars identified formed the “building blocks” of cocreation from a literature perspective. In addition, a description of co-creation from Wikipedia was compared to descriptions obtained in our interviews in order to assess the congruence of the public’s understanding with the ideas put forth by the leading scholars. The study used these summaries and comparisons to paint an overall picture of the phenomenon and to identify disagreements between scholars and between scholars and the public. This initial phase of the research resulted in a description of the overall characteristics of co-creation as it is described in the literature. Much of this information was condensed into a list of “consensual characteristics” and “controversial characteristics,” where the former represents features widely attributed to co-creation, and the latter represents ideas with much disagreement. This material formed the core of the data that was used to determine whether a collective agreement exists on the nature and definition of co-creation. Beside the literature review on co-creation, two other literature reviews were conducted. One focused on the topic of supply chain collaboration. This purpose of this review was to determine whether co-creation is different enough from supply chain collaboration to be considered a distinct phenomenon. Both co-creation and supply chain collaboration emphasize close cooperation between partners, and it is possible that co-creation is really only a special case of supply chain collaboration or vice versa. The second literature review was conducted to gather information bearing on the feasibility of co-creation given 1) the existing legal framework regarding procurement procedures, and 2) the impact of integrated contracts. The literature study entailed the identification of procurement procedures and integrated contract models. In particular, it focused on the competitive dialogue procedure and the innovation partnership procedure in procurement. During realization, emphasis is on D&C contracts, DBFM contracts, and the alliance agreement. The basis for choosing among these particular procurement procedures and contract models will be explained later. Figure 3 provides an overview of the overall literature study. Interviews – Delphi method To gain insight on the meaning and feasibility of co-creation in practice, in-depth interviews with leading practitioners of the infrastructure sector were conducted. The research method that was used is based on the principles of the Delphi technique, a group process used to collect the opinions of experts on a particular subject. According to Linstone and Turoff (1975, p. 3), “Delphi may be characterized as a method for structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem”. The research design of the in-depth interviews had six steps (figure 4). An explanation of the steps is provided below.

26

Figure 4: Research design for in-depth interviews.

Step 1: Preliminary Research (Inventory-analytic) The core concepts to be studied with respect to co-creation in the infrastructure sector were determined by literature reviews and by conducting interviews with experts from Royal HaskoningDHV and TU Delft. One of the major uses to which information from the literature reviews was put was the formulation of the questions and hypotheses that comprised the core of the first round of interviews. Each questions and hypothesis was approved by the graduation committee before being incorporated into the Round 1 interview. Step 2: Interview Round 1 (Inventory-evaluative) The results of step one were used as input for the first interview round. To get a comprehensive overview of the subject each question was put to respondents in one of four groups of leading practitioners, each group playing a different role in relation to co-creation in the infrastructure sector. These four groups consisted of (1) public clients, (2) contractors and engineering firms, (3) legal experts, and (4) industry associations and knowledge institutes. All experts are chosen based on consultation with the graduation committee. The legal experts were chosen in consultation with Monica Chao-Duivis, the Director of the Dutch Institute for Construction Law (IBR), and Nienke Saanen, assistant professor at TU Delft and former employee of Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn. The practitioners on both the clients’ and market side were chosen in consultation with Leon Hombergen, assistant professor at TU Delft and Senior Advisor on Procurement and Innovation at Rijkswaterstaat, and Jan Reinout Deketh, leading professional Project Governance at Royal HaskoningDHV. The interviewees were asked to answer both open and closed questions or hypothesises. By answering open questions, the interviewees were able to provide input on the topic from the perspective of a particular expertise. By answering closed questions, their answers made it possible to test various hypotheses. The interviewees were asked to provide feedback on a proposed 27

definition of co-creation and to identify characteristics, drivers, and barriers in relation to co-creation in the infrastructure sector. Step 3: Preliminary Results (Identification of Hypotheses) The third phase of this study consisted of processing the results of the first interview round into hypotheses and preliminary results. The hypotheses addressed of a definition, characteristics, drivers and obstacles to co-creation. In relation to obstacles or barriers to co-creation, the hypotheses tested in the second round of interviews addressed specific phases of the project cycle. Step 4: Interview round 2 (Validation of hypothesises) In the fourth phase of this study the hypotheses were tested in a second round of interviews. This phase also entailed the testing of a refined definition of co-creation based on a review of the relevant scientific literature. The interviewees were asked to provide feedback on the definition of co-creation as well as its drivers and obstacles. Step 5: Results (Synthesis) The fifth phase of this study consisted of processing the validated results. The most dominant characteristics of co-creation were identified in this phase. The validated results with respect to the feasibility of co-creation were also processed into a coherent model. This model was used to provide a practical assessment of the feasibility of co-creation in the infrastructure sector. Step 6: Recommendations In the last step, a series of recommendations for further research was made. Events and Presentations Besides conducting interviews, three events were visited and two presentations were given to discuss the hypotheses of this research. A short description of these events is provided below. PROVADA 05/06/2014 The PROVADA is a three-day annual meeting point of the real estate sector. The event consisted of group-debates and presentations from several actors in the sector on the application of co-creation. National Road Congress 25/09/2014 The National Road Congress is an event to facilitate communication between public clients and the contractors. The event consisted of debates and presentations on the subject of interactive collaboration between client and contractor. Forum Spoor & Infra 27/11/2014 Vernieuwing bouw is an independent network of leaders in the construction industry. Vernieuwing bouw organises a forum four times a year. The topic of discussion in 2014 was how to define cocreation and how to trigger the market to join forces for new ideas at the “Bouwcampus.” I had the honour to fill in for Paul Oortwijn, director of NLingenieurs. Presentations at Royal HaskoningDHV During graduation, two presentations were given to the experts of Royal HaskoningDHV. The first presentation, on 03/10/2014, was to validate the preliminary results with the experts of the 28

“knowledge group procurement”. The second presentation, on 28/11/2014, was to validate the results with the department of transport and the department of infrastructure.

29

2.3.3. Research Plan

To answer the question, “What is co-creation?” literature studies and interviews were conducted. An analysis of the literature study on the meaning of co-creation revealed characteristics which were shared by the scholars and characteristics that were characterized very differently by different authors. Like the literature study, the interviews also revealed consensual and controversial characteristics of co-creation. Consequently, four categories of characteristics of co-creation have emerged. Figure 5 provides an overview of the steps taken to identify and describe these characteristics.

Figure 5: Research design to ascertain the nature of co-creation.

30

After the characteristics of co-creation were described from analyses of the literature and practice, a comparison with procurement legislation and the main characteristics of the integrated contract forms was undertaken to assess the feasibility of co-creation in the infrastructure sector. The analyses compared the feasibility of individual characteristics of co-creation with related characteristics of a particular procurement procedure or contract form. The research design in Figure 6 shows that the characteristics of co-creation were compared to two procurement procedures and three contract forms. The feasibility of co-creation was assessed on the basis of these specific comparisons. If the analyses are made, the feasibility of the chosen procedures and contract forms can be compared in order to provide insight on the best applicable procedure and contract form.

Figure 6: Assessing feasibility of co-creation by comparing its characteristics with procurement legislation and contract forms.

31

3. Literature Study: Co-creation in Scientific Literature 3.1

Introduction

Dronkers’s introduction of the concept of co-creation in the infrastructure sector was the trigger for this research. Dronkers provided a short description of co-creation in co-bouw, but did not elaborate on it further. Thus, it was necessary to conduct a literature study to properly define co-creation, and to ascertain whether Dronkers’s interpretation is consistent with that found in the literature. This chapter provides an overview of the descriptions of co-creation provided by the leading scholars on the subject. This research found that four authors – Wierdsma, Prahalad, Ramaswamy and Volberda – are widely credited with being the top authorities and are therefore identified as the leading scholars in the field of co-creation. Their interpretation of co-creation influences many other scholars studying this topic. Various scholars describe co-creation by citing one of the appointed leading scholars. This chapter provides insight to their descriptions of co-creation. Specifically, it describes all of the characteristics they attributed to co-creation, as well as the methods they used to develop their opinions. The results of the literature study were also analysed to define whether the scholars’ descriptions of co-creation were consistent or divergent from each other.

3.2

Wierdsma

Andre Wierdsma is professor of “Organizing and Co-creating” at the Business University of Nyenrode. In 1999, Wierdsma finished his doctorate degree on “Co-creation of change” (1999)2. “Co-creation of change” provides a conceptual framework related to knowledge development, organizing, and learning (Wierdsma, 1999, p. 291). Because Wierdsma introduced the concept of co-creation to the Netherlands, it is essential for this study to provide an overview of Wierdsma’s thoughts. Before presenting the details of what Wierdsma called “the process of co-creation,” it is necessary to briefly summarize the context - problem, goal, and key findings - of his research. After considering the methods, theoretical principles and proofs that Wierdsma used in reaching his conclusions, it is also necessary to determine whether Wierdsma’s thoughts are new, or whether they are built on existing theories. Wierdsma’s description of co-creation will be presented only after the context has been outlined and a justification of his results has been discussed. Besides The Co-creation of Change, Wierdsma is coauthor of another book on the theory of co-creation. In 2011, Wierdsma and Swieringa published Organizing by Learning and Change.3 The findings in this book that contribute to a better understanding of co-creation are also outlined here. At the end of this chapter, a brief summary of Wierdsma’s main points of co-creation is given.

2 3

Wierdsma. (1999). Co-creatie van verandering: Eburon Uitgeverij BV Wierdsma & Swieringa. (2011). Lerend organiseren en veranderen. Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers.

32

3.2.1 Context of Co-creation Problem Wierdsma argues that the “familiar way” of organizing companies and organizations is under pressure primarily because of three factors: globalization, intensified competition, and shifts of production to other countries (Wierdsma, 1999, p. 22). Because of these factors, Wierdsma claims that organizations are faced with more complexity and change, a state he referred to as “increased variation.” Wierdsma contends that the ability to deal with variation in the business environment has become more important in recent years, especially when “organizing in the familiar way” does not work, a situation he characterized by the phrase, “if more of the same does not work.” Goal In Wierdsma’s view, the goal of his study was to identify ways to enhance “Methodologies for Collective Competency”, or MCCs (Wierdsma, 1999, p. 18). Wierdsma defined a “methodology” as a set of structured rules and interventional guidance, and “collective competence,” as individual knowledge, skills and attitudes complemented with the competence to jointly make variety manageable (Wierdsma, 1999, p. 24).4 Findings Wierdsma provides three findings for dealing with increased variation: 1. Within the social sciences, the focus of research should shift from the search for a perfect reality (one truth) to a reality based on the interaction between actors (several truths possible). 2. Wierdsma recommends that companies and organizations switch from positional to transactional organizing. 3. Wierdsma also recommends that organizations switch from individual to collective learning to stimulate acquisition of MCCs. The first finding deals with the way social scientists acquire knowledge. What is the proper way to discover the truth and reality? What is the position of the researcher relative to the search for these truths? What procedures are necessary to create meaning? These questions have divided philosophers and scientists into two camps, which Wierdsma (as cited in Burrell & Morgan, 1979) describes in terms of the degree to which they embody and reflect objectivism versus subjectivism. Objectivism contends that reality is independent of interpretations by individuals; it is as it is. Objective knowledge is possible and always has a context. Subjectivism, on the other hand, states that reality cannot be described independently of the interpretations of individual observers (Peikoff & Ward, 1993). According to Wierdsma, modernism and positivism are the dominant lines of thinking regarding the acquisition of scientific knowledge. Wierdsma characterises modernism (as cited in Gergen, 1992) as the belief in rationality, technology, management, and progress. He then uses the following metaphor to describe positivism: 4

Individuele kennis, vaardigheden en attitudes dienen te worden aangevuld met de competentie om gezamenlijk met andere variëteit hanteerbaar te maken.

33

“Within Positivism, a “map” is seen as a representation of “the landscape.” The map is the best possible reflection of reality. The scientist, as cartographer, is a means to develop the map. Positivism distinguishes subject (researcher) and object (nature). The map is a most natural reflection of reality.”5 Wierdsma questions whether research in the social sciences based on modernism and positivism leads to the truth. Based on the studies of (Maldonado, Maturana, & Varela, 1988) and (Winograd & Flores, 1986) Wierdsma criticises various assumptions of modernism. He then discusses “social constructionism,” which breaks with the idea that there is a reality that has a fixed meaning. (as cited in Berger & Luckmann, 1966) Wierdsma then describes the basis of social constructionism as the belief that actors create meaning in language. Meaning is the result of a process of social construction between actors, such that conflicting explanations of the same phenomenon can be equally true depending on the respective actors and their shared perspectives. Wierdsma contends that the proper response to an increase in socio-economic variation is to seek knowledge that helps to “better” the situation of the actors. This then leads to the question of the precise meaning of “better.” Wierdsma answers this question by contending that we must break with the belief that there is one right answer to every question, and that truths are singular and mutually exclusive in general. From the perspective of positivism, “better” means a sharper description of the one, objective reality. From the perspective of social constructionism, “better” is a function of the actors involved and the situation in which they find themselves. In the terms of the metaphor described in the previous paragraph, the focus shifts from the landscape of reality to the conversation between the cartographers. Wierdsma’s second finding deals with the way companies should be organized. Wierdsma claims that, in practice, managers are always searching for new forms of organization. To cope with increasing levels of socio-economic variation, Wierdsma recommends that companies and organizations switch from positional to transactional forms of organization. Positional organization is referred to as the dominant and “familiar form”. Transactional organization is a form of organization explicitly designed to cope with socio-economic variation. Wierdsma argues that positional organizing does not lead to the ability to anticipate and deal with socio-economic variation. Instead of focussing on positional organizing, companies and organizations should emphasize transactional organizing. Some of the issues central to the concept of transactional organization are as follows:  

Organizing is the process of creating a system of agreements, arrangements and meeting platforms to handle complexity (Wierdsma, 1999, p. 25).6 Positional organizing is a form of management and organization that emphasizes control of processes and the behavior of employees (Wierdsma, 1999, p. 25).7

5

In het positivisme wordt de kaart gezien als representatie van het landschap. De wetenschapper, als cartograaf, is een middel om te komen tot een kaart. Dit is de zogenoemde subject (onderzoeker) / object (natuur) scheiding. De kaart is een zo natuurgetrouw mogelijke afspiegeling van de werkelijkheid. 6 Organiseren wordt in deze studie beschouwd als een proces gericht op het creëren van een stelsel van afspraken, voorzieningen en ontmoetingsplatformen om complexiteit hanteerbaar te maken. 7 De traditionele inzichten over organiseren en managen zijn gericht op de beheersing van werkprocessen en de gedragingen van de medewerkers.

34

   

Other characteristics of positional organizing include hierarchical management, standardization, and the separation of thinking and doing. Transactional organizing emphasizes the acceptance of temporary and spontaneous behavior (Wierdsma, 1999, p. 29).8 Transactional organizing also presupposes a reality that is in flux, a world that is in the process of “becoming” (Wierdsma, 1999, p. 110). Wierdsma further proposes several characteristics of transactions, one of the most important of which is the fostering of “processes of co-creation.”

Wierdsma’s third recommendation deals with the way people develop competencies. He contends that if organizations want their employees and managers to become more skilful in dealing with socio-economic variation, collective learning must take the place of individual training. Collective learning is an approach to training that is consistent with transactional organizing. Wierdsma described it as, “The process aimed at increasing the competency of the participants to jointly establish recognition and change of patterns in co-operation.”9 Collective learning is associated with to the ability to change old patterns when they are no longer effective. As mentioned, positional organization refers to as the familiar way of organizing. Wierdsma argues that breaking with this familiar form is very hard, requiring learning processes with different intensities. He goes on to argue that learning processes are related to change processes. Swieringa and Wierdsma (1992) make a distinction between three levels of change: rules, insights and principles. Changes become more intense when they occur at the level of principles. 3.2.2 Proof of Findings - Methodology and Theoretical Background At this point it is reasonable to ask how Wierdsma came to his conclusions. Wierdsma answers this question by stating that the observations on which his analysis is based were acquired in customized programs (Wierdsma, 1999, p. 13),10 which he defines as follows: “A customized program is considered a temporary organization in which those involved participants, staff and client - strive to contribute to the collective learning of the organizations members (Wierdsma, 1999, p. 17).11” Wierdsma explains that six large customized programs formed the basis for the development of his conceptual framework and the Methodology for Collective Competency enhancement (MCC). In 8

Transactioneel organiseren is de acceptatie van tijdelijkheid en spontaan gedrag. Ook wordt het organiseren van activiteiten ten behoeve van transacties in de keten van waardetoevoeging in deze studie aangeduid met transactioneel organiseren. 9 Collectief leren wordt gezien als het proces gericht op het verhogen van de competentie van de deelnemers om gezamenlijk te komen tot herkenning en verandering van patronen in samenwerken. 10

De ervaringen waar deze studie op stoelt zijn opgedaan in maatwerkprogramma’s die begonnen zijn vanuit de klassieke opleidingsvraag naar individueel leren. 11

een maatwerkprogramma wordt beschouwd als een tijdelijke organisatie waarin de betrokkenen deelnemers, staf en opdrachtgever - nastreven bij te dragen aan het collectieve leervermogen van de organisatieleden.

35

chapter eight, he describes two customized programs in practice (Wierdsma, 1999, pp. 199-245). Wierdsma states that these practical examples were not described with the intention of proving the efficacy of the MCCs, but to provide insight into the dynamics of collective learning. Wierdsma also provides three theoretical findings. In the first, he recommends to make a shift from positivism to social constructionism. Wierdsma cited Berger and Luckmannn’s The Social Construction of Reality, published in 1966, as the work which introduced the term “social construction” to sociologists. Since then, several authors have provided publications on this subject. Wierdsma’s first theoretical suggestion is therefore not new and builds on existing theories. The second finding proposes a switch from positional to transactional organizing. Wierdsma explains that the building blocks for the transactional organizing perspective are based on the thoughts of Beer (1979; 1981; 1985) and Checkland (1981; 1985; 1989) as well as the ideas of others who considered the theory of social constructionism as a useful way of organizing companies. Although Wierdsma’s second finding is based on earlier literature, the concept of transactional organizing was introduced by Wierdsma in this study. The third finding was that organizations must switch from individual to collective learning. Among others, Wierdsma cites Maturana (1980), Weick (1995) and Shotter (1993) as providing justification for the validity of making this switch. All of these authors claim that individual learning is not effective in helping companies cope with socio-economic variation, and can lead to undesirable situations on a collective level. 3.2.3 Description of Co-creation Now that the main findings of The Co-creation of Change have been summarized and Wierdsma’s methodology has been explained, it is appropriate to focus on the definition of co-creation in greater detail. Although one would expect that a study entitled The Co-creation of Change would present an explicit definition of co-creation, such is not the case. Nevertheless, Wierdsma uses the term in several contexts, and an analysis of these illustrations sheds light on the implied definition. The following paragraph provides an overview of Wierdsma’s use of the term in the Co-creation of Change, as well as appropriate excerpts from Organizing by Learning and Change. Finally, the definition of co-creation Wierdsma gave in an interview with Centric Magazine is presented. Although this is Wierdsma’s only explicit definition of co-creation, it was given during an interview and has not been published in the scientific literature. The scientific value of this definition is therefore questionable. 

As a characteristic of “transactions,” the term co-creation is first mentioned on page 31:

“Transactions are carried out by parties that want something together. A transaction requires a connection of realities. From this perspective, transactions are results of processes of cocreation. The result and the way the transactions are realized influence each other. 12” In other words, Wierdsma sees the process of co-creation as the connecting of realities. At this point, the process of co-creation is still vague and overly broad. 

On page 99, Wierdsma provides an example of co-creation. This specific example illustrates “organizing as an entanglement of relationships. 13” The exact quote is as follows:

12

Transacties worden gerealiseerd door partijen die samen iets willen. Een transactie vergt een verbinding van werkelijkheden. Transacties zijn in die zin resultaten van processen van co-creatie. Het resultaat en de wijze waarop de transacties gerealiseerd worden beïnvloeden elkaar.

36

“During a game, dynamics are developed. An example of this is the mating dance of animals. A mating dance is not performed or rehearsed but develops in the process of interaction: cocreation. During the dance dynamics develop that cannot be defined unilaterally by one of the dancers.14” Here, Wierdsma describes co-creation as the process of interaction between partners. In this example, Wierdsma emphasises that at the beginning of many interactions (in this example, a game), it is not known how the game will develop. This only becomes clear during the process of interaction. Wierdsma states that the dynamics developed during the dance cannot be defined by either one of the partners. He thus emphasises that input from both individuals is required for co-creation. 

On page 267, Wierdsma compares the process of co-creation to a journey or trek:

“The development process based on co-creation is an undetermined process that is similar to a trek. In consultation, the direction is determined, and depending on the specific context, the route is determined and adjusted15,…,From interaction arises the structure, systems and the strategy of an organization. Then, in interaction they are maintained or developed. In this way, co-creation is a spiral process that develops over time. A reconsideration on the level of principles is a breakthrough or, in other words, a sudden change in this spiral.16” Wierdsma again associates co-creation with an undetermined process and argues that it develops through interaction over time. The intensity of change during the process is influenced by the level at which changes are discussed and proposed: rules, insights, or principles. 

On page 272, Wierdsma shows a figure that represents “development as a process of cocreation.” The figure shows a cyclic movement in which a process of interaction influences the development of the structure, systems and strategy for an organization. Thus, Wierdsma argues that, “The social constructionist perspective implies that organizational development means that the actors in the organization participate in the process of co-creation of the new reality. This involvement makes them experience the change and developments as meaningful. 17”

13

Organiseren: een verstrengeling van relaties In een spel ontwikkelt zich een eigen dynamiek. Een voorbeeld is de paardans van dieren. Een paardans wordt niet uitgevoerd maar ontstaat in het proces van interactie: co-creatie. De dans ontwikkelt een eigen dynamiek die niet door een der dansers eenzijdig kan worden voorgeschreven. 15 Het ontwikkelproces op basis van co-creatie is een onbepaald proces dat vergelijkbaar is met een trektocht. In overleg wordt de richting bepaald en vervolgens wordt op weg gegaan en afhankelijk van de specifieke context wordt de route bepaald en aangepast. 16 Vanuit interactie ontstaan de structuur, systemen en strategie. Ze worden vervolgens in interactie onderhouden en ontwikkeld. Zo is co-creatie een spiraalvormig proces dat zich in de tijd ontwikkelt. Een herbezinning op het niveau van principes is dan een doorbraak oftewel een sprongsgewijze verandering in deze spiraal. 17 De sociaal-constructionistische invalshoek impliceert dat organisatieontwikkeling inhoudt dat actoren in de organisatie zelf deelnemen aan het proces van co-creatie van de nieuwe werkelijkheid. Deze betrokkenheid maakt dat ze de verandering als zinvol ervaren en de ontwikkeling voor hen betekenisvol is. 14

37



On page 273, Wierdsma argues that the MCC is consistent with the metaphor of co-creation as a trek. He goes on to say, “The core of the MCC is to create conditions that facilitate the ability to have an unusual conversation in which ‘the zone of discomfort’ can be entered.18”

Wierdsma introduces the concept of the “zone of discomfort” by arguing that language and conversation arise from the need to regulate and give meaning to ambitions or problems. According to Wierdsma, the zone of discomfort (as cited in Kooistra, 1988) is the tension between the need for regulation and the regulation of results.19 By “regulation of results,” Kooistra means that actors negotiate reality with language. With respect to the relation between the MCC and co-creation, Wierdsma says, “The process which develops within the MCC has an undetermined character: no actor has the individual capability to steer and oversee the interaction process as a whole. Actors create a process of co-creation by shared meanings and relations in which the actors themselves then become involved with.20”

The following reflections on the concept of co-creation are from Organizing by Learning and Change (Wierdsma and Swieringa, 2011).



On page 191, Wierdsma and Swieringa describe co-creation as, ”A process that consists of a continuous sequence of doing, reflecting, thinking, deciding and again doing. Everyone, initiators and other actors, are part of the process of change and must be willing to learn. 21”



On page 192, Wierdsma and Swieringa describe co-creation as, “A process of shared meaning.22” On page 193, two strategies of change are compared: Co-creation versus Reorganizing. The metaphor of co-creation as a trek is now compared to reorganizing (traveling). As mentioned, during a trek the direction is determined in consultation, and depending on the specific context, the route is determined and adjusted. Now, a distinction is made with traveling, in which a fixed route and final destination is determined before the trip starts. If the trip is planned, everyone who is joining will be briefed. If everyone understands and agrees, the determined trip will start on a fixed date.



18

De kern van de MCC is het creëren van condities waardoor een ongebruikelijk gesprek kan ontstaan waarin ook ‘de plek der moeite’ kan worden betreden. 19 De plek der moeite is het spanningsveld tussen ordeningsbehoefte en ordeningsresultaat. Hier construeren de actoren met elkaar in een proces van uitwisseling en onderhandelen een werkelijkheid in taal, een ordeningsresultaat. 20

Het proces dat zich ontwikkeld binnen de MCC is onbepaald van karakter: onbepaald in de zin dat geen enkele actor – opdrachtgever, staflid of deelnemer – eenzijdig in staat is het interactieproces geheel te overzien en eenzijdig te sturen. Deelnemers en begeleiders creëren een proces van co-creatie van betekenissen en relaties, waar ze vervolgens zelf onderdeel van zijn. 21 Een proces van co-creatie is een voortdurende opeenvolging van doen, bezinnen, denken, beslissen en weer doen. Iedereen, de initiators en de medewerkers, maakt deel uit van het veranderingsproces en moet dus bereid zijn te leren. Wie transactioneel wil organiseren, moet de veranderingen al co-creërend aanpakken. Dit gebeurd op het veranderniveau van principes. 22 Co-creatie is een proces van gezamenlijke betekenisgeving.

38



At page 197, Wierdsma and Swieringa claim that, “It is easy to summarize the essence of cocreation: connecting and trust. But at the same time: it is so difficult to do. 23”



On pages 197-201, Wierdsma and Swieringa propose nine principles or conditions which underlie co-creating change (trekking). The authors state that the actors that are used to working on the basis of the dominant “familiar” thinking, referred to as positional organizing (travelling), have difficulties learning and applying the principles of co-creation. It requires teaching on the most intense level of change, principles. According to Wierdsma and Swieringa, this has to do with the struggle to unlearn familiar principles of positional organizing. This is what is meant by the phrase, “it is so difficult to do.” On the other hand, the authors state that actors who are not accustomed to the principles of positional organizing will find the approach of co-creation to be simply practical tips which are easy to learn and apply. A short description of the essence of these principles is provided below.

1. Activate the “actorship” A trek presupposes the willingness of all trekkers to be accountable to each other regarding their roles. This mutual accountability has been called an “actorship, ” the recognition of the mutual influence of all involved. Engaging in a successful trek entails the acceptance that the actors (trekkers) each have an active share in the realization of the context in which they act. 24 In a collective learning process, this means that if an actor does not want to be part of the solution, he becomes part of the problem. 2. Focus on connecting A condition for learning collectively is the emphasis on connection: Connection between the person and his individual needs and volition, connection between persons, and the connection between internal and external actors. 3. Work on the basis of temporary workable compromises These compromises are realized together, in a process of social construction. They thus can also be changed together. This requires a willingness to recognize change (socio-economic variation), and to work with this change. A process of social construction means that agreements are realized together. Thus, agreements can also be demolished and changed together. 4. Build on the successes of the past Co-created changes are built upon everything that already works well within or between organizations. This is the starting point for connecting and trust. 5. Build on the creation of possibilities 23

De kernbegrippen van co-creatie zijn: verbinden en vertrouwen. Zo eenvoudig is de essentie van co-creëren samen te vatten. Tegelijkertijd: zo moeilijk is het om te doen. 24 Actorschap is de erkenning van de betrokkenen van hun invloed; het is het accepteren dat zij een actief aandeel hebben in de realisatie van de context waarbinnen zij functioneren.

39

Orientation towards possibilities and the orientation towards errors conflict with each other. According to Wierdsma & Swieringa, the transactional organization model promotes orientation towards errors. Emphasising mistakes increases the danger of creating a defensive attitude toward research. In an environment affected by socio-economic change. emphasis should be placed on realizing new ambitions, dreams, and possibilities. 6. Work back from the future Future, collaboration and interdependence are compatible with co-creation. Energy and the willingness to negotiate arise from the wish to share a vision of the future. The process of co-creation represents an investment is the service of shared desires, ambitions and visions of the future. 7. Join self-reference People assign their own meaning to the messages they receive. The messenger may try to convince the receiver of a certain meaning, but in the end, the receiver will interpret a message from out of his own frame of reference. This means that the search for a single truth is incompatible with social systems. The final meaning is created in a dialogue between actors and organizations. 8. Create shared experiences Transactional organizing is based upon the philosophy that meanings are created, aborted, repaired and maintained within a process of continuous signification in a network of relations. Co-creation of change occurs during a trek in which patterns of thoughts and actions are demolished and rebuilt. 9. Place the change story in a comprehensive story Meanings are carried within an organization by stories people tell each other. The power of the “changing story” increases if it meshes with the larger story of the mission and vision of an organization. 

Although Wierdsma argues that the concept of co-creation cannot be captured in a single definition, he defined co-creation in an interview with Centric Magazine (2011) as follows:

“Co-creation is the way of working together, where you accept that you are interdependent, that you need each other, and that there are differences that you mutually respect.25” After defining co-creation in this interview, Wierdsma again explains that co-creation seems very easy. However, he immediately emphasises that it can be very difficult because of the belief that there is always a best way or one, single truth that can be identified by the proper measurements. This contradicts the theory of co-creation, which holds that several truths are possible depending on the meaning created by interactions of those involved. 25

Co-creatie is de manier van samenwerken, waarin je accepteert dat je interafhankelijk bent, elkaar nodig hebt, en dat er verschillen zijn die je wederzijds respecteert. Dat lijkt simpel, maar niet als je bedenkt dat de dominante denkstroom van management gebaseerd is op de gedachte dat er een beste manier is. Wij gaan uit van het principe meten is weten. Dat je weet wat de beste manier is als je iets goed bestudeerd hebt. Degene die het probleem of de materie het beste snapt, legt het uit en de anderen moeten het daarmee eens zijn.

40

3.2.4 Conclusions In summary, Wierdsma provides various descriptions of co-creation and has little desire to develop one clearly demarcated definition. Wierdsma mainly uses a number of characteristics and conditions that describe a process of co-creation. A brief summary of Wierdsma’s main points regarding cocreation is as follows:      

Meaning is created during a process of interactions. Therefore multiple truths are possible. The co-creation process develops over time and has an undetermined character. Actors joining the process must be willing to learn. Actors must accept interdependence. During this process, trust and connection are essential. The process emphasises reconsideration, reflection, and change.

3.3.

Prahalad and Ramaswamy

Although the phenomenon has been around for some time, co-creation has generally been attributed to C.K. Prahalad. Prahalad was professor of Business Administration at the University of Michigan Business School. In 2002, Prahalad and co-author Venkat Ramaswamy wrote The Cocreation Connection , (2002). Venkat Ramaswamy is professor of marketing at the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan. In 2004, these two authors published The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with Customers (Harvard Business Press 2004). 3.3.1

Context of Co-creation

Prahalad and Ramaswamy claim that companies spent the 20th Century managing efficiency. Now, in the 21st Century, they must manage experiences. The authors claim that today’s information and communications technology, and especially the internet, are forcing companies to think differently about value creation. According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy, companies have interpreted value creation as a process of cost-effectively producing goods and services for over a century. Now, Prahalad and Ramaswamy contend that consumers interpret value creation as the quality of their experiences with goods and services. The difference in understanding of what value creation consists of has disconnected companies and consumers. The authors claim that managers are usually so preoccupied with operating efficiently that they do not even think about value in terms of the consumer's experience. But, the authors say, the balance of power in the nature of value creation is tipping in favor of consumers. This shift implies that the consumer’s influence on attitudes towards value creation has never been greater. The power of modern consumers poses a new challenge to companies and their managers. The authors believe that facing this challenge will require companies to learn to co-create value with their customers. The authors provide the following three recommendations on how to co-create value with consumers:   

Spread consumer influence across the value chain (in research and development, design, manufacturing, logistics, service, and points between). Make conflicts between the company and consumers more visible, and resolve them more productively. As a company, do not dictate how value is created.

They also argue that co-creation is becoming a competitive imperative, meaning that co-creation is becoming more necessary for companies as they attempt to enlist their consumers in creating the 41

value of their products. If companies do not summon the intelligence to create more fulfilling experiences for consumers, their competitors will. To explain what the authors describe as the Art of Co-Creation in greater detail, a distinction is made between the “traditional” company-centric view and a consumer-centric view. This distinction consists of the points described below. From a company-centric perspective:    

The consumer is outside the domain of the value chain. The company controls where, when, and how value is added in the value chain. Value is created in a series of activities controlled by the company before the point of purchase. There is a single point of exchange at which value is extracted from the customer for the company.

From a consumer-centric view:     

The consumer is an integral part of the system of value creation. The consumer can influence where, when, and how value is generated. The consumer need not respect industry boundaries in the search for value. The consumer can compete with companies for value extraction. There are multiple points of exchange where the consumer and the company can co-create value.

3.3.2 Proof of Findings – Methodology and Theoretical Background In The Future of Competition (Harvard Business School Press, 2004), Prahalad and Ramaswamy offered a series of compelling examples showing that value is increasingly being created jointly by the company and the customer, rather than entirely by the company. As mentioned, the authors claim that the consumer-centric culture of the internet, with its emphasis on interactivity, speed, individuality, and openness, has increased the consumer’s influence on value creation. The authors provide several examples of industries were co-creating value is indispensable. Customer-centric mass production and marketing of automobiles are given as examples of industries where cocreating value is necessary and has already applied. Examples are also given of CEOs who believe in the power of co-creating value. The CEO of LEGO enterprises, Jørgen Vig Knudstorp, commented that the phenomenon of customer co-creation is now becoming a major innovation practice for the company. Mr. Knudstorp describes the company’s customer experience platform known as the LEGO factory as follows: “Within the LEGO Factory, the company sponsors an online community that attempts to engage individuals from its player base of over 400 million people through message boards and a web site called My LEGO Network. The dialogue created through these forums allows enthusiasts to exchange ideas. The company’s core audience is children, but a large group of adult ‘‘super-users’’ – known as AFOL, Adult Fans Of LEGO – also participate in the generation of product ideas and the invention of new products, such as LEGO Architecture.”

42

3.3.3 Description of Co-creation Although Ramaswamy and Prahalad do not provide a definition of co-creation in their article, “The Co-Creation Connection,” the authors suggest that there are four building blocks for co-creating value (2002, pp. 9-11). A short description of the building blocks is as follows: 1. Dialogue Dialogue is creating shared meaning. In dialogues, people listen and learn from each other. In the most productive dialogues, people communicate and debate as equals. Dialogue helps companies to understand the emotional, social, and cultural contexts that shape consumer experiences. It also provides knowledge companies can use to innovate. 2. Access Ownership is the traditional way to look at the transfer of value from the company to the customer. But you do not need to own something to experience its value. Indeed, access without ownership is desirable for some consumers, and can be very profitable for businesses. Thinking in terms of access expands a company’s view of potential markets. 3. Risk reduction The obligations and responsibilities of the firm and consumers for managing risk will always be debated. But it is safe to assume that as consumers become more involved in co-creating experiences with companies, they may be willing to take on more responsibility for managing risk, especially if companies are willing to reveal more information about the risks associated with the products and services they provide. 4. Transparency Nowadays shareholders demand transparency. Transparency is also necessary if consumers are to become co-creators of value. When companies make vital business-process information visible to consumers, companies, in effect, relinquish control of the value creation process before the traditional point of exchange. Ramaswamy (2011) actually defines co-creation in his publication, “It is about human experience and beyond, to co-creation.” The definition he provides is as follows: Co-creation is, “The practice of developing systems, products, or services through collaboration with customers, managers, employees, and other stakeholders.” In this publication, Ramaswamy also emphasises the importance of experiences through multi-sided interactions. Ramaswamy describes multi-sided interactions as the building blocks of co-creating value. Multi-sided interactions are applied through continuous dialogue and transparency, access, and visualization of experiences that can enable better assessments of risks and rewards. 3.3.4 Conclusions Summarised, Prahalad and Ramaswamy describe co-creation by the following characteristics:    

An emphasis on value creation and managing experiences. The consumer is an integral part of the system for creating value and can influence where, when, and how value is generated. The consumer need not respect industry boundaries in the search for value. The dialogue encourages knowledge sharing and shared meaning (debate as equals). 43

  

Consumers do not need to own something to experience value. Risk reduction is possible if companies reveal more information about the risks of their products. Transparency between the company and consumers is key.

3.4.

Volberda

Henk Volberda is a professor of “Strategic Management & Business Policy” at the Rotterdam School of Management. He says that in order to find innovation, companies are increasingly forced to look outside the boundaries of their own organization (H. Volberda, Van den Bosch, & Heij, 2013, p. 60). Volberda has published several books and articles related to co-creation. Volberda’s research builds on the existing theory of co-creating value by Prahalad and Ramaswamy. In collaboration with Paul Oortwijn, director of NLingenieurs, Volberda also co-authored the article “Social Innovation in the Engineering Industry” (2013)26. In this article, the authors emphasise the importance of social innovation, which will be explained later on in this section. (It should also be noted that Oortwijn contributed directly to this research by submitting to an interview). 3.4.1. Context of Co-creation In his book, Re-inventing Business, Volberda et al. (2013) emphasise the need to innovate business models. Companies must constantly change their business model to survive competition with competitors. The authors describe a business model in terms of the common characteristics of several definitions (H. Volberda et al., 2013, p. 37). The elements of this definition are as follows:   

A business model consists of several components and the relationships between them, including relationships with external parties like customers.27 A business model analyses how value is created and how the company defines value.28 A business model shows how the components and their relationships contribute to the competitive strategy.29

The authors relate co-creation to the innovation of a business model by describing it as being one of the four levers:30 new technologies, entrepreneurial management, new forms of organization or cocreation with consumers.

26

Volberda, H., & Oortwijn, P. (2013). Sociale innovatie in de ingenieursbranche - Belang, voordelen en aanpak van sociale innovatie. Deltek. 27

Een businessmodel bestaat uit verschillende componenten en beschrijft de relaties tussen die componenten. Ook omschrijft het de relaties met externe partijen zoals klanten. 28

Een businessmodel analyseert hoe waardecreatie voor wie plaatsvindt en hoe het bedrijf zich waarde toeeigent. 29

Een businessmodel maakt inzichtelijk hoe de componenten en hun onderlinge relaties bijdragen aan de concurrentiestrategie.

44

According to the authors, companies make use of the levers to innovate their business models. This leads to improvement or replication of the existing business model, or to the invention of an entirely new business model. Volberda et al. then make a distinction between technical and social innovation. Social innovation is defined as: “The development of new management (dynamic management), the application of innovative forms of organization (flexible organization), the development of more efficient labor relations (working smarter) and collaboration with external parties (co-creation)31.” In addition, social innovation is described as an important innovation that is often not taken into account by companies. In the previously mentioned publication Social Innovation in the Engineering Industry (2013), Volberda and Oortwijn emphasise the importance, benefits and approaches of social innovation in the engineering sector, seeing it as a driver for productivity and competiveness. They also see social innovation as a necessity in times of economic downturn because of its ability to produce “more with less.” 3.4.2. Proof of Findings – Methodology and Theoretical Background Re-inventing Business is based on new knowledge derived from a survey of firms in various industries in the Netherlands, and from such case studies as DSM, NXP Semiconductors, Randstad and TomTom (H. Volberda et al., 2013, p. 13). Research by INSCOPE Research for Innovation concluded In the study “Erasmus Competition and Innovation Monitor 2011-2012: Dutch companies invest in radical innovations”, the INSCOPE research team found that 75% of Dutch innovation success was determined by social factors, whereas only 25% was the result of technical factors (H. W. Volberda et al., 2012). The study also found that 48% of the total effect of social innovation could be assigned to the effects of co-creation. Volberda et al. justifies their high opinion of the efficacy of co-creation with these results. They also provided several examples of co-creation from the current business world, including the use of technologies from mobile telecommunications to detect traffic jams (H. Volberda et al., 2011). 3.4.3. Description of Co-creation Volberda et al. (2013, p. 61) describe co-creation as: “A form of innovation where markets are seen as forums for businesses and customers to share, combine, and innovate their ideas32.” The authors add that co-creation enables the customer to participate in the development process, to adapt the development process to their own context, and to define and solve problems in

30

Hefbomen

31

Sociale innovatie bestaat uit het ontwikkelen van nieuwe managementvaardigheden (dynamisch managen), het hanteren van innovatieve organisatievormen (flexibel organiseren), het realiseren van hoogwaardige arbeidsrelaties (slimmer werken) en samenwerken met externe partijen (co-creatie). 32

Co-creatie is een vorm van innovatie waarbij markten worden gezien als fora waarop bedrijven en klanten hun ideeën delen, combineren en vernieuwen.

45

collaboration with management33. The authors contend that co-creation means that organizations are open to customers, suppliers, complementary players and even competitors. Also, Volberda et al. emphasise that innovation can be promoted by cooperation between universities, industry associations, and the government34. Organizations are therefore advised to make use of the massive reservoir of ideas and knowledge outside their own walls. With co-creation, firms can rapidly develop and implement new business models35. But while extolling the benefits of co-creation, the authors also emphasise the challenges of developing a viable system of co-creation with customers or external organizations. Three specific challenges were identified:   

The organization must find a balance between openness and privacy. The organization must be able to select and absorb new knowledge. The organization must be able to change old routines.

Volberda et al. also say that more co-creation does not always lead to a better business model (2013, pp. 99-101). Organizations must find an appropriate balance between external growth, a focus on collaboration, internal growth, and autonomy. The authors contend that a high level of external growth means little internal growth, and vice versa. 3.4.4. Conclusions In summary, Volberda sees co-creation as having the following characteristics:     

Collaboration with consumers and other external parties. One of the four levers of innovation. Co-creation contributes to social innovation. The consumer participates in the development process. A driver of productivity and competiveness.

3.5.

A Comparison of Leading Scholars on Co-creation

Now, in the light of the thoughts of the leading scholars in the field of co-creation, it is appropriate to compare and contrast the opinions just described. Are there remarkable findings? What characteristics of co-creation are universally shared, and which are controversial? The following paragraph provides an overview. 33

Co-creation stelt de klant in staat om deel te nemen aan het ontwikkelproces, dit aan te passen aan de eigen context en gezamenlijk problemen te definiëren en op te lossen. 34

Het openstellen van de organisatie voor klanten, leveranciers, complementaire spelers en zelfs voor concurrenten. Ook door samenwerking met universiteiten en opleidingsinstituten, brancheorganisaties of de overheid kan innovatie bevorderd worden. 35

Door uit het enorme reservoir van ideeën en kennis buiten de eigen organisatie te putten kunnen bedrijven met co-creatie snel nieuwe businessmodellen ontwikkelen en naar de markt brengen.

46

3.5.1. Overview of Overall Characteristics of Co-creation

In order to compare the views of the leading scholars, Table 1 provides an overview of the main characteristics and definitions of the leading scholars on co-creation. Table 1. Overview of main characteristics and definitions of co-creation by the leading scholars in the field.

Leading scholars

Characteristics of co-creation

Definition of co-creation

Wierdsma



Meaning is created during a process of interaction: therefore several truths are possible.



The process develops over time and has an undetermined character.

Co-creation is the way of working together, in which one accepts interdependence, the need of each party for the other, and the importance of mutual respect of differences.



Actors joining the process must be willing to learn.



Actors must accept interdependence.



Trust and connecting are key factors during the process.



The process emphasises reconsideration, reflection and change.



Value creation experiences .



The consumer is an integral part of the system of value creation, and can influence where, when, and how value is generated.



The consumer need not respect industry boundaries in his search for value.



Dialogue encourages knowledge sharing and shared meaning (debate as equals): multi-sided interactions.



Consumers do not need to own something to experience value.



Risk reduction is possible if companies reveal more information about the risks of their products.



Transparency between company and consumers is key.



Collaboration with consumers and other external parties.



The costumer participates in the development process.



One of the four levers of innovation.



Co-creation contributes to social innovation.



Driver for productivity and competiveness.

Prahalad Ramaswamy

Volberda

and

must

emphasise

managing

The practice of developing systems, products, or services through collaboration with customers, managers, employees, and other stakeholders.

A form of innovation where markets are seen as forums for businesses and customers to share, combine and innovate their ideas.

47

3.5.2. Category 1: Consensual Characteristics from the Literature

To answer the question of the definition of co-creation, I now focus on the characteristics that most of the scholars attributed to co-creation, the “consensual characteristics.” In general, the scholars agree that co-creation has the following two important characteristics: Meaning is created by an interaction between the actors involved Wierdsma describes co-creation as a process where meaning is created by interaction between the actors involved. All of the scholars reviewed agree on this point. The essential role of dialogue, interaction, transparency, openness and forums are explicitly recognized by all scholars. Shared meanings or experiences are created through dialogue, and these common understandings can result in solutions that benefit all parties. An important condition on this idea is that all partners to the dialogue debate as equals. Co-creation is an undetermined process that develops over time Wierdsma describes co-creation as an undetermined process which develops over time. Prahalad, Ramaswamy and Volberda describe co-creating value as creating value by sharing experiences. Because no-one can foresee the end result of the meaning created by the experiences of the consumers, managers and employees who participate, it is clear that meaning develops through a process that unfolds over time. Although a goal or direction is established at the beginning of this process, its ultimate result cannot be predicted. 3.5.3. Category 2: Controversial Characteristics from the Literature

Because Volberda’s perception of co-creation is based on the works of Prahalad and Ramaswamy, it is to be expected that these three scholars have a similar understanding of the phenomenon. Although Wierdsma, Prahalad and Ramaswamy are professors of business, Wierdsma interprets cocreation from a perspective outside the typical purview of business and management. Wierdsma has a PhD in social sciences and therefore approaches co-creation from a more sociological perspective. Some of the more important nuances of the authors’ concept of co-creation can be obtained from their various reasons for promoting it. Wierdsma endorses co-creation because it enables organization to cope with socio-economic change more effectively, while Prahalad, Ramaswamy and Volberda see co-creation as a means of increasing organizational competitiveness. From another perspective, Wierdsma relates co-creation to the need to adapt to change, whereas Prahalad, Ramaswamy and Volberda relate co-creation to the creation of value. In the light of these differences, what other divergent characteristics can be identified? Focus on Consumer Involvement, Collective Learning, or Both? The first significant difference in attributed to co-creation is the relative emphasis on what might be called “consumer empowerment.” Unlike Wierdsma, Prahalad, Ramaswamy and Volberda consider consumer involvement to be a core element of co-creation. Although Prahalad, Ramaswamy and Volberda argue that co-creation also involves collaboration with other external parties or stakeholders, the consumer has a prominent position in their perception of the co-creation of value. 48

Wierdsma approaches co-creation from a broader perspective. Rather than focusing on the consumer, he defines co-creation as a “collective learning process.” Nevertheless, if a company creates value by collaborating with its consumer, value is created by a collective learning process between company and consumer. Thus, in the matter of the method of creating value, the focus of the authors is somewhat different, but not mutually exclusive. Focus on Collaboration, Innovation or Both? A second difference concerns the way the scholars define co-creation. Wierdsma, Prahalad and Ramaswamy define co-creation as “a form of collaboration,” whereas Volberda defines it as “a form of innovation.” Although too much emphasis should not be put on it, a difference in focus is clearly present. That is to say, while the focus is somewhat different, the respective definitions of cocreation are not directly contradictory or mutually exclusive.

3.6.

Other Literature on Co-creation

This section refines the picture of co-creation by considering the thoughts of scholars other than the four discussed above. To this end, excerpts from three books and the current Wikipedia article on cocreation are summarized. The goal is to determine the degree to which other scholars’ thoughts are consistent with those of Wierdsma, Volberda, Prahalad and Ramaswamy. Knowledge Co-creation: A Productive Collaboration between Scientist and Policy Makers We first consider the ideas in the book, Knowledge Co-creation: A Productive Collaboration between Scientist and Policy Makers (Hegger et al., 2013). The authors provide the following ‘workable’ definition of “knowledge co-creation” between scientists and policy makers: “Knowledge co-creation is a process in which policy makers and scientists (usually project-based) cooperate with emphasis on results that are of interest to both parties36.” This definition emphasizes a project-specific nature of co-creation. Although Wierdsma describes cocreation as an undetermined process, suggesting a focus on short term decisions, a project-based collaboration was not clearly described by any of the four leading scholars. Hegger et al. go on to identify the following seven factors that affect the success of the co-creation of knowledge: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Involve as many stakeholders as possible. Define problems collaboratively. Identify common frames of reference. Care for a clear positioning of the project Ensure that all parties, and especially the scientists , are clear in their roles.

36

Kenniscocreatie is een proces waarin beleidsmakers en wetenschappers (meestal projectmatig) samenwerken met het oog op resultaten die voor beiden van belang zijn.

49

6. Invent something for the obstructing remuneration structures 7. Organise helpful resources. How Bottom-up Co-creation Is Replacing Top-down Innovation The next examined book was Flipped: How Bottom-up Co-creation Is Replacing Top-down Innovation (Winsor, 2010). This book elaborates on the central idea that companies must learn to use co-creation tools to work from the bottom-up to create new products, services, and marketing strategies in collaboration with their consumers. This new kind of customer-company relationship is described in detail, and useful case studies are provided as well as practical methods of facilitating the dialogues that fuel innovation. Although co-creation is described as a new kind of customer-company relationship, the picture of cocreation presented here adds little to descriptions of Prahalad and Ramaswamy. Like Volberda, Winsor describes co-creation as a form of innovation. However, Volberda does not characterize cocreation in terms of whether it is organized bottom-up or top-down. Nevertheless, Prahalad, Ramaswamy and Volberda argue that the consumer’s experience is the crucial connection for creating value. This suggests that value creation and innovation starts with the experience of the end-user, which implies a bottom-up orientation. Co-creation of Organizations with Consumers The third book reviewed was Co-creation of Organizations with Consumers (Dhondt, Broekman, van der Torre, van de Berg, & Wiezer, 2013). The book summarizes the research of Volberda et al. on social innovation. The book corroborates the central idea of co-creation – that the connection between a company and its customers is vital in the modern world. The authors also cite (as cited in Bogers, Afuah, & Bastian, 2010) to make the often-heard point that cooperation between companies and consumers can take many forms. The authors also acknowledge (as cited in Thijs et al., 2008, p. 38) that co-creation can focus on innovation, production and even forms of ownership. From this perspective, the authors describe co-creation as the overarching concept behind all forms of cooperation between consumers and producers. Lastly, the authors contend that organizations must surrender a measure of power and control if co-creation is to work. This idea, they note, contradicts Volberda, who states that management should have full control of all the resources of the company.37 Wikipedia The last secondary source examined was the Wikipedia article on co-creation. Although Wikipedia cannot be regarded as a scientific source, it does generally provide a good idea of the public meaning of co-creation. According to Wikipedia (10-12 2014), co-creation is described as, “A form of cooperation, in which all participants have an impact on the process and the result of this process, 37

Normaliter zou het management, zelfs in de definitie van sociale innovatie van Volberda (e.a.), volledige sturing moeten geven aan alle resources van de organisatie. Bij co-creatie met consumenten levert het management bewust aan macht en controle in (Dhondt et al., 2013, p. 108).

50

such as a plan, advice or a product.” In addition, Wikipedia cites dialogue, common ground, enthusiasm, decisiveness, and focus on results as the primary characteristics of co-creation. The preconditions for successful co-creation are identified as equivalence of the participants, reciprocity, openness, and trust. Thus, the definition and characterization of co-creation presented in Wikipedia does not contradict or significantly deviate from the description of the leading scholars. Summary of Secondary Sources The descriptions of co-creation found in Wikipedia and the three books excerpted above are consistent with descriptions presented by the leading scholars. In general, a strong emphasis is placed on the relationship between the organization and the consumer. However, other actors or stakeholders are not excluded. Indeed, the first success factor identified in the book about “Knowledge Co-creation” is the “involvement of as many actors as possible.” Moreover, Wikipedia describes co-creation as “a process in which all participants have an impact”. This is very similar to Wierdsma’s description. Besides these similarities, the following contributions or insights were noticed:   

Co-creation is usually project-based Co-creation is bottom-up (with consumers) Management relinquishes power and control

(consistent with leading scholars) (consistent with leading scholars) (contradicts Volberda)

51

4. Practice: A Description of Co-creation by Practitioners in the Infrastructure Sector 4.1 Introduction Now that the descriptions of co-creation by the leading scholars has been presented, it is appropriate to discuss the research on the interpretation of co-creation by practitioners in the infrastructure sector. Without input from practitioners, it is not possible to determine whether co-creation is feasible under existing procurement laws or in the context of integrated contracts. It should, however, be noted that co-creation is not recognised as an applied collaboration form with a widely accepted definition. The validation of the practitioners is therefore only relative. To get an impression of what practitioners describe as co-creation between client and contractor, interviews were held with clients, contractors, lawyers and other parties in the infrastructure sector. This chapter is based on the perception of co-creation emerged from these interviews. In Appendix II, a summary of twenty-four in-depth interviews with eighteen leading practitioners is provided. The opinions of the practitioners, summarized in this appendix, serve as the building blocks of what the practice describes as co-creation. To get a good impression of the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor within the existing framework of procurement procedures and integrated contracts in the infrastructure sector, various groups of the following types of experts were interviewed:    

The public client: focus on Rijkswaterstaat The market: contractors and engineering firms Lawyers with expertise in construction law Industry associations and research institutes

To get a good impression of what practitioners understand the term “co-creation” to mean, practitioners were asked to answer four questions:    

First, the interviewees were asked to give their personal interpretation on the concept of cocreation. Second, the interviewees were asked to provide feedback on a presented definition. Third, the interviewees were asked to distinguish co-creation from supply chain collaboration. Fourth, the interviewees were asked to give conditions and drivers of co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector.

Two rounds of interviews were held in an effort to identify a unified definition of co-creation. However, during this process, it appeared that the perceptions of the practitioners were too diverse to achieve a broadly consensual definition. Nevertheless, some characteristics emerged which were confirmed by almost all practitioners, while others were identified about which opinions varied widely. These consensual and controversial characteristics, described in the following paragraphs, represent co-creation as seen by practitioners in the infrastructure sector.

52

4.2.

Category 3: Consensual Characteristics from the Practice

As mentioned, interviewees were asked to give their personal interpretation of the concept of cocreation. Consequently, various characterizations of co-creation were assembled38. Although a unified definition on co-creation was not feasible, the following characteristics related to co-creation were identified by almost all practitioners. These consensual characteristics were therefore considered to represent the core elements of co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector. The consensual characteristics were as follows:    

Cooperation (between client and contractor) in the project should occur as early as possible. The solution is unknown in advance. Client and contractor are not equal, but should be treated as thought they were. By means of a dialogue and common goal, the focus should be on a solution that suits both client and contractor.

Cooperation in the project as early as possible Characteristic of co-creation is its focus on a collaboration between client and contractor that starts as early in the project as possible. All interviewees confirmed this point. In the beginning of a project, the client and contractor have less constraints on developing an integral solution. By working together from the beginning of the project, the client and contractor increase the chance of finding a solution that suits both perspectives. If the solution is still uncertain, the trick is to use complementary knowledge and experience of both the client and contractor when planning and decision-making has not yet limited options. Here, integral ideas still have the opportunity to be implemented. The more the project develops, the more fixed it becomes and the less scope is left to find a better solution (see Figure 7).

Figure 7: Co-creation between client and contractor early in the project.

38

Appendix III, Overview of appointed characteristics during the interviews.

53

The solution is unknown in advance A second characteristic of co-creation which clearly emerged from the interviews, is that co-creation should be applied to those issues for which a solution is not known in advance. With respect to a unknown solution, all interviewees argued that a high level of complexity increases the need and effectiveness of co-creation. If a project, or a particular part of a project, consists of a challenge characterised by an unforeseeable estimation of risks, co-creation between client and contractor can help to accomplish project goals more easily. According to several practitioners, co-creation is in particular of interest when the complementary competencies of both client and contractor are required to accomplish a formulated goal. Client and contractor are not equal, but should be treated as thought they were A third characteristic emerging from the interviews was the belief that client and contractor should treat each other as equals. Under co-creation, client and contractor strive for a horizontal relationship, a relationship based on equivalence. However, the meaning of equivalence should be explained further. Treating each other equivalently does not mean that the client and contractor are in fact equal. Indeed, several practitioners argued that the pubic client and contractor are unequal in many respects. A number of practitioners recommend that this is precisely the reason why cocreation between client and contractor is of interest. The following values related to equivalence were mentioned by almost all interviewees:     

Respect Trust Transparency Openness Interdependence

In Appendix IV, these values are described in greater detail. The Appendix combines the results and key statements by value, and states how many practitioners confirmed the values as an essential feature of co-creation. All values were explained in terms of key statements selected from the interviews. By means of a dialogue and common goal, the focus should be on a solution that suits both client and contractor A fourth characteristic is the search for a solution beneficial to all parties. The dialogue between the parties (here, client and contractor) is thus critical. One practitioner described co-creation as a search for a common goal which does not unduly harm individual interests and, ideally, benefits both parties. A common goal was identified as a precondition for successful co-creation. Thus, the interviews showed that co-creation was seen as focusing on a short-term solution that brought the parties one step further. Many (but not all) practitioners saw co-creation as a form of single-project collaboration.

54

4.3.

Category 4: Controversial Characteristics from the Practice

Not all characteristics of co-creation were widely held. On some characteristics, opinions among the interviewees was clearly divided. This section provides an overview of these “controversial characteristics.” Degree to which client and contractor join strengths Does co-creation mean that client and contractor join strengths? Is equivalence regarding the input and exchange of knowledge and expertise required for a collaboration in co-creation? Is co-creation about sharing knowledge, or is it solely about being open for the problems of the other? The opinions of the interviewees were clearly divided on these points. The matter of joining strengths emphasized the importance of complementary competencies of client and contractor. In Co-bouw (2013), Dronkers states that a collaboration in co-creation should entail the joining of strengths of client and contractor. Dronkers particularly emphasized the exchange of knowledge, saying, “Knowledge would be the connecting chain between client and contractor39.” But according to many interviewees, Dronkers’s definition, discussed in greater detail below, places too much emphasis on knowledge sharing. Co-creation can also be about the exchange of skills, resources, interest and positions. The following emerged from the interviews as points of controversy regarding the joining of strengths:   

Exchange of knowledge Exchange of skills (and associated resources) Exchange of interests and positions

Appendix IV will elaborate these points further. The appendix shows whether practitioners confirm a particular strength to be related to co-creation or not. Moreover, the results in this Appendix show whether the practitioners agree with each other or whether there is difference of opinion. Other practitioners questioned whether co-creation necessarily entails the exchange of knowledge. One practitioner thought that knowledge sharing is not be an essential element of co-creation. Coming into a co-creation collaboration, client and contractor are not equivalent in terms of knowledge and expertise; moreover, according to some practitioners, there is no need for them to share the knowledge that would make them equivalent. A number of interviewees endorsed this position. Therefore, these types of practitioners see the essence of co-creation as being open to the problems of the partner, rather than sharing knowledge with him. Division of responsibilities in co-creation Another characteristic of co-creation in which opinions varies among practitioners concerned the division of responsibilities. Practitioners in the “market group” argued that it is important to have clear agreements on responsibilities, risks and liabilities in a co-creation collaboration. At this point in time, it appears that practitioners are still searching for the right answers; it is therefore to be 39

In co-creatie is kennis de verbindende schakel tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer.

55

expected that opinions will be divided. Appendix II shows the different opinions and statements of various practitioners with respect to the division of responsibilities. Some of the interviewees argued that the fact that client and contractor are trying to create something collaboratively under co-creation implies that they should have joint responsibilities. One person argued that Dronkers’s plea for co-creation was to distinguish it from DBFM contracts characterised by a clear division of responsibilities. But at the same time, almost all the interviewees claimed that, in principle, co-creation would be feasible under any form of contract. In other words, co-creation would be feasible despite a division in responsibilities between client and contractor. This discussion is related to the previous controversial characteristic. What matters is what is meant by co-creation. If co-creation merely entails being open to the problems of the partner and being willing to help the partner reach project goals, then joint responsibility is not necessarily a requirement. But if co-creation requires that client and contractor completely join forces in terms of sharing knowledge, skills, and resources, who should bear the responsibly and take the risks when things go wrong? There is considerable difference of opinion whether client and contractor should be jointly responsible under co-creation. The views of the practitioners indicate that joint responsibility is an option but not a requirement. When I asked the practitioners whether a shared responsibility was an incentive to co-creative collaboration, 82% of the practitioners who provided an answer to this question answered in the affirmative40. Division of responsibility might therefore be seen as a parameter for co-creation.

4.4

Process of Formulating a Definition of Co-creation

To refine the understanding of what the practice describes as co-creation, I aimed at stating a definition of co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector. However, as the interviews went on, it became apparent that it is not possible to formulate a definition of co-creation that is supported by all practitioners. Using the data recorded in Appendix II, this section provides an overview of the search for a definition. The process of working towards a definition highlighted the controversial opinions of practitioners regarding the meaning of co-creation. To present a validated definition of co-creation, two rounds of interviews were carried out. The purpose of a second round of interviews was to validate preliminary results from the first round. In total, three definitions were presented. Although the interviews revealed that some practitioners agreed with one or the other of the proposed definitions, all definitions also received criticism41. 4.4.1

40

41

Round 1

Appendix V: question 4 (contract phase) Appendix II: Doorlopen proces bij het ontwikkelen van een definitie voor co-creatie in dit onderzoek.

56

I started the first interview round with a definition from the perspective of leading client Jan Hendrik Dronkers, Director General of Rijkswaterstaat. As a leading client, Dronkers’ idea of co-creation between public client and contractor played a dominant role because his plea for co-creation was the trigger for this research. Nevertheless, Dronkers does not provide a detailed explanation of or justification for his interpretation of co-creation. Therefore, it is important to present his definition to the leading practitioners in the sector. During the first round of interviews, 13 practitioners were interviewed and provided feedback on the definition of Dronkers. The results of the first round were analysed with respect to the following two questions:  

Do leading practitioners agree with Dronkers’s interpretation of co-creation? Are there striking differences between the various groups of practitioners regarding their understanding of co-creation?

Definition 1, from the perspective of initiator and leading client in the infrastructure sector: Co-creation is an interactive and equivalence based collaboration between public client/contracting authority and private contractor/ tenderer(s) with optimal usage, sharing and strengthening of knowledge on the basis of respect, trust and transparency42. It should be noted that the failure of this definition to mention the consumer does not exclude findings from the literature study that do mention the consumer in relation to co-creation. Furthermore, this definition is a compilation of the characteristics of co-creation as enumerated by Dronkers in Co-bouw, and not Dronkers’s actual definition word-for-word. Do leading practitioners agree with Dronkers’s definition of co-creation? Although most practitioners did not disagree with Dronkers’s definition, they generally thought it was too narrow and excluded a number of key characteristics. The following criticisms were made emerged43:      

This definition places too much emphasis on the exchange of knowledge; co-creation is more than sharing knowledge. According to some interviewees, the exchange of knowledge is unnecessary. The definition does not focus on the importance of having complementary competencies and being interdependent. The definition does not sufficiently emphasize a focus finding a solution. The definition only emphasises co-creation between client and contractor. The “hard side” of co-creation is not addressed by this definition – specifically, how do client and contractor deal with risks, responsibilities and liability?

Are there striking differences between the various groups of practitioners regarding their understanding of co-creation?

42

Co-creatie is een samenwerking waarbij publieke opdrachtgever/aanbesteder en private opdrachtnemer/gegadigde(n) op een interactieve en gelijkwaardige manier hun kennis optimaal benutten, delen en versterken op basis van respect, vertrouwen en transparantie. 43

Appendix II: Doorlopen proces bij het ontwikkelen van een definitie voor co-creatie in dit onderzoek

57

Although small differences in focus have emerged from the analysis, it must in general be acknowledged that it is difficult to extract a common thread from the various groups. Nevertheless, the analysis revealed that the practitioners from the market group were more focused on “a safe environment,” indicating their relatively higher interest in issues associated with agreements about risks, responsibilities and liabilities. The group of clients, on the other hand, was more concerned that skills and resources, as well as knowledge, be shared under co-creation44. 4.4.2

Round 2

Various characteristics emerged from the first round of interviews. By analysing the characteristics, a second definition of co-creation was proposed that was intended to reflect the “overall interpretation” of the practitioners’ definitions in the first round. This revised definition was: Definition 2, based on the interpretations of co-creation by the practitioners in the first interview round: Co-creation involves interactive and equivalent collaboration where a public client/contracting authority and private contractor/ tenderer(s) exchange their knowledge, skills, interests and positions based upon respect, trust and transparency to come to an efficient solving capacity by optionally sharing project risks45. In the second round, eleven practitioners validated the preliminary results from the analysis of the first round. Although the second definition reflected the overall interpretation of co-creation from the first interview round, the definition become excessively elaborate and complex, reflecting the fact that different respondents thought different elements should be included. The divergent views of the practitioners, incorporated in the second definition, had the effect of diluting the definition to the point it lost its essence. Therefore a third definition was drafted, one again based on the literature study. This third definition reflects most of the literature-based definitions that showed up in the opinions of the practitioners. Definition 3, based on the definition of Andre Wierdsma Co-creation is the way of working together in which all parties accept interdependence, that there is a need for each other, and that the differences between parties will be mutually respected46.

44

Appendix II: Verschil in opvatting over co-creatie tussen verschillende groepen uit de praktijk

45

Co-creatie betreft samenwerking waarbij publieke opdrachtgever/aanbesteder en private opdrachtnemer/gegadigde(n) op een interactieve en gelijkwaardige manier elkaars kennis, kunde, belangen en positie uitwisselen op basis van respect, vertrouwen en transparantie om zo op een eventueel (gedeeltelijk) gezamenlijk verantwoordelijke basis tot een efficiënter oplossend vermogen te komen. 46

Co-creatie is de manier van samenwerken, waarin je accepteert dat je interafhankelijk bent, elkaar nodig hebt, en dat er verschillen zijn die je wederzijds respecteert.

58

In the second round, the practitioners were asked to give feedback on both definitions. It was concluded that the practitioners provided different opinions. Some accepted the second definition, others found Wierdsma’s definition more appropriate. However, as with the first definition based on Dronkers’s work, both definitions were criticized47.

4.5 Drivers of Co-creation Besides identifying characteristics and providing feedback on several definitions of co-creation, the practitioners were asked to define drivers of co-creation between client and contractor. The identification of drivers is important because it provides insight into the willingness of the sector to collaborate on the basis of co-creation. Sector willingness influences the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor. The fact that Dronkers is convinced that co-creation between client and contractor is necessary does not mean that the rest of the sector has the same opinion. As with the characteristics, the drivers of co-creation were identified by the interviewees in the first interview. Then, in the second round, the drivers that emerged from the first round were presented to the interviewees who were asked to provide additional recommendations and validation. After two rounds, the following drivers emerged: Consciousness of the need for co-creation to accomplish project goals The first and most important driver for co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector is the awareness of both client and contractor that co-creative collaboration makes it easier to accomplish project goals. A consensual understanding has emerged for some of the characteristics, but for others opinions continue to vary. However, whatever the interviewees would mean with a collaboration in co-creation, this driver would be most significant. Uncertainty of the client and contractor about a suitable solution due to complexity One of the consensual characteristics is that the solution to the problem addressed is initially unknown. Uncertainty about the solution drives the client and contractor to co-create. The interviewees felt that uncertainty is a consequence of complexity. By combining the strengths of multiple parties, a complex problem is more likely to be addressed successfully. According to the interviewees who believe co-creation is about combining strengths, this is the field in which parties should practice co-creation. The interviewees that believe that co-creation is about being open to the partners’ problems also agreed that complexity is a driver for co-creation. Uncertainty of the client and contractor about a sustainable solution due to a changing sector The interviewees commented that today’s sectors are changing rapidly. To keep up with new developments, the practitioners believe that organizations should invest in the exchange of knowledge with other organizations. Examples that emerged from the interviews as to the forces driving change in the sector included technological changes, changes due to new information systems, and changes in the way the end-user uses the network of the infrastructure. Impact of higher goals of the client and contractor 47

Appendix II: Doorlopen proces bij het ontwikkelen van een definitie voor co-creatie in dit onderzoek.

59

The interviewees felt that projects that served higher goals (for example a large contribution to society) were more likely to inspire parties to collaborate through co-creation. Whatever these higher goals” may be (another example appointed was that a contractor would have the interest to show that he is capable of succeeding a large DBFM contract), they can have the effect of motivating the client and/or contractor to put project success ahead of individual interests. Under such circumstances, the client and contractor are more open to the interests and problems of their partners. Several interviewees commented, however, that putting project first and being open to the partner are abilities that differ from individual to individual. Therefore, it was often said that the specific composition of the co-creation team is extremely important to the success of this “softer side” of co-creation. It was also noted that the “hard side” (a realistic price, a good tender, proper distribution of risks and responsibilities, and so on) is of influence to the “softer side,” or specifically, to the willingness to cooperate with each other. Another sentiment was that a “typical co-creation project” requires a certain amount of excitement. One of the interviewees argued that when a project consists of a social environment characterized by people that share the spirit of “let’s face this complex challenge together,” individuals from different organizations may feel like they become a team bonded by the project. A shared passion for solving complex infrastructure problems that our society faces is a definite driver of co-creation. The interviewees provided several examples of projects in the Netherlands with an exciting challenge: The Dutch Delta Works, Ruimte voor de rivier and A2 Hooggelegen. Ability of client and contractor to link smart solutions Even if client and contractor do not share responsibilities, the interviewees commented that cocreation can lead to a smarter linking of solutions. Depending on the right incentives in a contract, client and contractor will think of an integral solution that will lower the costs within a certain phase of the project. To understand the idea of “linking smart solutions”, one of the interviewees provided an example from practice. This example is as follows: The A59 Rosmalen-Geffen concerns a DBFM contract. The contractor was therefore responsible for the maintenance of the highway. The terms of the DBFM contract state that the contractor be paid according to the availability of the road. So availability is a driver for the contractor. Due to the responsibility for maintenance, the contractor needs to mow the grass at the berm in the middle of the highway. Nevertheless, the mower must cross the highway in order to get to the middle berm. As a result, the availability of the highway decreases. How can the contractor increase its availability? Perhaps by using artificial grass? The answer is no, he is not allowed. But if the contractor is able to broaden the middle berm and design an exit from a local crossover, the availability of the road does not have to suffer from mowing the middle berm. This sounds like a perfect solution, but is it allowed within the frame of the route decision? If the client and contractor have created the flexibility to allow for this kind of decision, a smart solution can become a reality. However, the client must be “open” to the “availability problems” the contractor faces. The sharing of risks by client and contractor stimulates innovation and mutual interests Consider an innovation that has the potential to reduce construction costs tremendously, but which also increases uncertainty associated with maintenance. If the contractor were initially considered responsible for the maintenance of the innovation, he might decide not to abandon the innovation 60

because of excessive risk. This example, provided by one of the interviewees, shows that promising innovations are sometimes not pursued because of their higher risk profile. But if the client could share risks related to the innovation with the contractor, this sharing would be an incentive for implementing the innovation. The interviews also revealed that if client and contractor share risks, this sharing promotes an attitude of caring for each other’s interests and problems. Being concerned about the problems and interests of the partner was considered to be an important element of successful co-creating projects. Risk sharing always represents an incentive for affected parties to adopt the same attitude toward accomplishing project goals. One of the interviewees pointed out that it takes more time and effort to remain open to the interests of partners if responsibilities are divided; the easiest thing is to ignore each other’s problems and concentrate single-mindedly on individual needs. If risks are not shared, parties may not understand that the interest of their partners might become their interest as well. For these reasons, risk sharing was identified by the interviewees as a driver of co-creation (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Level of shared risk stimulates co-creative behavior.

On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that both client and contractor are somewhat wary of close collaboration and risk sharing. Two disadvantages risk sharing were emerged from the interviews. The first disadvantage is that close collaboration makes it harder to determine who is responsible and liable when things go wrong. The other disadvantage is that the client may not want to become too close to the contractor out of fear of losing the authority as a client.

61

Influence of drivers on feasibility of co-creation: comparison with contract choice There is no simple answer to the question of the extent to which the drivers discussed above affect the feasibility of co-creative cooperation between client and contractor. Although the interviews indicated that the drivers generally increased feasibility, it was unclear how effective they would be in the context of specific procurement processes or contract models. According to one of the interviewees, the impact of some drivers is not affected by procurement procedures or contract forms. Although certain drivers may have a larger influence on the feasibility of co-creation than the characteristics of a particular procurement procedure or contract form, this study was not designed to answer this particular question.

62

5. A Comparison between Literature and Practice Table 2 provides an overview of the four categories of characteristics of co-creation that emerged from the literature study and the interviews. Section 5.1 identifies the consensual characteristics while Section 5.2 addresses the controversial characteristics. Section 5.3 compares the objectives for co-creation as seen by scholars with the objectives identified by practitioners in the infrastructure sector. Section 5.4 provides a wrap up of all 6 categories.

Practice

Literature study

Table 2. Overview of characteristics of co-creation divided into four categories. Consensual characteristics 1  Meaning is created by interaction between the actors involved




























5.1







Category 5: Consensual Characteristics from Literature and Practice

Now that the characteristics of co-creation from the literature and practice have been identified, it is possible to compare the picture of co-creation as seen by scholars and the practitioners who are charged with actually making it happen. It is assumed that characteristics that are identified by practitioners as well as scholars are valid characteristics of co-creation. By analysing the characteristics in Table 2, it is seen that an “undetermined process” is associated with “the solution is unknown”. Similarly, “meaning is created by interaction” is associated with “focus on a solution that suits the involved partners”. Although these characteristics are clearly similar, it must also be acknowledged that they are not precisely identical. Nevertheless, the comparison provides insight into the understanding of co-creation. According to the analysis of this research, these characteristics form the essence of co-creation. 63

5.2

Category 6: Controversial Characteristics from Literature and Practice

This section analyses the controversial characteristics that emerged from the literature study and practitioners. This comparison is important because of its possible educational function. That is to say, those items that emerged from one source but not the other might represent real, necessary characteristics of co-creation that have been overlooked either by scholars or practitioners. One of the major issues to emerge from this comparison is the issue of the involvement of the consumer in co-creation. Consumer involvement is a major issue in the literature on co-creation, but it did not appear in the comments of practitioners. It must, however, be recognized that the focus on client-contractor interactions in this research may have influenced the views of the practitioners. Dronkers’s prediction that co-creation is the future of the client–contractor relationship may also have influenced the thinking of the practitioners. Even so, it is somewhat surprizing that none of the practitioners considered consumer involvement to be an essential element of co-creation, even though, in the case of infrastructure, the “consumers” are the citizens who use the transportation infrastructure on a daily basis.

64

5.3

Wrap-up: Summary of Categories

Now that the characteristics of co-creation by the leading scholars and the practitioners have been presented, and a comparison between literature and the practice is made, it is appropriate to provide an overall summary of the characteristics. Table 4 provides an overview of all characteristics.

Practice

Literature study

Table 3. Summary of all 6 categories. Consensual characteristics 1  Meaning is created by interaction between the actors involved




























Focus is on a solution that suits the client and contractor





Comparing Literature & practice

5



“Undetermined process” is associated with “the solution is unknown”



“Meaning is created by interaction” is associated with “focus on a solution that suits the involved partners”

4 Degree to which the client and contractor join strengths. Is an equivalent input of strengths an essential required characteristic of co-creation? Division of responsibilities between client and contractor. Is joint responsibility a required characteristic of co-creation?

6



Consumer involvement is a major issue in the literature on co-creation, but it did not appear in the comments of practitioners.

65

5.4

Goals of Co-creation

Understanding the meaning of co-creation requires the identification of the goals to which it is put. The goals of co-creation as defined by the Director General of Rijkswaterstaat, the leading scholars in the field, and the leading practitioners in the infrastructure sector are outlined in Table 3 below. Table 4. Perspectives on the goals of co-creation.

Interviews

Literature

Opinion article Co-bouw

Source

Actor Dronkers as leading client

Goal of co-creation  Learn each other’s working methods  Share and strengthen each other’s knowledge  Better client-contractor cooperation o Above objectives would be the key to cost savings, growth, employment, sustainability and safety.

Wierdsma

      

Prahalad & Ramaswamy Volberda Leading practitioners from the infrastructure sector

Deal with more complexity and change : variation Practical wisdom To be more competitive To be more competitive To be more innovative Improving the solving capacity Improving the existing level of social, economic or ecological value

Although the objectives reflect different perspectives, they are not therefore mutually exclusive. Indeed, the objectives listed in Table 3 are clearly consistent with each other. Moreover, several objectives can serve as the input for other objectives. For example, by improving its problem-solving capacity an organization can become more innovative and, in so doing, more competitive. If organizations are able to deal with more complexity and change, this might result in an improvement of the existing level of economic value.

66

6. A Comparison of Co-creation and Supply Chain Collaboration 6.1

Introduction

In order to provide a better understanding of the meaning of co-creation, it is important to identify its distinctiveness. One of the goals of this study is the identification of differences between cocreation and supply chain collaboration. If co-creation is in fact merely a variant of forms of cooperation that already exist, its feasibility is less important. Now the characteristics of co-creation have been discussed in the previous chapters, it is now appropriate to study whether co-creation differs from existing forms of cooperation like supply chain collaboration. During the interviews, some of the practitioners noted that the proposed definitions of co-creation were also applicable to supply chain collaboration. Indeed, co-creation and supply chain collaboration have many similarities. One of the reasons co-creation and supply chain collaboration are hard to distinguish is the fact that both words are used and interpreted in various ways. Therefore, the possibility that there is in fact no difference between the two should at least be considered. To study the distinctiveness of co-creation, the following steps were taken. First, a literature study on supply chain collaboration is necessary to identify its main characteristics. Second, an overview of the opinions of the leading practitioners is provided. Do the practitioners notice a difference between cocreation and supply chain collaboration? If they do, how do they describe this difference? The opinions practitioners stated in the first round were confirmed or rejected by their colleagues in the second round. However, as previously mentioned, it must be recognized that co-creation is such a new concept that very few practitioners have much real experience with it at this time. The validation of the opinions of practitioners is therefore only relative. Third and finally, after both cocreation and supply chain collaboration have been characterized by the practitioners, the individual characteristics of both are compared category by category. Specifically, the comparisons described in Table 4 were carried out. Table 5. Method of determining the distinctiveness of co-creation from supply chain collaboration. Characteristics of co-creation Category 1: consensual characteristics of co-creation from literature Category 2: controversial characteristics of co-creation from literature Category 3: consensual characteristics of co-creation from the practice Category 4: controversial characteristics of co-creation from the practice

Characteristics of supply chain collaboration Main characteristics supply chain collaboration Main characteristics supply chain collaboration Main characteristics supply chain collaboration Main characteristics supply chain collaboration

N.B. Category 5 and 6 are not taken into account because the characteristics of co-creation emerged in these categories are already discussed by using category 1,2,3 and 4.

67

6.2.

Literature Study on Supply Chain Collaboration

To gain insight into the description of supply chain collaboration in the literature, several scholars and their descriptions of supply chain collaboration were studied. The descriptions of supply chain collaboration as stated by leading scholars in the field are presented in this section. In the report “Supply Chain Collaboration in the Construction Industry” (Noordhuis and Vrijhoef (2011)48, a citation is provided for Jack van der Veen’s definition of supply chain collaboration (Mr. van der Veen is a professor of supply chain collaboration at the University of Amsterdam). This definition is as follows: “Supply chain collaboration is the management of activities aimed at coordinating the various links in the supply chain, with the goal of optimizing the entire chain as if it were one unit (one joint organization). This is in contradiction to the situation in which every player within the chain focuses on the optimization of his own individual (chain-)performance49.” Van der Veen continues by arguing that supply chain collaboration can be divided into three levels:   

Optimizing the collaboration between people / departments / teams / groups within a business unit (internal). Optimizing the collaboration between different business units of the same organization (internal). Optimizing the collaboration between several independent organizations which nobody owns (external chain).

In the paper “Legal Aspects of Supply Chain Collaboration” (Chao-Duivis & Wamelink, 2013, p. 13)50, an analysis of interviews with practitioners from the construction industry showed supply chain collaboration had the following characteristics: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Interdisciplinary collaboration, leading to an optimal solution. Collaboration on the basis of equality. Collaboration on the project and its supply chain as early as possible. Long term collaboration (multi-project). Exchange of knowledge and information between organizations. Attention to the “soft” parts of collaboration.

Although the authors argue that supply chain collaboration is a concept with several interpretations, the following working definition is used (Chao-Duivis & Wamelink, 2013, p. 15): 48

Noordhuis, M., & Vrijhoef, R. (2011). Ketensamenwerking in de bouw RRBouwrapport 139. Zoetermeer: Stichting Research Rationalisatie Bouw.

49

Ketensamenwerking is het managen van activiteiten die gericht zijn op de coördinatie van verschillende schakels in de keten, met als doel de gehele keten te optimaliseren als ware het één eenheid (één gezamenlijke organisatie). Dit in tegenstelling tot de situatie waarbij iedere speler in de keten zich richt op het optimaliseren van zijn eigen individuele (schakel-) prestatie. 50

Chao-Duivis, M., & Wamelink, J. (2013). Juridische aspecten van ketensamenwerking: Naar een multidisciplinaire benadering (Vol. 41): Instituut voor Bouwrecht.

68

“Supply chain collaboration is the (ideally multi-project) collaboration between partners involved in the construction process, with the aim of optimizing the performance of the entire chain51.”

6.3.

Opinions from the Practice

Most practitioners argue that it is difficult to distinguish co-creation from supply chain collaboration. The following statements from the interviews support this:52 

The terms alliance, chain collaboration and co-creation are all brothers.



The automobile industry is, in my opinion. the market for co-creation, because there is a whole chain of suppliers that need to work with each other. Good cooperation between suppliers could lead precisely to the particular innovation that makes people want to buy a particular car.



I find it very difficult to indicate a difference since supply chain collaboration is used for many different things.

Nevertheless, several practitioners were able to describe a difference. Some of the suggested differences, however, were criticized by other practitioners. A battle of perceptions and interpretations between practitioners ensued. But some of the proposed distinctions were relatively well received by other practitioners. The following distinctions were among the least controversial: 

Supply chain collaboration is about the cooperation between the parties working in the chain. These are the parties that do the “physical work” of developing a product , service or work. The client is therefore not part of the chain. With co-creation, the client can also be involved.



A characteristic of supply chain collaboration is that it is initially multi-project oriented, whereas co-creation focusses on a solution that brings the involved actors a step further in the process. Consequently, co-creation has more focus on short-term solutions and is therefore more single-project oriented.



With respect to supply chain collaboration, the focus is on the connection of partners between phases or chains. Emphasis is on optimizing the different phases or chains with each other. With co-creation, although partners also have different backgrounds, skills and interests, emphasis is on working within the same phase or chain.

Although these distinctions were accepted, the differences between co-creation and supply chain collaboration that they describe are small. A definitive distinctive, one more substantive than the

51

Ketensamenwerking is de (idealiter: projectoverstijgende) samenwerking tussen partners, betrokken bij het bouwproces, met als doel de prestatie van de gehele keten te optimaliseren. 52 Appendix II: Co-creatie versus Ketensamenwerking

69

three examples above and supported by leading practitioners, does not appear to be feasible at the moment. But what does this mean? One of the interviewees commented as follows: “Terms like alliancing, supply chain collaboration and co-creation are all brothers. The fact that they come up tells us that our sector is struggling with the way we can best work together.”

6.4.

A Comparison of Characteristics

Now that is clear what various leading scholars describe as supply chain collaboration, a comparison between co-creation and supply chain collaboration is feasible. The following distinctions are notable by category: Category 1 : What is remarkable? As stated before, the consensual characteristics of co-creation from the literature are:    

Meaning is created by interaction between the actors involved Co-creation is an undetermined process that develops over time (Usually) project-based Work from the bottom-up

The first two characteristics of the literature-based characterization of co-creation are different from the characterizations of supply chain collaboration. Nevertheless, this difference in focus is not particularly distinctive. The third characteristic states that co-creation is a “project-based collaboration,” whereas supply chain collaboration is described as a “multi-project collaboration”. This distinction also emerged from the interviews. However, the “usually” and the “ideally” suggest that it is not necessarily a characteristic. This makes this distinction less powerful. Category 2: what is remarkable? As stated before, the controversial characteristics of co-creation from the literature review are:   

Who are the actors? Company-consumer or collaboration with externals? Collaboration or innovation form? Degree of power and control of consumer.

A notable observation is that leading scholars in the literature describe co-creation as the connection between company and consumer, whereas with supply chain collaboration, the consumer is not part of the chain. This is probably the most notable distinction between the two concepts. Category 3: what is remarkable? As stated, the consensual characteristics of co-creation from the practice are: 

Cooperation (client-contractor) in the project as early as possible. 70

  

The solution is unknown in advance. Partners (client-contractor) are not equal but need to treat each other as if they were. By means of a dialogue and common goal, focus is on a solution that suits the partners (clientcontractor).

A notable observation is that under supply chain collaboration “the management of activities is aimed at coordinating the various links in the chain.” The (public) client is not part of this chain.53 By contrast, under a collaboration in co-creation, the client can participate in the collaboration. This distinction was also made in the interviews. Another notable difference is that co-creation focusses on a solution which is unknown in advance. Co-creation is therefore applicable to deciding whether a bridge or a tunnel is the best solution. By contrast, supply chain collaboration is more focussed on the optimization of a solution that has already been determined. Supply chain collaboration is very focused on the phase after the award of a contract, when optimizing the organizational side of the work is critical. The decision for a bridge is already been made. How can supply chain collaboration optimize the relationship between the chain partners in order to build this bridge with the least possible cost? An example illustrating the primary focus of supply chain collaboration is as follows: A painter finds out that he cannot paint an agreed part of the project because the plumber placed a pipe in front of this particular part. Consequently, the pipe must be removed so that the painter can do his work. If the painter had been able to communicate with the plumber at the beginning of the project, this problem might have been avoided. Supply chain collaboration therefore stimulates people to come up with good solutions concerning the details of a specific project. Comparing both cooperation forms, co-creation is independent of phase; it is equally applicable during exploration, plan study and procurement. Supply chain collaboration, on the other hand, focusses the detailed implementation of solutions that take place during the realization of a project. Category 4: what is remarkable? Again, the controversial characteristics of co-creation as they were identified during interviews with practitioners were:  

The degree to which the partners join strengths (knowledge, skills, resources, interests). The division of responsibilities.

Under supply chain collaboration, equality among the various partners in the chain is noted as a characteristic. According to the interviewees of this research, equivalence requires an equivalent input of knowledge and expertise. But if co-creation is only about sharing interests and position (being open to the problems of the partner), then it would not be necessary to be equivalent. From this point of view, co-creation would differ from supply chain collaboration, which does include the that equivalence between partners an essential characteristic.

53

De samenwerking vindt niet plaats in een hiërarchische relatie waarbij een soort ‘bouwheer’ vaklieden om zich heen verzamelt, maar op voet van gelijkheid tussen diegenen die het werk feitelijk doen (dus niet gelijkheid ten opzichte van de opdrachtgever) (Chao-Duivis & Wamelink, 2013, pp. 191-192).

71

The practitioners are still searching for the best way to deal with the division of responsibilities and liability, whether the project is supposed to entail co-creation or supply chain collaboration. Therefore, a difference does not exist. Conclusions In summary, the following distinctions between co-creation and supply chain collaboration have been identified: 

A collaboration in co-creation is “usually” project- based, whereas supply chain collaboration is identified as “ideally” covering multiple projects.



Literature on co-creation emphasises the company-consumer connection; under supply chain collaboration, the consumer is not considered as part of the chain.



A collaboration in co-creation does not exclude the involvement of the client; under supply chain collaboration the client is not considered part of the chain.



Co-creation is applicable to all phases of the business cycle, exploration, plan study, procurement and execution. By contrast, supply chain collaboration focusses mainly on detailed solutions to the execution of a project during the realization phase.



Depending on the meaning of co-creation, equivalence between client and contractor is not necessary. Under supply chain collaboration, the partners in the chain are always assumed to be equivalent.

72

7. Feasibility of Co-creation under Existing Procurement Laws In light of the similarities and differences between co-creation and supply chain collaboration, it is appropriate to examine the feasibility of co-creation given the procurement legislation applicable to the infrastructure sector.

7.1

Introduction to Procurement Law

To determine the compatibility of the characteristics of co-creation with existing procurement laws, a review of procurement legislation is necessary. To this end, the following questions are addressed in the introduction:     

What is meant by procurement? What procurement law is currently applicable? What procurement procedures can be distinguished? What new EU Directives may be of interest to co-creation? Which procedure(s) are of most interest in relation to co-creation?

If it is clear which procedure is most relevant in relation to co-creation, a description of its characteristics (conditions and procedural steps) is provided. Then, an analysis of the feasibility of the characteristics of co-creation in relation to the chosen procedure is provided. As with supply chain collaboration, the comparison makes use of the four categories (literature consensual, literature controversial, practitioner consensual, practitioner controversial). However, because the interviews with the practitioners provided specific opinions on the feasibility of co-creation under particular procurement procedures, the feasibility of co-creation is described on the basis of the opinions of practitioners. Definition of procurement In the manual for European and Dutch procurement law, Pijnacker Hordijk, van der Bend, and van Nouhuys (2004, p. 1) define “procurement” as: “An invitation, simultaneous or otherwise, from a contracting authority to two or more entrepreneurs to submit a registration number for the execution of a contract to the delivery of goods or the provision of services54.” Pijnacker et al. go on to say that procurement law can be described as, “all the legal rules that standardize the behavior of government clients around the issuance of orders for the execution of works, the supply of products, and the provision of services55.” Procurement Act of 2012 and additional procurement procedures

54

De al dan niet gelijktijdige uitnodiging van een aanbesteder aan twee of meer ondernemers om een inschrijfcijfer in te dienen voor de uitvoering van een opdracht tot het leveren van goederen of het verrichten van diensten. 55 Het geheel van rechtsregels dat het gedrag van overheidsopdrachtgevers rond de uitgifte van een opdrachten voor het uitvoeren van werken, het leveren van producten en het verrichten van diensten normeert.

73

Since April 2013, the Procurement Act of 2012 applies to all procurement by (semi-) public institutions in the Netherlands (van der Horst, 2013, p. v). This national law is based on the European guidelines for procurement. At the moment, the European procurement procedures are regulated by Directive 2004/18/EC which is based on Court of Justice case-law on award criteria (Recital 1 of the Directive). The Directive clarifies the possibilities for the contracting authorities to meet the needs of the public concerned, including sustainability criteria (economic, environmental and/or social) provided that those criteria are linked to the subject of the contract. As indicated in Recitals (1, 2) of the Directive, those criteria should not confer an unrestricted freedom of choice on the contracting authority, but need to comply with the fundamental principles of the Treaty and in particular to: ‘‘… the principle of freedom of movement of goods, the principle of freedom of establishment and the principle of freedom to provide services and to the principles deriving there-from, such as the principle of equal treatment, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of mutual recognition, the principle of proportionality and the principle of transparency.’’ Within the Procurement Act, articles 2.25–2.51 describe the procedures for the award of contracts for “contracting authorities.” Article 1.1. defines a “contracting authority” as “the state, a county, a municipality, a water board or a public institution or a partnership between these authorities or public institutions56.” The Public Procurement Act of 2012 states that a contracting authority must choose its type of procedure on objective grounds. The applicable procedures for contracting authorities are divided into three groups: 1. Public and non-public procedures. 2. Exceptions to the application of public and non-public procedures. 3. Special procedures. Articles 2.25-2.27 of the Procurement Act define the most common procurement procedures as the “open” and the “restricted” procedure. These procedures are always applicable to a contracting authority. Articles 2.28-2.39 describe the exceptions to the application of the public and non-public procedure. Articles 2.40-2.51 also describe four special procedures that may only be used in certain cases. New EU Directives With respect to the new EU directives (2014/24/EC), a new procurement procedure is introduced that could affect co-creation: the innovation partnership procedure (Europa Decentraal, 2014b, p. 21). Which procedures are of most interest in relation to co-creation? One of the exceptions to the open and restricted procedure is the competitive dialogue procedure. In specific cases, mostly when the project complexity is high, contracting authorities may apply this procedure. Article 2.28 of the Procurement Act 2012 describes the specific conditions for applying this procedure.57 As stated before, complexity is by the interviewees identified as a driver for co56

Art. 1.1: Aanbestedende dienst: de staat, een provincie, een gemeente, een waterschap of een publiekrechtelijke instelling dan wel een samenwerkingsverband van deze overheden of publiekrechtelijke instellingen. 57

Art. 2.28: 1. De aanbestedende dienst kan, indien het naar zijn oordeel niet mogelijk is door toepassing van de openbare procedure of de niet-openbare procedure een bijzonder complexe overheidsopdracht te plaatsen,

74

creation. Moreover, the dialogue between client and contractor corresponds to the characteristic of co-creation which states that meaning is created by the interaction between the actors involved. It is therefore in the interest of this research to examine the feasibility of co-creation under the competitive dialogue procedure. Besides the competitive dialogue, this research focusses on the innovation partnership procedure. Volberda, one of the leading scholars in the field of co-creation, defines co-creation as an “innovation form”. From this perspective, it is in the interest of this research to further study the feasibility of cocreation with the application of the innovation partnership procedure. Moreover, a condition for applying this procedure is that the contracting authority shall identify the need for an innovative product, service or works that cannot be met by purchasing products, services or works already available on the market (European Union, 2014, p. L 94/73). In other words, the innovation partnership procedure can only be applied if the contracting authority does not foresee an available market solution. From this perspective, it is interesting to relate the feasibility of co-creation in combination with the application of this procedure.

7.2.

The Competitive Dialogue Procedure

7.2.1 A Study on Legislation In order to study the feasibility of co-creation, an overview of the main characteristics of the competitive dialogue procedure is provided so a comparison with the characteristics of co-creation is possible. In chapter 1.1. of the Procurement Act 2012, the competitive dialogue procedure is defined as (van der Horst, 2013, p. 17): A procedure in which all entrepreneurs may submit a request to participate and whereby the contracting authority conducts a dialogue with the tenderers admitted to the procedure in order to find one or more solutions that meet the needs of the contracting authority under which the selected entrepreneurs will be invited to subscribe for.58 Based on the legislation as stated in articles 2.28-2.29 of the Procurement Act 2012, the procedural steps of the competitive dialogue procedure are described in Bouwrecht in kort bestek (Chao-Duivis, 2013, pp. 260-262): 

Interested candidates register before the announced date by submitting a request of participation on time.

de procedure van de concurrentiegerichte dialoog toepassen. 2.Een overheidsopdracht is bijzonder complex indien de aanbestedende dienst objectief gezien niet is staat is: a.) de technische middelen te bepalen waarmee aan de behoeften of het doel kan worden tegemoet gekomen, of b.) de juridische of financiële voorwaarden van een project te specificeren. 58

Procedure waarbij alle ondernemers een verzoek mogen doen tot deelneming en waarbij de aanbestedende dienst een dialoog voert met de tot de procedure toegelaten ondernemers, teneinde een of meer oplossingen te zoeken die aan de behoefte van de aanbestedende dienst beantwoorden en op grond waarvan de geselecteerde ondernemers zullen worden uitgenodigd om in te schrijven.

75

          

Contracting authority test the request on the basis of announced minimum requirements or other selection criteria. At least three candidates will be invited to join the dialogue phase (art. 2.99). The dialogue may take place in several phases and the contracting authority is able to reject candidates during the dialogue on the basis of the award criteria. During the dialogue, candidates provide proposals for a solution which the contracting authority treats in confidence. At the end of the dialogue phase, the number of candidates should be such that actual competition is guaranteed. In theory, this could be one candidate. The contracting authority must take into account the principle of equality. The dialogue can cover all aspects of procurement, including the price. In the end of the dialogue, the contracting authority develops a report for every candidate. Subsequently, all candidates, from now on called “tenderers,” will provide a final tender by delivering sign bills and other parts of the offer. The contracting authority shall evaluate the tenders on the basis of the award criteria and shall reward the contract to the tenderer that satisfies the criteria. After award, negotiations are no longer allowed, only clarification.

Before comparing the characteristics of co-creation to the characteristics of the competitive dialogue procedure, an overview of the opinions from practice is provided to give an impression of general feasibility. It must, however, be recognized that the validity of the opinions of the practitioners is questionable, since there no standard written expressly for co-creation currently exists. 7.2.2

Opinions from the Practice59

This section summarizes the comments from practitioners on the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor under the competitive dialogue procedure just described. Most procurement procedures do not allow a dialogue between the contracting authority and the candidates, which clearly would be an obstacle to co-creation. The competitive dialogue procedure, precisely because it entails a dialogue, was identified by the practitioners as the current procedure that is most applicable to co-creation. Furthermore, all building law attorneys interviewed during this research argued co-creation should be feasible in the context of competitive procurement if the rules were applied professionally. On the other hand, both clients as contractors considered the procurement phase to be the most difficult in relation to co-creation. One of the practitioners working for Rijkswaterstaat stated that, “Rijkswaterstaat is least ready for co-creation during procurement.” Although the competitive dialogue procedure is characterized by a dialogue, the practitioners felt that both client and contractor had difficulty being “open” towards each other during this dialogue. The following reasons were given for this difficulty:  

59

Different or even opposing interests between contracting authority and candidates. Heavy competition among the candidates.

Appendix II: Co-creatie in vergelijking met de concurrentie gerichte dialoog.

76

 

Lack of confidence in secrecy and application of the rules for a “level playing field” by the contracting authority. Accountability of employees in their own organizations.

The following “typical” example was provided by one of the interviewees to illustrate why “openness” and “sharing of interests,” both of which are central to co-creation, can be difficult during procurement: “As a contracting authority, Rijkswaterstaat often has too many expectations of the market. We (Rijkswaterstaat) may be too optimistic or not have enough knowledge to oversee what we are really asking of the candidates. On the other hand, the candidates want to impress the contracting authority and dare not be open about the consequences of these expectations. The contradicting interests therefore lead to a “lack of openness.”

Besides the problem of openness, the practitioners commented that, depending on the request for proposal, it may appear that a brilliant solution by a candidate does not suit the framework of the request provided by the contracting authority. In other words, a request with detailed specifications may have the consequence that a solution developed out of a dialogue between the contracting authority and a candidate does not fit within the constraints of the request. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that Rijkswaterstaat mainly uses a “functional request of proposal60.” The practitioners also stated tenderers must determine a fixed price for their bids. As a result, most important design choices are made in procurement. Consequently, fewer opportunities for cocreation of design remain after the contract has been awarded. One of the interviewees suggested that co-creation between client and contractor is best when the price of the project can be jointly determined after the contract is awarded. 7.2.3

Comparison of Characteristics

In order to give insight into the feasibility of co-creation under the competitive dialogue procedure, the characteristics of co-creation as described in the literature and by practitioners is compared to articles 2.28-2.29 of the Procurement Act of 2012. These articles are related to the laws governing how the competitive dialogue procedure should occur. Besides a theoretical comparison of characteristics, the recommendations of the practitioners influence the feasibility degree of the individual characteristics. Nevertheless, it must be taken into account that the results of this analysis are not based on actual experiences from practice. Table 5 provides an overview of the feasibility by characteristic. Feasibility is rated on a scale from ++ to --. A rating of feasibility by characteristic is provided in the following section.

60

A functional request of proposal is described as a request in which the specifications do not provide a solution for the project. This leads to the opportunity of innovative solutions of the candidates (Rijkswaterstaat, 2014).

77

Table 6. Feasibility of co-creation in the competitive dialogue procedure. Consensual characteristics from literature (category 1):

Feasibility of co-creation under the competitive dialogue procedure

1. Meaning is created by interaction between the actors involved 2. Co-creation is an undetermined process that develops over time 3. (Usually) project-based 4. Working from bottom-up (with consumer) Controversial characteristics from literature (category 2):

+/+/+ N.A.

1.a Company-consumer relationship 1.b Collaboration with externals in general 2.a Collaboration form 2.b Innovation form 3. Degree of power and control of consumer Consensual characteristics from practice (category 3):

N.A. + + + N.A

1. Cooperation in the project as early as possible 2. The solution is unknown in advance 3. Partners are not equal but need to treat each other equivalent 4. Focus is on a solution that suits the involved partners Controversial characteristics from practice (category 4):

+ + +/-

1.a) 1.b) 2.a) 2.b)

+/+/+ +

Equivalent input of strengths No equivalent input but openness for interests and problems Shared responsibilities No shared responsibilities required

Table 7. Meaning of the feasibility score. ++ + +/-N.A.

Extremely feasible Feasible Depending Not feasible Extremely infeasible Not applicable

7.2.3.1 Category 1: what is remarkable?

1. The procedural steps of the competitive dialogue procedure (from article 2.29 of the Procurement Act of 2012) appear to be compatible with the first characteristic of co-creation (“meaning is created by interaction”). All (leading) scholars in the field of co-creation describe “a dialogue” as a characteristic of co-creation. Consequently, in theory, the competitive dialogue procedure seems extremely feasible regarding this characteristic. Nevertheless, as the comments from practice show, both the contracting authority and candidates experience difficulty in being “open” with each other. Although the procedure facilitates a dialogue, the feasibility of an “open dialogue” between the actors may be hindered by other factors. RATING = (+/-) 2. The second characteristic of the first category describes co-creation as an “undetermined process that develops over time”. One of the procedural steps is that “the dialogue may take place in 78

several phases”. Therefore, the procedure acknowledges a process that develops over time. However, the number of phases is limited due to the increasing tender costs for both contracting authority as the candidates. Moreover, although the contracting authority shall evaluate the tenders on the basis of the EMAT (Economic Most Advantageous Tender) award mechanism, which state that other criteria then price can influence the choice of the winning bid, in general, a fixed price is delivered by the tenderers. After the fixed price is determined, an undetermined process is no longer feasible because important decisions are now defined. RATING = (+/-) 3. The third consensual characteristics from the literature is that co-creation is usually “projectbased”. The procurement process is quite consistent with this characteristic. RATING = (+) 4. This study focused on co-creation between client and contractor (or contracting authority and candidate(s)). Consequently, the consumer (or end-user), is outside the scope. RATING = N.A. 7.2.3.2 Category 2: what is remarkable?

1. a.) This study focused on co-creation between client and contractor (or contracting authority and candidate(s)). Consequently, the consumer (or end-user), is outside the scope of this research. RATING = N.A. b.) The competitive dialogue procedure arranges a collaboration between the contracting authority and the candidates. Consequently, “collaboration with externals” is feasible. RATING = (+) 2. a.) The competitive dialogue procedure arranges a collaboration between contracting authority and the candidates. The procurement procedure may therefore considered a form of collaboration. RATING = (+) b.) The competitive dialogue procedure is not necessarily focused on developing innovative solutions. However, this procurement procedure does not exclude innovation due to the possibility of a dialogue at various phases. As described in article 2.29, “the dialogue is conducted to find one or more solutions that meet the needs of the contracting authority.” Consequently, the “open solution” may trigger the candidates to come up with an innovative solution in order to be more competitive. RATING = (+) 3. The degree of power and control of the consumer is not applicable to this research. RATING = N.A. 7.2.3.3 Category 3: what is remarkable?

1. The feasibility of the first characteristic under the competitive dialogue procedure depends on the answer to the question, “How much flexibility do the contracting authority and the candidates have in collaboratively developing a solution from the beginning of their cooperation?” As stated before, article 2.28 states that the competitive dialogue procedure is only applicable if the contracting authority is not able to determine: a.) the technical means which are necessary to define the needs of a goal; and/or 79

b.) the legal and financial conditions of the project. Consequently, under the competitive dialogue procedure, a or b, or both a and b, are left open. From this perspective, cooperation between the future client and contractor occurs early in the project. Nevertheless, it must be taken into account that the planning study has already taken place before procurement starts. RATING = (+) 2. The competitive dialogue procedure is compatible with the second characteristic, which states that “the solution is unknown in advance.” The competitive dialogue procedure states that no solution has been established since “the dialogue is conducted to find one or more solutions that meet the needs of the contracting authority.” Therefore, this characteristic is feasible under the competitive dialogue procedure. However, the procurement of integrated contracts normally starts after the planning procedures have been established. Consequently, a number of decisions have already been made. RATING = (+) 3. The legal procurement rules are consistent with the third characteristic, which states that partners must treat each other as if they were equals. If rules are professionally applied, treating each other as equals is feasible under any procurement procedure. As stated before, the laws that standardize the behavior of government clients are intended to satisfy the fundamental principles of the Treaty, such as the principle of equal treatment, the principle of nondiscrimination, the principle of mutual recognition, and so on. However, as stated in the opinions from the practice, the rules do not necessarily guarantee equal treatment. Some of the practitioners speculated that a ratio of at least three tenderers per contract would create a situation that would not stimulate a horizontal relationship between the contracting authority and a candidate. RATING = (+/-) 4. The fourth characteristic states that a collaboration in co-creation “focusses on a solution that suits the partners.” By contrast, the competitive dialogue procedure states that the “aim is to find one or more solutions that meet the needs of the contracting authority”. Consequently, it is questionable whether this characteristic is compatible with the procedure. RATING = (-) 7.2.3.4 Category 4: what is remarkable?

1. a) With regard to the first characteristic, practitioners were of two minds. The first view was that a collaboration in co-creation means that an equivalent input of knowledge and skills is required. Although it is questionable whether the contracting authority has equivalent knowledge in comparison to the candidates, the dialogue the procedure facilitates allows for the sharing of knowledge. On the other hand, practitioners also felt that the parties may not be allowed to share knowledge or may not want to do so for various reasons. Consequently, other factors (than procurement rules) influence the feasibility of an equal input of knowledge and expertise. RATING = (+/-) b) The second perspective was that equivalent input of knowledge and skills is not essential to co-creation. Instead, both parties should be open to each other's interests and concerns. Again, the competitive dialogue is compatible with this feature. But, as stated in the section on the 80

opinions from practitioners, both the client and the contractor may have their own reasons not to share their personal interests or problems with the other party. RATING = (+/-) 2. a) With respect to the second controversial characteristic, the practitioners were also of two minds. One view was that, under co-creation, the client and contractor create a project (or part of a project) together, and are therefore both equally responsible. The rules of competitive dialogue procedure are not inconsistent with this attitude. RATING = (+) b) The other view regarding the division of responsibilities is that the parties can have different responsibilities. The rules of competitive dialogue procedure are not inconsistent with this attitude. RATING = (+)

7.3 The Innovation Partnership Procedure 7.3.1

A Study on Legislation

According to Europa Decentraal, a platform that advises and informs municipalities, provinces and water boards on the application of European law and policy, local governments have increased their interest in research and innovative solutions during procurement (Europa Decentraal, 2014a). The European Commission has responded to this development by introducing a new procurement procedure, known as the “innovation partnership procedure.” Article 31 of the 2014/24/EU Directive describes the procedural steps of the innovation partnership procedure. The procedure consists of various steps and conditions that are aimed at optimizing the development of innovations (European Union, 2014, pp. L 94/112-L 194/113). The main points of the legislation may be summarized as follows: 



  





In innovation partnerships, any economic operator may submit a request to respond to a contract notice by providing the information for the qualitative selection that is requested by the contracting authority. The contracting authority shall identify the need for an innovative product, service or works that cannot be met by purchasing products, services or works already available on the market. The contracting authority indicates which elements are the minimum requirements. The time limits for receiving a requests to participate are, like the minimum requirements, also described in paragraph 1 of Article 31. The innovation partnership shall aim at the development of an innovative product, service or works and the subsequent purchase of the resulting supplies, services or works, provided that they correspond to the performance levels and maximum costs agreed between the contracting authorities and the participants. The innovation partnership shall be structured in successive phases following the sequence of steps in the research and innovation process, which may include the manufacturing of the products, the provision of the services or the completion of the works. Based on those targets, the contracting authority may decide after each phase to terminate the innovation partnership or, in the case of an innovation partnership with several partners, to reduce the number of partners by terminating individual contracts. 81

 

   

7.3.2

The contracting authorities shall negotiate with the tenderers to improve the initial tenders submitted. There is no negotiation on the minimum requirements and award criteria. During the negotiations, contracting authorities shall ensure the equal treatment of all tenderers. To that end, they shall not provide information in a discriminatory manner which may give some tenderers an advantage over others. Negotiations can take place to reduce the number of tenders to be negotiated with. During the selection of candidates, contracting authorities provide criteria that measure the potential of the candidates and their ability to develop new solutions. In the tender documents contracting authorities determine what arrangements apply with respect to intellectual property rights. Paragraph 7 of Article 31 regulates the structure of the partnership, the duration and value of the various phases and the estimated value of the supplies, services or works which must be in proportion with the investment for its development. Opinions from the Practice

Because of their unfamiliarity with the actual implementation of the procedure, the interviewees were not able to reflect on this procedure. The findings on the relationship between co-creation and this procurement procedure cannot be drawn from the experiences of experts within the sector, but only from the literature study. 7.3.3


The feasibility of co-creation under the innovation partnership procedure was assessed by comparing the characteristics of co-creation with article 31 of the 2014/24/EU Directive, which describe the innovation partnership procedure. Table 7 provides an overview of the feasibility by characteristic in which feasibility rated from ++ (extremely feasible) to –(extremely infeasible).

82

Table 8. Feasibility of co-creation under the innovation partnership procedure. Consensual characteristics from the literature (category 1):

Feasibility* of co-creation under the Innovation partnership procedure


+ ++ + N.A.

1.a) Company-consumer relationship 1.b) Collaboration with externals in general 2.a) Collaboration form 2.b) Innovation form 3. Degree of power and control of consumer Consensual characteristics from practice (category 3):

N.A. ++ + ++ N.A.


++ ++ +/+

1.a) 1.b) 2.a) 2.b)

+/+/+ +



1. The procedural steps of the innovation partnership procedure described in Article 31 of the 2014/24/EU Directive are compared with the first characteristic of co-creation, which states that “meaning is created by interaction.” It was concluded that this characteristic is compatible with the procedure, which states that “a negotiation between the contracting authority and the tenderers will improve the content of the tender.” The procedure is intended to result in the development of an innovative product, service or work. The development of the process is created by the interaction between the actors involved. RATING = (+) 2. The second characteristic of the first category describes co-creation as an “undetermined process that develops over time”. One of the procedural steps describe that “the innovation partnership shall be structured in successive phases following the sequence of steps in the research and innovation process, which may include the manufacturing of the products, the provision of the services or the completion of the works”. Therefore, the procedure acknowledges a process that unfolds over time. Compared to the competitive dialogue procedure, the number of phases is less limited because of the condition that “the contracting authority shall set intermediate targets to be attained by the partners, and provide for payment of the remuneration in appropriate instalments.” Moreover, “the contracting authority may decide after each phase to terminate the innovation 83

partnership or, in the case of an innovation partnership with several partners, to reduce the number of partners by terminating individual contracts, provided that the contracting authority has indicated in the procurement documents those possibilities and the conditions for their use.” RATING = (++) 3. The third consensual characteristics from the literature study states that co-creation is usually “project-based”. Therefore there are no impediments to the feasibility of co-creation attributable to this characteristic. RATING = (+) 4. The focus of this study is on co-creation between client and contractor (or contracting authority and candidate(s)). Consequently, the consumer (or end-user), is outside the scope of this research. RATING = N.A. 7.3.3.2 Category 2: what is remarkable?

1. a) The focus of this study is on co-creation between client and contractor (or contracting authority and candidate(s)). Consequently, the consumer (or end-user), is outside the scope of this research. RATING = N.A. b) The procedure states that “the contracting authority may decide to set up the innovation partnership with one partner or with several partners conducting separate research and development activities”. Consequently, compared to the competitive dialogue procedure, the innovation partnership procedure emphasises more collaboration with externals. RATING = (++) 2. a) The innovation partnership procedure arranges the collaboration between contracting authority and the candidates. The procedure may therefore be appointed as a collaboration form. RATING = (+) b) If co-creation is described as a form of innovation, it would be particularly suitable under the innovation partnership procedure. RATING = (++) 3. The degree of power and control of the consumer is not applicable to this research. RATING = N.A. 7.3.3.3 Category 3: what is remarkable?

1. To determine the feasibility of the first characteristic under the innovation partnership procedure, one must first answer the question, “How much flexibility is left to the contracting authority and the candidates to jointly develop a solution from the beginning of their cooperation?” A condition for applying the innovation partnership procedure is that “the contracting authority shall identify the need for an innovative product, service or works that cannot be met by purchasing products, services or works already available on the market”. Consequently, the cooperation occurs as early as possible because the solution has not yet been determined. RATING = (++)

84

2. The innovation partnership procedure also satisfies the second characteristic, which states that “the solution is unknown in advance”. A condition for applying this procedure is that the product, service, or work is not available on the market. RATING = (++) 3. The legal procurement rules are compatible with the third characteristic, which states that partners must treat each other as if they were equals. If rules are professionally applied, treating each other equivalent is feasible under any procurement procedure. As stated before, the legal rules that standardize the behavior of government clients aims at satisfying the fundamental principles of the Treaty, such as the principle of equal treatment, the principle of nondiscrimination, the principle of mutual recognition, and so on. However, as stated by the practitioners, experience shows that the rules do not guarantee equal treatment. Some of the practitioners claimed that the ratio of one contracting authority to several tenderers would create a situation which would impair formation of a horizontal relationship. RATING = (+/-) 4. The fourth characteristic states that a collaboration in co-creation “focusses on a solution that suits the partners involved.” The second paragraph of the innovation partnership procedure states that, “The innovation partnership shall aim at the development of an innovative product, service or works and the subsequent purchase of the resulting supplies, services or works, provided that they correspond to the performance levels and maximum costs agreed to between the contracting authorities and the participants.” Thus, in comparison to the competitive dialogue procedure, the innovation partnership procedure seems to be more compatible with a solution that suits the tenderer as well. RATING = (+) 7.3.3.4 Category 4: what is remarkable?

1. a) The first view is that a collaboration in co-creation implies an equivalent input of knowledge and skills from client and contractor. Although it is questionable whether the contracting authority has equivalent knowledge in comparison to the candidates, negotiations during the procedure facilitate the sharing of knowledge. On the other hand, as with the competitive dialogue procedure, practitioners also felt that the parties may not want to share their knowledge with the other party. Consequently, other factors influence the feasibility of an equal input of knowledge and expertise. RATING = (+/-) b) The second perspective was that equivalent input of knowledge and skills is not essential to co-creation. Rather, parties should be open to each other's interests and concerns. Again, negotiations facilitate this kind of exchange. But as was stated in connection with the competitive dialogue procedure, both the client and the contractor may have reasons not to share their personal interests or problems. RATING = (+/-) 2. a) The first view states that, under co-creation, the future client and contractor create a project (or a part of a project) together, and are therefore jointly responsible. The legislation of the innovation partnership procedure does not hinder such an attitude. RATING = (+) b) The second view regarding division of responsibilities states that the parties may have different responsibilities. The legislation of the innovation partnership procedure does not hinder this attitude, either. RATING = (+) 85

7.4 Comparing Feasibility under Procurement Procedures Table 8. compares the results of the analysis of the feasibility of co-creation under both of the procurement procedures. Table 8 makes it clear that co-creation is potentially more feasible under the innovation partnership procedure than the competitive dialogue procedure. But, as previously stated, the competitive dialogue procedure is currently the most feasible procurement procedure in relation to the characteristics of co-creation. The analysis shows that both procurement procedures are feasible for co-creation. Consequently, it can be argued that the competitive dialogue procedure and the innovation partnership procedure are themselves procurement forms of co-creation. In theory, the procedures seem to fit very well, especially because during these procedures the solution is undetermined and is developed over successive phases of dialogue. It must, however, also be acknowledged that both clients and contractors commented that the procurement phase provides more difficulties for co-creation than any other phase. The interviewees emphasized that, during procurement, both the contracting authority and the candidates experienced difficulties being “open” with each other. Although the competitive dialogue procedure facilitates the right conditions for co-creation, the experiences of the practitioners show that in practice it is not that straightforward. Table 9. Comparison of the feasibility of co-creation by procurement procedure (competitive dialogue versus innovative partnership). Consensual characteristics from literature (category 1):

Feasibility of co-creation competitive dialogue +/+/+ N.A.

innovation partnership + ++ + N.A.

1.a Company-consumer relationship 1.b Collaboration with externals in general 2.a Collaboration form 2.b Innovation form 3. Degree of power and control of consumer Consensual characteristics from practice (category 3):

N.A. + + + N.A.

N.A. ++ + ++ N.A.


+ + +/-

++ ++ +/+


+/+/+ + +7

+/+/+ + +18


86

7.5 Wrap up: Main Barriers to Co-creation under Procurement Procedures Since the feasibility of co-creation is analysed, it is now appropriate to provide a wrap up of the main barriers to co-creation under the chosen procurement procedures. The main barriers mentioned below are based on the results from the interviews with the practitioners outlined in Appendix II. Although the following barriers may not be particularly related to procurement legislation, an identification of their influence on the feasibility of co-creation has clearly emerged. 

The interviewees indicated that, during procurement, both the contracting authority and the candidates/tenderers find that “openness towards the interests and problems of the other” is not always feasible. o o o o

Different or even opposing interests between contracting authority and candidates. Heavy competition among the candidates. Lack of confidence in secrecy and application of the rules for a “level playing field” by the contracting authority. Accountability of employees in their own organizations



Due to the high cost of time-consuming dialogue phases, pressure is put on aspect of the characteristic of co-creation that specifies “an undetermined process developing over time.”



Public laws might decrease the freedom of the contracting authority and candidates to develop an unrestricted solution from the beginning of the procurement procedure.

87

8. Feasibility of Co-creation under Integrated Contracts 8.1

Introduction to Integrated Contracts

Large public clients like Rijkswaterstaat want to make optimal use of the capabilities of the market. They do this in part by using the specific qualities of the contractors with integrated contracts (Rijkswaterstaat, 2015). Integrated contracting entails the bundling of numerous building process functions in one agreement. The Design and Construct (D&C) contract is currently known as the standard Rijkswaterstaat integrated contract. It is therefore in the interest of this study to examine the feasibility of cocreation under this specific contract. Besides the application of the D&C contract, the DBFM contract is standard for projects with a minimal turnover of approximately € 60 million. The cost of a project often is directly related to its complexity. Since complexity has emerged as a driver for co-creation, this research also assesses the feasibility of co-creation under this kind of contract. Finally, this research examined the alliance agreement. Although the alliance agreement is rarely used by Rijkswaterstaat, this type of agreement emphasises close collaboration between the client and contractor. It is therefore in the interest of this research to study the feasibility of co-creation under this type of agreement.

8.2 The Design and Construct Contract 8.2.1

A Study on the Characteristics

The Design and Construct (D&C) contract is characterised by the Model Basic Agreement with its Uniform Administrative Conditions for Integrated Contracts (UAC-IC 2005). The building process functions that are distinguished in the Basic Model agreement and its UAV-IC 2005 include the initiation, design, execution and (long-term) maintenance element of a construction project. As with most construction contracts, the client retains the role of initiator, specifying its expectations in a request for proposal. Under the Model Basic Agreement and the UAV-GC 2005, the contractor shall include the design and execution for his account. An overview of the main characteristics of the D&C contract is provided below. The overview consist of characteristics which affect co-creation and its various characteristics. Model Basic Agreement. Article 5: Design Activities The client determines the exact nature of the Basic Agreement and the extent of his involvement in the project. Article 5 of the Model Basic Agreement contains a so-called “selection clause” which enables the parties (client and contractor) to clarify their respective contributions to the design process. Such contributions vary by project. Article 5 states that three possible variants are conceivable for the extent to which the client is actively involved in design. In the first variant, the request for proposal, is written by the client, and consists only of design specifications. In the second variant, the client elaborates design specifications into a preliminary design. In the third variant, the 88

preliminary design has been refined into a final design. The client determines his level of involvement with the design by choosing one of these three types of contract. However, there are no specific rules regarding necessary content or level of detail for the three variants. Therefore, theoretically, the application of the first variant by client A (addressing design specifications only) may actually contain more detail than the “preliminary design” of client B. In any case, the client always contributes to the contractor’s design because the client always prepares the design specification document. UAC-IC 2005. § 3: Obligations of the client The obligations of the client are described in clause 3 of the UAC-IC 2005. The first obligation is that the client is obliged to ensure that the contractor receives all necessary information to complete the work. This obligation only applies to information which the contractor is not able to obtain by himself. This obligation also applies to the use of required goods. Besides ensuring all necessary information and required goods, the client is responsible for the content of the demand specification and modification orders to the contract. UAC-IC 2005. § 4: Obligations of the contractor The obligations of the contractor are stated in clause 4 of the UAC-IC 2005. Clause 4, subsection 1 states that the contractor has the obligation to design and execute the work so that the work meets the requirements of the agreement on the specified date. Thus, the work must comply with the agreement and be suitable for its destination. If it does not comply, then there occurs to be a lack. This rule does not lead to a “result obligation” in all circumstances. UAC-IC 2005. § 20: Examining of the design activities The client does not have unlimited authority to examine aspects related to design activities. Therefore, the client cannot require the contractor to provide details of design activities at any time. The client must indicate in the request for proposal which aspects of the design activities are subject to examination. Moreover, subjection 3 states that the client must be reticent when filling in the assessment plan design activities. UAC-IC 2005 § 14: Changes ordered by the client It might happen that the client has a new idea during project execution that was not covered by the request for proposal. Paragraph 14 states the client resist ordering such changes, making them only when confronted by an unforeseen necessity61. UAC-IC § 15: Changes initiated by the contractor It is not uncommon in the implementation of an integrated contract that the contractor will come to understandings during the course of the work that may lead him to want to makes changes to contractual documents or works. It might be that a fault or risk has been identified that makes it impossible to complete the work under the original terms. It is also conceivable that the contractor discovers a modification that would reduce cost, save time, or improve quality.

61

The necessities are described in: §9 lid 5 sub a, §10 lid 6 sub a, §13 lid 2, §13 lid 5, §41 lid 8

89

If such a modification is the consequence of a fault or risk, it might be the responsibility of the client. In such a case, the contractor should inform the client (§ 4 sub. 7). The client must then determine how to deal with the situation, and may assign a change. In many cases, however, the fault will be the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor is authorized to make such a decision independently if the modification concerns an earlier decision which was not communicated with the client. But if the earlier decision was communicated, the modification must be accepted by the client. 8.2.2


This section provides insight into the comments from practitioners regarding the feasibility of cocreation between client and contractor under D&C contracts. A summary of the comments provided by practitioners is provided below. Under the Model Basic agreement and the UAV-GC 2005, the input and involvement of the client regarding the development of a solution is too small compared to the (controversial) level of involvements under co-creation (equal contributions of knowledge, skills, resources, and interests). This was the first point made by practitioners. Another sentiment that was frequently expressed in the interviews was that, under the standards of the UAC-IC 2005, there is a lack of explicit attention to communication and the way in which client and the contractor should behave towards each other. Although a lack of explicit attention to communication is no barrier for co-creation by itself, it is no incentive, either. The interviewees made comment related to the fact that the solution to a problem is unknown in advance under co-creation. During procurement, however, the tenderers must develop a fixed price for their bid. Consequently, the tenderers are forced to determine almost all important design decisions at the time of their bid. The interviewees go on to say that this “front loading” of the design leaves less room for co-creation between client and contractor. This constitutes an obstacle to cocreation under all integrated contracts.

62

Appendix II: Contractfase - Co-creatie in vergelijking tot andere bouwcontractmodellen – D&C contact

90

8.2.3


Table 10. Feasibility of co-creation under the D&C contracts. Consensual characteristics from literature (category 1):

Feasibility of co-creation under the D&C contract


+/+/+ N.A.


N.A. + + +/N.A.


+/+ -

1.a) 1.b) 2.a) 2.b)

+ +/+



1. A comparison of the Model Basic agreement and the UAC-IC 2005 with the first characteristic of co-creation, which states that “meaning is created by interaction,” shows that D&C contracts do not emphasise interaction between client and contractor. Moreover, the chosen variant of article 5 of the Model Basis agreement (explained earlier) influences the need for interaction regarding design activities. Moreover, it should recognized that the interaction is also influenced by the respective motivations of both the client and the contractor. Therefore, the feasibility of interaction between client and contactor depends on several factors. RATING = (+/-) 2. The second characteristic of the first category describes co-creation as an “undetermined process that develops over time”. As stated, Article 5 of the Model Basis agreement provides three variants regarding the degree of detail in the design specifications. Thus, the feasibility of “an undetermined process” under the D&C contract depends on the client’s choice variant. Variant one accommodates an undetermined process better than variants two and three because it requires only design specifications. But even if the client decides to choose for variant one, the process after award would still be relatively constrained. Partly this lack of flexibility is attributable to fixed price bidding and the narrowing of design options associated with a fixed 91

amount of financial resources. In the opinion of the interviewees, a fully undetermined process was basically impossible after the award of the contract. Another factor affecting the feasibility of an undetermined process is the degree in which both client and contractor are able to order or initiate a work modification during execution. As stated in paragraph 14, the client must be “reluctant” to make modifications. From this perspective, modifications are not welcome. Modifications are, however, occasionally necessary and their implementation introduces a measure of flexibility in spite of the terms of the contract. RATING = (+/-) 3. The third consensual characteristic from the literature states that co-creation is usually “projectspecific”. It was determined that D&C contracts impose no barriers to this aspect of co-creation. RATING = (+) 4. This research does not address interactions with the consumer under co-creation. Consequently, the consumer (or end-user), is beyond the scope of this research. RATING = N.A. 8.2.3.2 Category 2: what is remarkable?

1. a) This research does not address interactions with the consumer under co-creation. Consequently, the consumer (or end-user), is beyond the scope of this research. RATING = N.A.

b) The D&C contract arranges a collaboration between the client and contractor. Consequently, a “collaboration with externals” is feasible. RATING = (+) 2. a) A D&C contract provides for collaboration between the client and contractor. The contract may therefore be considered a form of collaboration. RATING = (+) b) The feasibility of innovation is a function of the extent to which the client allows the contractor to make his own choices regarding the direction of the solution. Moreover, the client may prescribe an innovation in the request for proposal. Once again, the choice of Article 5 of the Model Basic Agreement is important. The integration of the design and execution in one agreement encourages innovations. RATING = (+/-) 3. The degree of power and control of the consumer is not applicable to this research. RATING = N.A. 8.2.3.3 Category 3: what is remarkable?

1. To determine the degree to which early cooperation is possible between client and contractor under D&C contracts, one must first determine how much freedom there is for client and contractor to develop joint solutions at the inception of their relationship. The client’s choice of variant under Article 5 of the Model Basic Agreement affects the degree to which the client involves the contractor early on in the project. Moreover, cooperation between the client and contractor starts during procurement. If the competitive dialogue procedure is used for the procurement of a D&C contract, the earlier analysis shows that early project cooperation is feasible. However, it may occur that a procurement team is no longer involved in the project 92

after the contract award63. Consequently, “early project cooperation” also depends on various factors, (among others) whether both client and contractor have been involved during procurement. RATING = (+/-) 2. The D&C contract does not satisfy the second consensual characteristic of the practice, which states that “the solution is unknown in advance.” Most design decisions have already been made at the time the contract is awarded. For the tenderer, one of the award criteria at the end of the procurement phase is the determination of a price for the delivering of his work. In order to price his work, the tenderer must anticipate all major design elements. Once the tenderer has been awarded the contract, these decisions will be included in his contract with the client. RATING = (-) 3. The interviewees commented that a relationship based on equality between client and contractor is more feasible after award of the contract than during procurement. Nevertheless, relationships based on equality depend such things as the individual motivation or the determination of a realistic price during procurement. Moreover, the drivers of co-creation as stated in Section 4.5 could have a larger influence on the way client and contractor treat each other than the choice of the contract model. RATING = (+) 4. The fourth characteristic states that a collaboration based on co-creation “focusses on a solution that suits the partners involved”. The interviewees commented that, “within the standards of the UAC-IC 2005, there is a lack of explicit attention to communication and the way in which client and the contractor should behave towards each other.” Consequently, the D&C contract appears to lack focus on a solution that suits both partners. RATING = (-) 8.2.3.4 Category 4: what is remarkable?

1. a) The first view is that a co-creation presupposes “an equivalent input of strengths”. It is, however, questionable whether the client has knowledge equivalent to the contractor. Moreover, the Model Basic Agreement and the UAC-IC 2005 determine the division of responsibility. Under such conditions, the contractor bears most of the responsibilities, while the client is responsible only for the provision of necessary information and required goods, the content of the demand specification, and contract modifications made as specified in clause 3 of the UAC-IC 2005. Consequently, an overall equivalence in terms of strength and resources is not feasible. RATING = (-) b) The second perspective is that equivalent input of strengths is not necessary for co-creation. Instead, parties should simply be open to each other's interests and concerns. From this perspective, co-creation is feasible under the contract conditions of the Model Basic Agreement and the UAC-IC 2005. RATING = (+) 63

This has the following reason. Due to several dialogue phases, the costs of a competitive dialogue procedure are high, especially from a contractors perspective. If the tenderer loses a tender, the expenses made during the tender will hardly be compensated. Therefore, it is not uncommon that a contractor selects a team specialized in winning tenders. It is therefore possible that the tender team is barely involved in the project after awarding of the contract.

93

2. a) The first perspective of co-creation in relation to the division of responsibilities states that the client an contractor create something together and are therefore responsible together. The Model Basic agreement and associated UAC-IC 2005 do not provide for joint responsibilities. The interviewees argued, however, it not impossible to incorporate alliance-like structures with shared responsibilities into a D&C contract. Consequently, although the conditions of the contract are not directly concerned with responsibility sharing, it is partly feasible to do so in practice. RATING = (+/-) b) The second perspective regarding the division of responsibilities is that the parties can have divided responsibilities under co-creation. The Model Basic Agreement and associated UAC-IC 2005 provide for divided responsibilities between client and contractor. Therefore this element of co-creation is feasible under D&C contracts. RATING = (+)

8.3 The DBFM Contract 8.3.1

A study on the Characteristics

This section summarizes the main characteristics of the DBFM contracts. It is based on Chapter 8 of A Practical Guide to Dutch Building Contracts (Chao-Duivis, Koning, & Bruggeman, 2010, pp. 173187). The summary also describes the characteristics of the DBFM agreement 4.0 currently in use by Rijkswaterstaat. The characteristics that will be discussed affect the characteristics of co-creation. General A characteristic of DBFM contracts is that in exchange for a recurring fee over the term of the contract, the project is financed by the entity that commissioned the project (the “commissionee”). The term of the contract is usually 20 to 25 five years. Because of the scope of the tasks and the duration of the contract, a consortium of companies usually acts as the commissionee. In addition, the client does not guide the commissionee on the basis of detailed instructions, but on the basis of criteria formulated in an outline. This has the effect of maintaining focus on the desired result and not on how the result is to be achieved. Role of the commissionee (consortium of companies) Paragraph 2.1 of the DBFM agreement 4.0 describes the key obligations of the contractor. In contrast to traditional building contracts, the entire supply chain is contracted out at the same time. The client will enter into a DBFM agreement with only a single contracting party. The management and maintenance obligations imply that the commissionee also has the responsibility to maintain the work and keep it available for the intended use by the client during the term of the contract. Moreover, if the work does not meet the requirements of the client, the commissionee will pay for it in his availability fee. As mentioned, most of the time the commissionee will consists of a consortium of companies that creates a collaborative agreement in the form of a private company with limited liabilities64. 64

(Besloten Vennootschap; B.V.)

94

Role of the client The role of the client in DBFM is rather limited compared to traditional and UAC-IC models. Paragraph 2.2 of the DBFM agreement 4.0 describes the key obligations of the client. The client is not obligated to supervise the contract or to maintain an active involvement in the contractor’s operations. The main way the client influence the work is through the payment structure of DBFM. In DBFM projects, the client no longer pays for the delivery of the work but for the availability of the work force during the term of the contract. Role of the financiers Chapter 3 of the DBFM agreement 4.0 describes the financing of projects. The role of the financiers is very important and is an essential element of the DBFM model. The commissionee finances the project on behalf of the client. The contractor is unable to do this alone and therefore will conclude agreements with banks as external financers. In return, the banks will have the income flow that is started because of the availability fee to the commissionee. Consequently, the banks will have major interest in the achievements of the contractor’s output specifications required by the client. The client and bank therefore share the same interests. Contract period and possibilities for changing the project Paragraph 2.3 of the DBFM agreement 4.0 describes the duration of the contract, and Chapter 13 describes the conditions for changing a project. The contract period and the possibility to change the contract during realization are closely related subjects. Risks associated with changing the contract increase as the lifecycle of the contract increases. For this kind of situation it is possible to fall back on Article 6:258 BW. This article provides some flexibility with respect to circumstances that the parties were unaware of when the agreement was made (Chao-Duivis et al., 2010, p. 24).

8.3.2


This sections describes the comments of practitioners on the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor under DBFM contracts. A summary of the shared comments is provided below. Compared to the D&C contract, more responsibilities are shifted to the market. According to various interviewees, this strong division of responsibilities represents a disincentive to joining strengths. The interviewees also commented that projects conducted with under a DBFM contract sometimes cause the client and contractor to grow apart. The contract separates the client from the contractor, which causes problems related to accomplishing project goals. But just as with the UAC-IC conditions, the strong division in responsibilities does not have to be a reason for poor cooperation between client and contractor. Client and contractor can still be open to the interest and problems of their partner. The interviewees also contend risks can be shared even under a DBFM contract if both client and contractor are convinced that they are better able to deal with these risks together. Co-creation may

65

Appendix II: Contractfase - Co-creatie in vergelijking tot andere bouwcontractmodellen – DBFM contract

95

therefore very well be used in only a single part of a project and it is therefore considered to be multi-applicable. Figure X shows that co-creation can be applied on particular parts within a contract.

Figure 9. Co-creation multi-applicable on particular parts within a contract.

In line with this recommendation, the final concept version of the report “The hybrid demand of the client” states that there is a need for more precise customization than the current Model Basic Agreement for the UAV-GC 2005 provides (M.A.B. Chao-Duivis et al., 2015, p. 2). The results of this research show several reasons to opt for a hybrid form of contract. A first reason concerns the clients desire to be self-managing in specific parts of a project and a second reason is the need for a mix of personal influence and outsourcing (M.A.B. Chao-Duivis et al., 2015, p. 7). Furthermore, a number of practitioners argued that the average contract term of approximately 25 years stimulates both the client and contractor to build a long term relationship based upon respect, trust and transparency. On the other hand, some practitioners argued, the long period implies more difficulties for modifications during the contract term. A final remarkable point that has emerged from the interviews is related to the aspect of co-creation that states that the solution is unknown in advance. Due to this characteristic, co-creation should have a strong relationship with innovation. One of the interviewees thought that innovation leads to a higher risk profile. As stated before, one of the characteristics of the DBFM contract is that maintenance is the responsibility of the contractor. Consequently, the maintenance risk of an innovative product is initially entirely on the contractor. This characteristic could deter the contractor from seeking for innovative solutions. In response to this issue, one interviewee said that the client should be open to the option of joint responsibility for maintenance in order to encourage innovation and co-creation.

96

8.3.3


Table 11. Feasibility of co-creation under DBFM contracts. Consensual characteristics from literature (category 1):

Feasibility* of co-creation under the DBFM contract


+ N.A.


N.A. + + +/N.A.


+/+ -

1.a) 1.b) 2.a) 2.b)

-+ +/+


8.3.3.1 Category 1: what is remarkable? 1. A comparison of the characteristics of a DBFM contract with the first characteristic of co-creation (“meaning is created by interaction”), shows that DBFM contracts do not emphasise interaction between client and contractor. As mentioned, under the DBFM contracts the client is not obligated to supervise the contract or to be actively involved in the contractor’s operations. Moreover, the role of the client under DBFM is rather limited compared to traditional and UAC-IC models. Consequently, DBFM contracts do not focus on interaction between client and the contractor. RATING = (-) 2. The second characteristic of the first category is that co-creation is an undetermined process that develops over time. Although Article 258 of the Dutch Civil Code66 provides more flexibility 66

Burgerlijk Wetboek 6, art. 258.1: De rechter kan op verlangen van een der partijen de gevolgen van een overeenkomst wijzigen of deze geheel of gedeeltelijk ontbinden op grond van onvoorziene omstandigheden welke van dien aard zijn dat de wederpartij naar maatstaven van redelijkheid en billijkheid ongewijzigde instandhouding van de overeenkomst niet mag verwachten. Aan de wijziging of ontbinding kan terugwerkende kracht worden verleend.

97

regarding contract changes relating to unforeseen circumstances, the average duration of the a DBFM of approximately 25 years is not consistent with an undetermined process over time. Moreover, the fixed price ensures that important design decisions are decided before the contract is awarded. Consequently, an undetermined process is not feasible. RATING = (-) 3. The third point that emerged from the consensual characteristics of the literature study states that co-creation is usually project-specific. DBFM contracts constitute no barrier to this aspect of co-creation. RATING = (+) 4. This research focuses on co-creation between client and contractor (or contracting authority and candidate(s)). Consequently, the consumer (or end-user), is outside the scope. RATING = N.A.


1. a) This research focuses on co-creation between client and contractor (or contracting authority and candidate(s)). Consequently, the consumer (or end-user), is outside the scope. RATING = N.A. b) A DBFM contract provides for collaboration between the client and contractor. Consequently, “collaboration with externals” is feasible. RATING = (+) 2. a) A DBFM contract providers for collaboration between the client and contractor. The contract can therefore be considered as a form of collaboration. RATING = (+) b) The feasibility of innovation depends on the degree to which the client allows the contractor to make his own choices regarding the direction of the solution. Under DBFM contracts, the client does not steer the commissionee on the basis of detailed instructions, but on the basis of criteria formulated in an outline. Consequently, innovation is feasible under a DBFM contract. Nevertheless, as one of the interviewees commented, the maintenance risk of an innovative product will initially be at entirely up to the contractor. This might deter a contractor from trying innovative solutions. Consequently, the feasibility of innovation depends on various conditions, perhaps especially on whether or not the client is willing to share risks associated with innovation. RATING = (+/-) 3. The degree of power and control of the consumer is not applicable to this research. RATING = N.A. 8.3.3.3 Category 3: what is remarkable?

1. To determine whether cooperation between client and contractor can occur very early under DBFM contracts, it is necessary to know the freedom client and contractor have to develop joint solutions from the start of their relationship. Rijkswaterstaat has used the competitive dialogue procedure for the procurement of a number of DBFM contracts. When the competitive dialogue procedure is used, cooperation between the future client and contractor occurs early in the project (see Table 5). But as with the D&C contract, early project cooperation also depends on 98

whether the teams have also been involved during procurement. According to the user manual of the competitive dialogue procedure, a guideline based on the experiences of Rijkswaterstaat, the competitive dialogue procedure takes about 30 months before the contract is closed (Nagelkerke, Oehler, Muntz-Beekhuis, & Van der Staay, 2009). Consequently, if the start of the cooperation between client and contractor starts after the award of the contract, early project cooperation is not feasible. RATING = (+/-) 2. The DBFM contract does not satisfy the second consensual characteristic of the practitioners, which states that “the solution is unknown in advance.” The major design decisions have already been made when the contract is awarded. For the tenderer, one of the award criteria at the end of the procurement phase is the determination of the price of the work. In order to price his work, the tenderer must already have decided on the major elements of the design. If the tenderer is awarded for the contract, these decisions will be included in the contract with the client. Consequently, a fixed solution regarding important design decisions ensures that the solution is known when the contract is awarded. RATING = (-) 3. The practitioners who were interviewed during the course of this research commented that a horizontal relationship between client and contractor after the award of the contract is more feasible than during procurement. Even so, the degree to which the client/contractor relationship is characterized by equality really depends on a number of factors, including individual motivation or the setting of a realistic price during procurement. Moreover, the drivers of co-creation stated in paragraph 4.5 could possibly have a larger influence on the way client and contractor treat each other than the choice of the contract model. RATING = (+) 4. The fourth characteristic states that a collaboration in co-creation focusses on a solution that suits the partners involved. The following characteristics of a DBFM contract affect this characteristic of co-creation. First, the client does not guide the commissionee on the basis of detailed instructions, but on the basis of criteria formulated in an outline, which puts the focus on realizing the desired result and not on how the result is to be achieved. Second, the client is not responsible for contract supervision or for being actively involved in the contractor’s operations. The client interferes as little as possible with the technical solution of the project. Experience has shown that a result can be devised that is appropriate for both parties even when the client is not actively engaged in project administration. There is, however, a difference between a result and a solution. During the design and execution, there is little focus on a solution that suits both parties. The belief of a number of practitioners that client and contractor tend to grow apart under DBFM contracts confirms this. RATING = (-)


1. a) The first view is that a collaboration in co-creation means that an equivalent input of strengths is required. Under a DBFM contract, there is no contract supervision on the side of the client nor is there active involvement of the client in the contractor’s operations. This states that an equivalent input of strengths of the client and contractor is not compatible with DBFM contracts. RATING = (--) 99

b) The second perspective is that equal input of strengths is not required under co-creation, instead, the parties should be open to each other's interests and concerns. From this perspective, co-creation is feasible under the conditions of a DBFM contract. RATING = (+) 2. a) The first perspective of co-creation in relation to the division of responsibilities states that the client an contractor create a something together and are therefore responsible together. The DBFM contract does not arrange joint responsibilities. However, the interviewees argued that within a DBFM contract, is it not infeasible to incorporate alliance-like structures with shared responsibilities. Consequently, although the conditions of the contract are not set up with the idea to share responsibilities, in practice, it is (partly) feasible. RATING = (+/-) b) The second perspective regarding the division of responsibilities states that the parties can have divided responsibilities under a collaboration in co-creation. The DBFM contract arranges divided responsibilities between client and contractor. From this point of view, co-creation would be feasible under the DBFM contract. RATING = (+)

8.4 Alliance Agreements 8.4.1 A Study on the Characteristics This section summarizes the main characteristics of alliance agreements and describes the elements of such agreement that affect the characteristics of co-creation. General The alliance agreement differs from D&C and DBFM contracts. In the alliance agreement, the client is intensively involved in the building process because, along with the contractor, he creates a collaborative organization in with both parties participate on the basis of equality. It is essential that parties collaborate on equal terms, because they are attempting to achieve common goals by forging an agreement under which risks are born collectively and profit and loss are shared (Chao-Duivis et al., 2010, p. 189). As with concepts of co-creation or supply chain collaboration, the term alliance is used in different ways. An important distinction is made between “project alliances” and “strategic alliances.” A project alliance is only for a single project, whereas a strategic alliance is characterised by an agreement to achieve long-term cooperation to achieve common goal (Chao-Duivis et al., 2007). A the definition of project alliance attributable to (Deloitte, IBR, & Stibbe, 2007) is as follows: “The joint shaping of a partnership in which advantages and disadvantages are shared in such a way that during the cooperation the interests of the parties are parallel.” Under a strategic alliance, two or more companies join forces in an effort to strengthen their market position. Spekman, Kamauff Jr, and Myhr (1998) define a strategic alliance as follows: “A strategic alliance is a close, long-and useful agreement between two or more partners, where core resources, knowledge and capabilities are shared in an attempt to improving the competitiveness of all partners.” According to the interviewees, strategic alliances have not yet been made in the infrastructure sector. Therefore, this research focusses only on the project alliances. Chapter 9.2 of A Practical

100

Guide to Dutch Building Contracts (Chao-Duivis et al., 2010, pp. 190-199) describes the following key characteristics of a project alliance: Integrated organisation A first key characteristic of a project alliance is that the client and the contractor constitute one integrated organization. The new organization will be separate from the “parent organizations,” and will be unrelated to the companies that have called it into being. Common goals The second key characteristic is that the alliance partners formulate an objective for the alliance. The alliance works on the basis of common objectives. Before the contract is awarded, the partners must accomplish an agreement on the goals of the proposed alliance. The alliance is therefore goal oriented. Much attention is paid to the way parties deal with one another, and especially that they act on the basis of trust and observe one another’s interests. Sharing risks profit and losses The third key characteristic of the alliance agreement is that the alliance partners share the risks, profits and losses. In an alliance, there is no separation of activities and liabilities: the alliance undertakes the work and if things go wrong, the alliance will be faced with the consequences. Under a project alliance, a last distinction is for “full project alliances” versus “design alliances.” In the Dutch building sector, full project alliances have not yet been created(Chao-Duivis et al., 2010, p. 200). During execution of the work, there is little need for the client to interfere in alliance partnerships. According to Koolwijk and Geraedts (2006) a design alliance is: “A contractual agreement for designing a building whereby the client and the contractor create an integrated organization that works on the basis of agreed (common) goals, in which risks concerning the design are borne together and profits and losses shared pro rata.” The tasks of the design alliance (client and contractor) are:      

Detailing the design. Guarding the quality of the project. Prescribing the (primary) execution method. Managing the alliance fund. Supervising the construction supervisor. Realising the time schedule.

By restricting the alliance to the design, the client has no influence on execution.

101

8.4.2


This section summarizes the comments from practitioners on the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor by the application of alliance agreements. A summary of the comments by the practitioners is provided below. According to the interviewees, co-creation between client and contractor is more feasible under alliance agreements than under other types of contracts. Under alliance agreements, the client and contractor have the right incentives to collaborate on the characteristics of co-creation. As stated, sharing risks is considered a driver for co-creation and provides several opportunities to stimulate cocreation between the parties in the alliance. Appendix II provides more insight into the key comments of the interviewees concerning the feasibility of co-creation under alliance agreements. It must be acknowledged that the interviewees also mentioned several disadvantages of alliance agreements. One is the lack of clarity about ultimate liability in the event things go wrong. Another is the care the client must take to avoid losing his authority as client. 8.4.3


Table 12. Feasibility of co-creation under alliance agreements. Consensual characteristics from literature (category 1):

Feasibility of co-creation under the alliance agreement


++ +/+ N.A.


N.A. + + + N.A.


+ ++ ++

1.a) 1.b) 2.a) 2.b)

+ ++ ++ -

67


Appendix II: Contractfase- Co-creatie in vergelijking met andere bouwcontractmodellen - Alliantie

102


1. A comparison of the characteristics of alliance agreements with the first characteristic of cocreation, “meaning is created by interaction,” shows that the alliance agreement is characterized by an “integrated client-contractor organization” that is compatible with the first characteristic of co-creation. Consequently, the first characteristic is extremely feasible under an alliance agreement. RATING = (++) 2. The second characteristic of the first category is that “co-creation is an undetermined process that develops over time.” Compared to procurement of under D&C or DBFM contracts, the alliance agreements are oriented toward the formulation of common goals, whereas the other integrated contracts focus more on a specific result. Consequently, the design process after award of the contract is less fixed. Even so, a price must be determined during the procurement phase of the alliance agreement. Consequently, a fully undetermined process is not feasible because the price already presupposes most important design decisions. RATING = (+/-) 3. The third point that emerged from the consensual characteristics of the literature study states that co-creation is usually project-specific. Thus, there is no barrier to the feasibility of this characteristic of co-creation under an alliance agreement. RATING = (+) 4. In this research, focus is on co-creation between client and contractor (or contracting authority and candidate(s)). Consequently, the consumer (or end-user), is outside the scope. RATING = N.A.


1. a) In this research, focus is on co-creation between client and contractor (or contracting authority and candidate(s)). Consequently, the consumer (or end-user), is beyond the scope. RATING = N.A. b) Alliance agreements arrange collaborations between client and contractor. Consequently, collaboration with externals is feasible. RATING = (+) 2. a) Alliance agreement arrange collaborations between client and contractor. The agreement may therefore be considered as a form of collaboration. RATING = (+) b) The feasibility of innovation is dependent on the extent to which the client allows the contractor to make his own choices regarding the direction of the solution. Therefore, integrated contracts provide more opportunities compared to traditional contracts. In the case of alliance agreements, the client and contractor develop a design together. The complementary competencies of the client and contractor create opportunities for an innovative design. Moreover, if the integrated organization decides to develop an innovative solution for a project, the design risks are shared by the alliance. This is an incentive for innovation compared to the

103

other integrated contracts in which the design responsibilities are initially borne by the contractor alone. RATING = (+) 3. The degree of power and control of the consumer is not applicable to this research. RATING = N.A. 8.4.3.3 Category 3: what is remarkable?

1. To answer whether client/contractor cooperation occurs as early as possible under alliance agreements, one needs to know how free client and contractor are to develop joint solutions from the inception of their relationship. Design alliances emphasize early cooperation between client and contractor in the joint development of the project. Consequently, early project cooperation is feasible under alliance agreements. Moreover, compared to the other integrated contracts, alliance agreements promote participation in the alliance after the awarding of the contract. RATING = (+) 2. Alliance agreements are goal oriented whereas the other integrated contracts emphasize on a particular result. Emphasis on goals allows a larger part of the solution to be developed after the tender. Still, a price must be determined during procurement. Consequently, the direction of the solution (do we want a bridge or a tunnel?) has already been determined by the end of the procurement phase. In other words, when the definitive alliance agreement has been concluded, the main part of the solution has been determined. RATING = (-) 3. A key characteristic of project alliances is that client and contractor are melded into one integrated organization. Consequently, the members of the alliance team become employees of the same organization. As a result, it becomes extremely feasible for the parties to treat each other as equals. RATING = (++) 4. The fourth characteristic states that a collaboration in co-creation focusses on a solution that suits the partners involved. One of the key characteristics of project alliances is that the alliance works on the basis of common objectives. Because of this emphasis on common objectives it is concluded that the feasibility of this characteristic of co-creation under alliance agreements is very high. RATING = (++) 8.4.3.4 Category 4: what is remarkable?

1. a) The first view is that co-creation presupposes equivalent contributions of strengths and resources from client and contractor. Section 8.4.1 shows that several tasks are the responsibility of both client and contractor under design alliances. The strengths of both client and contractor must be fully engaged to accomplish the shared tasks. Thus, with respect to design, the client and contractor provide an equivalent input of strengths. RATING = (+) b) The second perspective is that equal contributions of strengths and resources are not essential to co-creation, and that it is sufficient that the parties are concerned about each other's interests and concerns. Section 8.4.1, the summary of characteristics of alliance agreements, showed that 104

much attention is paid to the way the parties treat each other, and that that they must act on the basis of trust and concern for each other’s interests. Because of the emphasis placed on the interests of the partners, this characteristic of co-creation is considered to be extremely feasible under alliance agreements. RATING = (++) 2. a) The first perspective of the interviewees in relation to the division of responsibilities in cocreation is that because client and contractor create something together, they are jointly responsible. One of the key characteristics alliance agreements is that risks, profits and losses are shared. Consequently, sharing responsibilities is extremely feasible under alliance agreements. RATING = (++) b) The other perspective regarding the division of responsibilities is that the parties can have different responsibilities under co-creation. Alliance agreement is characterised by shared responsibilities. Consequently, divided responsibilities are not feasible under alliance agreements. RATING = (-)

105

8.5 Comparing Feasibility under Integrated Contracts Now that the analysis of the feasibility of co-creation under the three types of integrated contracts has been completed, it is appropriate to compare feasibility among the integrated contracts themselves. Table 12 provides an overview of the analyses of integrated contracts. From an inspection of Table 12, it can be seen that the characteristics of co-creation are much more feasible under alliance agreements than D&C or DBFM contracts. The score of D&C contracts is +2, while the score of alliance agreements is +12; this difference shows superiority of alliance agreements to D&C contracts with regard to the feasibility of co-creation. The difference between D&C and DBFM contracts is attributable to the fact that DBFM contracts has less of a focus on interaction with the client, the contract is fixed for a longer period, and an equivalent input of strengths is less feasible. Table 13. Comparison of the feasibility of co-creation under three types of integrated contracts. Consensual characteristics from literature (category 1):

Feasibility of co-creation D&C

DBFM

Alliance


+/+/+ N.A.

+ N.A.

++ +/+ N.A.

1.a) Company-consumer relationship 1.b) Collaboration with externals in general 2.a) Collaboration form 2.b) Innovation form 3. Degree of power and control of consumer Consensual characteristics from the practice (category 3):

N.A. + + +/N.A.

N.A. + + +/N.A.

N.A. + + + N.A.

1. Cooperation in the project as early as possible 2. The solution is unknown in advance 3. Partners are not equal but need to treat each other equivalent 4. Focus is on a solution that suits the involved partners Controversial characteristics from the practice (category 4):

+/+ -

+/+ -

+ ++ ++


+ +/+ +2

-+ +/+ -1

+ ++ ++ +14

106

8.6 Wrap up: Main Barriers to Co-creation under Integrated Contracts Since the feasibility of co-creation is analysed, it is now appropriate to provide a wrap up of the main barriers to co-creation under the chosen integrated contracts. The main barriers mentioned below are based on the results from the interviews with the practitioners outlined in Appendix II. 

For the tenderer, one of the award criteria at the end of the procurement phase is to determine a price for his work. In order to price his work, the tenderer must already have made the major design decisions. If the tenderer is awarded the contract, these decisions will be included in the contract with the client. Consequently, a fixed solution regarding important design decisions ensures that “an undetermined process” during the stage of the contract is not feasible.



Integrated contracts are basically inflexible and are usually managed with an emphasis on limiting the number of contract modifications as much as possible. This influences the feasibility of “an undetermined process.”



The (controversial) characteristic of co-creation from the practice concerning “shared responsibilities between the client and the contractor” has two major disadvantages: o o

Who is liable when things go wrong? Is the client able to keep his authority?

These difficulties are identified as having an obstructing impact on close cooperation between partners. It is therefore that both public clients as contractors are reluctant with close cooperation by means of shared responsibilities.

107

9. Comparing Feasibility between Procurement Procedures and Integrated Contracts Now that the analyses of procurement procedures and integrated contracts have been completed, a comparison between the two is possible. An inspection of the results in Table 13 reveals two major points. The first observation is the freedom for the development of solutions through client/contractor interactions that exists during procurement. Because of required for tenders containing fixed prices, the solution has been almost completely determined by the time the contract is awarded. Thus, procurement provides more opportunities for co-creation than the successive phases. The second observation is that the feasibility of treating client and contractor equivalently increases during the contract phase. This is the reason many practitioners argued that co-creation during procurement is more difficult. This analysis shows that generally, the procurement procedures are better feasible compared to the integrated contracts. However, the alliance agreement scores twice as high as the competitive dialogue procedure. Table 14. Comparison of feasibility of co-creation under two different procurement procedures and three different types of integrated contracts. Consensual characteristics from literature: category 1



D&C

DBFM

Alliance

+/+/+ N.A.

+ N.A.

++ +/+ N.A.

1.a) Company-consumer relationship 1.b) Collaboration with externals in general 2.a) Collaboration form 2.b) Innovation form 3. Degree of power and control of consumer Consensual characteristics from the practice: category 3

N.A. + + + N.A.

N.A. ++ + ++ N.A.

N.A. + + +/N.A.

N.A. + + +/N.A.

N.A. + + + N.A.

1. Cooperation in the project as early as possible 2. The solution is unknown in advance 3. Partners are not equal but need to treat each other equivalent 4. Focus is on a solution that suits the involved partners Controversial characteristics from the practice: category 4

+ + +/-

++ ++ +/+

+/+ -

+/+ -

+ ++ ++


+/+/+ + +7

+/+/+ + +18

+ +/+ +3

-+ +/+ 0

+ ++ ++ +14


108

A final significant observation is based on a comparison of the legal framework with Wierdsma’s metaphors of “traveling” and “trekking68.” The current legal framework is related to the idea of traveling, in that a fixed result is predetermined by the contract. In recent years, however, the increasing application of integrated contracts and the competitive dialogue procedure has shown that the legal framework is slightly evolving from “traveling” towards “trekking.” That is to say, the focus is shifting from fixed results determined in advance towards more interaction and dialogue to determine a solution during a process over time. The advent of the innovation partnership procedure will only accelerate this transition.

68

Page 31: The development process based on co-creation is an undetermined process that is similar to a trek. In consultation, the direction is determined, and depending on the specific context, the route is determined and adjusted.. ..From interaction arises the structure, systems and the strategy of an organization. Then, in interaction they are maintained or developed. In this way, co-creation is a spiral process that develops over time. A reconsideration on the level of principles is a breakthrough or in other words a sudden change in this spiral.

109

10.

Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations

10.1 Results The objective of this research was to provide insight in the degree to which co-creation between public client and contractor is feasible under the existing legal framework of procurement procedures and under various types of integrated contracts. In order to study feasibility, the following research question were developed: RQ:

What are the drivers and barriers for co-creation between client and contractor under the existing procurement legislation and integrated contract conditions in the infrastructure sector?

To answer this research question, several sub-questions were formulated. The answers to the subquestions deliver the results of this research effort. Therefore, this section provides an overview of the answers to the sub-questions. SQ1:

What is co-creation?

This research found different interpretations and perspectives of the meaning of co-creation. It appeared that the search for co-creation between client and contractor depends upon many conditions, not all of which are shared by scholars and practitioners in the sector. Therefore, the search for a single, widely shared definition of co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector has not been successful at this time. Nevertheless, a number of consensual and controversial characteristics of co-creation have emerged from this study (see Table 2).

Practice

Literature study

Table 2: Overview of characteristics of co-creation divided into four categories. Consensual characteristics 1  Meaning is created by interaction between the actors involved


































110

An inspection of Table 2 shows that two consensual characteristics of co-creation are confirmed by both the scholars and practitioners. Specifically, “undetermined process” corresponds to “the solution is unknown,” and “meaning is created by interaction” corresponds to “focus on a solution that suits the partners involved.” Although the characteristics are not precisely similar, they are clearly in quite closely related. According to the analysis presented here, these characteristics form the essence of co-creation. But besides notable consensual characteristics, the results reveal a number of controversial characteristics. An important difference between co-creation in the literature and as seen by practitioners is that the literature places emphasis is on company-consumer collaboration. Although the scholars do not exclude other collaboration between externals, the emphasis is clearly on consumer relationships. Among practitioners, opinions among the interviewees were particularly divided over the issue of whether co-creation necessarily entails equivalent contributions of knowledge and resources by clients and contractors. Some interviewees thought that equal contributions toward a solution was a core element of co-creation, while others thought equal contributions were a peripheral issue. The layer group felt that the core of co-creation consisted of client and contractor being aware of and concerned with each other’s goals and problems. Related to the issue of equal contributions and mutual concern is the issue of was whether co-creation implies that client and contractor have the same responsibilities and liability exposure. Some interviewees argued that because co-creation results in the creation of something by the client and contractor, the responsibilities and liabilities of this creation should also be shared. Other practitioners, who also thought that co-creation did not necessarily entail equivalent input of strengths, argued that shared responsibilities was not essential either. But what does it mean that a widely accepted definition of co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector was not feasible? Cooperation forms such as the alliance agreements, supply chain collaboration and co-creation are all variations on the same theme: more focus on close collaboration between partners. The fact that these forms of cooperation arise says something about the struggles of the sector and the way we want to cooperate with each other. Co-creation can be seen as an expression or a symptom of a larger struggle confronting the sector. It shows that the client and contractor want to cooperate in a different way, and that they want to improve their relationship with each other. In addition, both client and contractor seem to have become more aware that for certain problems close collaboration is the key to accomplishing project goals. SQ2:

What are the drivers for co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector?

The drivers that emerged from this study affected the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor. The degree to which these drivers influence the feasibility was not measurable. Some drivers may have no relation to the choice of procurement procedure or contract form, yet might have a larger influence on the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor than the characteristics of a particular procurement procedure or form of contract. Nevertheless, the focus of this study was on the influence of the legal conditions affecting the feasibility of co-creation. The following drivers emerged after the validation of the second round of interviews: 

Consciousness of the client and contractor of the need for co-creation to accomplish project goals . 111



Uncertainty of the client and contractor about a suitable solution due to complexity.



Uncertainty of the client and contractor about a sustainable solution due to a changing sector.



The presence and acknowledgment of “higher” (more beneficial to society at large) goals by the client and/or contractor



The ability of the client and contractor to link smart solutions.



Sharing of risks and responsibilities by the client and contractor to stimulate innovation and mutual interests.

SQ3:

What is the difference between co-creation and supply chain collaboration?

To provide a better understanding of the meaning of co-creation, this research emphasised issue of whether co-creation was distinctive enough to consider as something new. This study therefore attempted to identify the major differences between co-creation and supply chain collaboration. The following differences have emerged from this analysis: 

A collaboration in co-creation is “usually” project- based, whereas supply chain collaboration is identified as “ideally” affecting multiple projects.



The literature on co-creation emphasizes the company-consumer connection, whereas the literature on supply chain collaboration does not consider the consumer to be a part of the chain.



A collaboration in co-creation does not exclude the involvement of the client, whereas the client under supply chain collaboration is not considered to be a part of the chain.



Besides the realization phase, co-creation is applicable during exploration, plan study and procurement, whereas supply chain collaboration mainly focusses on more a detailed solution to the realization of a project.

SQ4:

What existing procurement procedures and contract models are most relevant to cocreation?

Procurement procedures In specific cases, usually when the project complexity is high, contracting authorities may apply the competitive dialogue procedure. Article 2.28 of the Procurement Act of 2012 describes the specific conditions for applying this procedure. As stated before, complexity was identified by the interviewees as a driver of co-creation. Moreover, the dialogue between client and contractor corresponds to the characteristic of co-creation that states that meaning is created by the interaction between the actors involved. It is therefore in the interest of this research to examine the feasibility 112

of co-creation under the competitive dialogue procedure. Besides the competitive dialogue, this research focused on the innovation partnership procedure. The innovation partnership procedure can only be applied if the contracting authority does not foresee an available market solution. In other words, the solution is unknown in advance. This was considered to be a characteristic of cocreation, and it was therefore interesting to relate the feasibility of co-creation with the application of this procedure. Integrated contracts Design and Construct contracts are currently the standard integrated contract used by Rijkswaterstaat. It is therefore in the interest of this research to study the feasibility of co-creation under such a contract. In addition to the D&C contract, the DBFM contracts are standard used for projects with a minimal turnover of approximately € 60 million. The cost of a project often are directly correlated with its level of complexity. Since complexity has emerged as a driver for cocreation, this research also studied the feasibility of co-creation under DBFM contracts. Finally, this research also focused on the alliance agreements. Although alliance agreements are rarely used by Rijkswaterstaat, this form of contract emphasizes close collaboration between the client and contractor. It is therefore in the interest of this research to study the feasibility of co-creation under alliance agreements as well. SQ5:

What are the main characteristics of the chosen procurement procedures and contract models?

Although the answer to this question is necessary to assess the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector, it does not provide new insights or results. It is therefore not mentioned in this section. The characteristics are identified in sections 7.2.1, 7.3.1, 8.2.1, 8.3.1, and 8.4.1.

SQ6:

To what extent is co-creation feasible under the chosen procurement procedures and contract models?

Table 15 provides an overview of the results of the analysis of the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor under the chosen procurement procedures and integrated contracts. The feasibility is indicated by characteristic.

113

Table 14. Comparison of feasibility of co-creation under two different procurement procedures and three different types of integrated contracts. Consensual characteristics from the literature: category 1



D&C

DBFM

Alliance

+/+/+ N.A.

+ N.A.

++ +/+ N.A.

1.a) Company-consumer relationship 1.b) Collaboration with externals in general 2.a) Collaboration form 2.b) Innovation form 3. Degree of power and control of consumer Consensual characteristics from the practice: category 3

N.A. + + + N.A.

N.A. ++ + ++ N.A.

N.A. + + +/N.A.

N.A. + + +/N.A.

N.A. + + + N.A.

1. Cooperation in the project as early as possible 2. The solution is unknown in advance 3. Partners are not equal but need to treat each other equivalent 4. Focus is on a solution that suits the involved partners Controversial characteristics from the practice: category 4

+ + +/-

++ ++ +/+

+/+ -

+/+ -

+ ++ ++


+/+/+ + +7

+/+/+ + +18

+ +/+ +3

-+ +/+ 0

+ ++ ++ +14


Table 7. Meaning of the feasibility score. ++ + +/-N.A.

Extremely feasible Feasible Depending Not feasible Extremely infeasible Not applicable

The analysis showed the feasibility of co-creation by comparing the individual characteristics of cocreation with the procurement procedures legislation and the main characteristics of integrated contracts. Because views about the meaning of co-creation differ, an overall answer to the feasibility of issue is not possible. However, conclusions with respect to the feasibility of the individual characteristics of co-creation can be drawn. This section will identify the most significant results from the overall analysis. First, the results show that the procurement phase generally provides more opportunities for cocreation than the contract phase. A condition for applying the competitive dialogue procedure is that the public contract is particularly complex. A condition for applying the innovation partnership procedure is that the contracting authority shall identify the need for an innovative work that cannot be met by purchasing a work already available on the market. In other words, to apply these 114

procedures, “the solution must be unknown in advance”. This condition has emerged as a characteristic of co-creation and is closely related to other characteristics of co-creation. Generally, at the end of procurement, the “unknown solution” has evolved into a “known solution.” From this perspective, the procurement procedures score better relative to integrated contracts because the main solution is generally determined before the contract is awarded. Second, the results of the analysis show that the competitive dialogue procedure, the innovation partnership procedure and alliance agreements can be considered as forms of co-creation. It is, however, notable that an equivalent treatment of client and contractor is more feasible during the contract phase. This is the reason many practitioners argued that co-creation is less feasible during procurement than during the contract phase. Third, the results show that co-creation is least feasible under DBFM contracts. Feasibility under D&C contract are slightly better because DBFM contracts are less focused on client/contractor interactions and the contract is fixed for a longer period. Moreover, an equivalent input of strengths is less feasible under DBFM contracts. SQ7:

What are the main barriers to co-creation under the chosen procurement procedures and contract models?

Procurement Although the following barriers may not be particularly related to procurement legislation, an identification of their influence on the feasibility of co-creation has clearly emerged. 

The interviewees indicated that, during procurement, both the contracting authority and the candidates/tenderers find that “openness towards the interests and problems of the other” is not always feasible.



Due to the high cost of time-consuming dialogue phases, pressure is put on aspect of the characteristic of co-creation that specifies “an undetermined process developing over time.”



Public laws might decrease the freedom of the contracting authority and candidates to develop an unrestricted solution from the beginning of the procurement procedure.

Contract phase 

For the tenderer, one of the award criteria at the end of the procurement phase is to determine a price for his work. In order to price his work, the tenderer must already have made the major design decisions. If the tenderer is awarded the contract, these decisions will be included in the contract with the client. Consequently, a fixed solution regarding important design decisions ensures that “an undetermined process” during the stage of the contract is not feasible.



Integrated contracts are basically inflexible and are usually managed with an emphasis on limiting the number of contract modifications as much as possible. This influences the feasibility of “an undetermined process.”

115



The (controversial) characteristic of co-creation from the practice concerning shared responsibilities between the client and the contractor has disadvantages. Who is liable when things go wrong? Is the client able to keep his authority?

10.2 Conclusions This section presents the conclusions that can be derived from the results presented in the previous section.



The phenomenon of co-creation is characterized by different interpretations and perspectives. The search for the meaning of co-creation is closely related to the search for better cooperation between client and contractor. It appeared as though good cooperation depends upon many conditions which are not always shared by scholars or practitioners in the sector.



A remarkable difference in the description of co-creation between the literature and the practice is that the literature emphasizes company-consumer collaboration, whereas the practitioners in the infrastructure sector emphasize client-contractor collaboration.



A notable difference among practitioners is whether or not co-creation necessarily entails equal contributions of strengths from client and contractor, or whether it merely requires that client and contractor maintain an open attitude towards the interests and the problems of their partner.



In relation to the former conclusion, interviewees were of two minds as to whether cocreation requires that client and contractor share responsibilities and liability exposure.



The divided opinions on the meaning of co-creation showed that the emergence of cocreation is a symptom of a larger struggle for the sector. The struggling of the sector concerns the search for an improved collaboration between client and contractor.



The consensual characteristics of co-creation from both literature and practice are: o o



an undetermined process with an unknown solution at the inception of the process. a process in which meaning is created by interaction and the focus is on a solution that suits the actors involved.

Because opinions on the meaning of co-creation are divided, an overall answer to the feasibility of co-creation is not possible. Nevertheless, by analysing the individual characteristics separately, several conclusions can be drawn. The literature review (theory) and the interviews with experts (practice) show that although the current procurement procedures and integrated contracts (current legal framework) are not addressed to accommodate co-creation, a number of characteristics of co-creation are to some degree feasible within the current legal framework. To fully accommodate all characteristics of co116

creation, however, the current legal framework is not yet sufficient. Nevertheless, the upcoming procurement procedure "innovative partnership" seems to offer more opportunities for co-creation between client and contractor in the future. 

A characteristic of co-creation is that it concerns a collaboration between client and contractor that starts in the project as early as possible. Consequently, compared to integrated contracts, procurement procedures score significantly higher regarding early collaboration.



For the tenderer, one of the award criteria is the price for delivering his work. In order to price his work, the tenderer must determine important design decisions. These design decisions will be included in the contract with the client. Consequently, a solution regarding important design decisions makes a truly undetermined process impossible after the project has been awarded. In other words, the main solution has been determined before the client and contractor start the contract phase.



On the other hand, clients and contractors state that it is more feasible to treat client and contractor equally during the contract phase than during the procurement phase.



The feasibility of co-creation under alliance agreements scores significantly higher than under D&C and DBFM contracts.



The competitive dialogue procedure and the innovation partnership procedure can be considered as procurement forms of co-creation.



The last conclusion is that the legal framework of procurement procedures and contract conditions is slightly shifting from fixed price contracts, with pre-defined results, towards procurement procedures and integrated contracts which allow more freedom for the client and contractor to arrive at a solution over time. This development is reflected by an increasing application of procurement procedures characterised by interaction and dialogue (the competitive dialogue procedure and the upcoming innovation partnership procedure), and by contracts in which the solution is not fully determined in advance (integrated contracts).

10.3 Recommendations Based on the results and conclusions that were discussed in the previous sections, three recommendations are made. 1. Although the EMAT (Economic Most Advantageous Tender) award mechanism indicates the will to deviate from the orientation on a price, the current legal framework of procurement procedures and contracts is oriented to concluding fixed price contracts with result obligations. These contracts are basically inflexible and are usually managed with the emphasis on minimizing the number of contract modifications. Co-creation does not attempt to realize a contract into a specified result, but at the realization of an objective. The way in which this objective is accomplished is determined by a joint process of interaction over time. To fully accomplish this 117

characteristic of co-creation, in my opinion, a legal framework is necessary which requires a fixed objective instead of a fixed result, and which therefore offers the opportunity to determine the best solution over time. 2. A number of interviewees recommended that co-creation means that the client and contractor create something together. Consequently, co-creation suggests that client and contractor are jointly responsible. Within a D&C contract, it can happen that part of the contract is not clearly designated as the responsibility of the client or the contractor. The solution is far from known, and it is difficult to estimate the risks that are incurred. In this situation, the client may want to have more influence and involvement on this part of the contract, and may therefore be willing to share responsibilities with the contractor. If responsibilities are shared, this would also mean that the client and contractor are both liable when things go wrong. However, the Model Basic Agreement currently provides no clear framework to cover this (controversial) characteristic of co-creation. Even though article 5 of the Model Basic Agreement provides flexibility in terms of three variations, and page 8 of the notes to the Model Basic Agreement describes that combinations of these variants within a single project are possible, none of them cover the issue of shared responsibility. I would therefore recommend to add a provision addressing shared responsibility to the Model Basic Agreement. Doing so will increase awareness throughout the infrastructure sector that shared responsibility is a viable option for appropriate portions of contracts. In line with this recommendation, the final concept version of the report “The hybrid demand of the client” states that there is a need for more precise customization than the current Model Basic Agreement for the UAV-GC 2005 provides (M.A.B. Chao-Duivis et al., 2015, p. 2). The results of this research (among others) show several reasons to opt for a hybrid form of contract. A first reason concerns the clients desire to be self-managing in specific parts of a project and a second reason is the need for a mix of personal influence and outsourcing (M.A.B. Chao-Duivis et al., 2015, p. 7). 3. Functional specifications are required to ensure that client-contractor interactions are, as expected under a co-creation agreement, used as a method of creating solutions. With “Market Unless”, Rijkswaterstaat frequently uses functional specifications for integrated contracts. If the client uses a D&C contract with its associated Model Basic Agreement and UAV-GC 2005, the first variant of Article 5 of the Model Basic Agreement provides the best opportunity for functional specifications. However, functional specifications lead to multiple reasonable interpretations. The confusion surrounding multiple interpretation could be reduced by the implementation of an interactive design process between the client and contractor that sharpens the expectations and interpretations of the specifications. However, the UAV-GC 2005 currently does not provide a description of the way in which the client and contractor can conduct such a process of interaction. Currently, the client tests and accepts only completed specifications. I recommend this should be included in the UAV-GC 2005 conditions. 10.3.1 Recommendations for Further Research

Based on the results and conclusions that were discussed in the previous sections, several recommendations for further research are made. Moreover, this paragraph provides insight in the limitations of this research. 118

As mentioned, the focus of this research is on the impact of procurement procedures and contract forms on the feasibility of co-creation between public client and contractor in the Dutch infrastructure sector. Clearly, procurement procedures and contract forms are not the only factors that can affect the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor. Although some of these additional factors are discussed in this research, the emphasis is on procurement legislation and contract conditions. Therefore, further research is recommended on the influencing factors which are not directly related to the legal framework of procurement procedures and integrated contracts. I especially recommend further research on the influence of financial aspects in relation to cocreation. More research is recommended towards the upcoming Innovation partnership procedure. The feasibility study of co-creation under the Innovation Partnership procedure is based only on Article 31 of the 2014/24/EU Directive which describes the procedural steps and conditions for the application of this procedure. Article 90 of the 2014/24/EU Directive states that on April 18th, 2016, the new Directive must be implemented in the Procurement Act. Further research on the potential of this procedure in relation to the characteristics of co-creation is recommended before this procedure is actually applicable. More research should also address the specific phases of the business cycle which most lend themselves to management by co-creation. The interviews conducted during the course of this research revealed that co-creation was thought of as being characterized by early cooperation between client and contractor. Thus, co-creation should be seen as being independent of phase, and specifically as being applicable to the phases of exploration and plan study. I therefore recommend further research on the feasibility of co-creation before the procurement phase. It must, however, be realized that the contractor can be excluded from procurement if he has more knowledge and information than his competitors. From the perspective of the infrastructure sector, it was therefore important to study the feasibility of co-creation during the procurement phase. Another recommendation for further research concerns the controversial opinions on the meaning of co-creation. A characteristic of co-creation with controversial opinions by the interviewees concerns the division of responsibilities. Therefore, further research on dealing with responsibilities (and related liabilities) in a co-creation agreement between client and contractor is recommended. The results from the literature review show that co-creation concerns interaction between an organization and its consumers or end-users. I therefore recommend further research towards the relationship between the client, contractor and end-user of infrastructure projects. How can interaction with the end-user contribute to the improvement of infrastructure projects? Moreover, further research is recommended towards a suitable business model which attracts and triggers the market (contractors, engineering firms or other actors that may contribute to an idea or innovation) to co-create with the public client before the phase of procurement. As mentioned, the benefits of co-creation can be effective before the phase of procurement. However, what conditions must be set in order to trigger the market or end-users to share their knowledge, expertise or experiences during the phase of exploration or plan study? Finally, a limitation of this study is that co-creation is such a new concept that there is no consensus on the very meaning of the term. The newness of the concept of co-creation, as well as the fact that 119

the feasibility analysis was not based on actual business experiences, should temper the reader’s interpretation of the findings of this study.

120

Appendix I. List of interviewees Table 15. List of interviewees # 1 2 3

Name Patrick van Dijk Kim Roffel Ton Huijzer

Organization Royal HaskoningDHV Royal HaskoningDHV Vernieuwing bouw, former Dura Vermeer BAM PPP HVG advocaten, former Haskoning Alliantie A2 Hooggelegen, Rijkswaterstaat

4 5

Carlo Kuiper Maarten Vis Abz

6

Ton Swanenberg

7

Marleen Hermans

TU Delft, Brink groep, former RGD

8

Daniel Santurio

9 10 11 12

Corne van Iersel Folkert Bolkestein Arent van Wassenaer Charles Petit

13

Bertrand van Ee

14

Cees Brandsen

15

Ed Nijpels

16

Rudolf Rijkens

Croon advocaten, former Pelsrijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn, HSL-zuid, DHV Nedmobiel, former HSL-zuid Pelsrijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn Allen & Overy Rijkswaterstaat, Ministerie van I&E Climate-KIC, former CEO Royal HaskoningDHV, Export & Promotion team Dutch Top water sector Rijkswaterstaat, former Van Hattum en Blankevoort NLingenieurs, former minister of VROM, former major of Breda, former Commissioner of the Queen in the province of Friesland AT Osborne, Rijkswaterstaat

17

Ad de Rooij

Rijkswaterstaat

18

Paul Oortwijn

19

Annemieke Sietses

NLingenieurs, former Grontmij, Rijkswaterstaat Rijkswaterstaat

Function Investment consultant Legal consultant Process manager Project Director Lawyer Alliance manager, Project Director Aanpak Ring Zuid Groningen Prof. publiek opdrachtgeverschap in de bouw, Partner Brink groep Lawyer / Partner

Managing partner Senior lawyer Lawyer / Partner Senior advisor market relations and procurement Chairman

Head Engineer Director Chairman

Senior consultant & manager Project leader RWS & cocreation Director Senior advisor Directie Projecten

N.B. Because all individual interviews are conducted and written in Dutch, it was decided to write the summary of the interviews in Dutch as well.

121

Appendix II. Uitkomst van de gevoerde gesprekken Inleiding Met als doel een indruk te krijgen van wat de praktijk verstaat onder co-creatie tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer, en in hoeverre co-creatie haalbaar is in relatie tot het bestaande juridische kader van aanbestedingsprocedures en geïntegreerde contractvormen, zijn er gesprekken gevoerd met opdrachtgevers, opdrachtnemers, juristen en andere actoren gerelateerd aan de grond, weg en waterbouwsector zoals brancheorganisaties en kennisinstituten. Van deze gesprekken zijn verslagen gemaakt, de verslagen zijn opgestuurd naar de desbetreffende persoon. De meeste personen waarmee gesproken is hebben daarop, met enige aanpassing, goedkeuring verleend. De meeste verslagen zijn dus over en weer gestuurd en daarmee geaccordeerd. Echter waren er sommige vaklieden die graag meewerkten aan het onderzoek, maar aangaven geen tijd te hebben om het uitgeschreven gesprek ook nog te valideren. In de meeste gevallen werd aangegeven dat de input uit het gesprek desondanks gebruikt mocht worden. Toch is er ook met regelmaat wat gevoelige informatie naar boven gekomen. Daarom is gekozen voor een geanonimiseerde samenvatting van de gesprekken. Het doel van deze diepte-interviews was het verkrijgen van een indruk over de opvattingen uit de praktijk. Deze indruk wordt in deze bijlage weergegeven. De bijlage vormt daarom de onderbouwing van de opvattingen over co-creatie vanuit de praktijk. De opvattingen van de geïnterviewden laten een aantal overeenkomstige kenmerken zien. Echter wordt ook duidelijk dat er op sommige punten nog een grote diversiteit bestaat aan wat men onder co-creatie verstaat. Deze bijlage geeft een beknopte samenvatting van de naar voren gekomen opvattingen uit de praktijk. Naast een beknopte samenvatting van alle interviews, is er een analyse gemaakt van alle kenmerken die gedurende de interviews naar voren zijn gekomen. Deze kenmerken zijn in een overzichtelijke tabelvorm te zien in bijlage III. Ook is er ter ondersteuning van de samenvatting een bijlage met resultaten en kernuitspraken toegevoegd gerubriceerd naar indeling van voorwaarden en kenmerken van co-creatie (bijlage IV). Dit geeft een goed overzicht van de verschillende opvattingen omtrent co-creatie in de GWW. De samenvatting geeft verder een beeld van hoe er op zowel open als gesloten vragen is geantwoord. Een extra overzicht van de resultaten op de gesloten vragen in tabelvorm is te zien in bijlage V. Als laatste is er in bijlage VI ter ondersteuning van de samenvatting een verslag van een persoonlijk interview opgenomen ten einde een beeld te schetsen van de wijze waarop de gesprekken gevoerd zijn. Begrip co-creatie: beschreven aan de hand van kenmerken met eenduidige opvattingen De eerste vraag die steeds gesteld werd was wat de desbetreffende geïnterviewde onder co-creatie verstond. Slechts in drie gevallen werd gepoogd een definitie te geven69. In de meeste gevallen werd 69

Co-creatie is dat partijen alles op tafel leggen wat ze in huis hebben om zo een hogere doel (dus niet alleen de individuele belangen) te verwezenlijken. Heel bewust met partijen, elkaars afhankelijkheden respecterend, tot oplossingen komen die voor beide partijen de functionaliteiten vertalen in passende oplossingen, binnen bepaalde tijd en geld. Co-creatie is samen efficiënter werken aan een effectievere oplossing.

122

er een beschrijving van een aantal kenmerken toegekend. In een tweede vraag werd vervolgens aan de geïnterviewden gevraagd feedback te geven op een definitie70 vanuit het perspectief van ‘leading client’ Jan Hendrik Dronkers, Directeur Generaal van Rijkswaterstaat. De feedback resulteerde in veel gevallen in een aanvulling van kenmerken op de voorgelegde definitie. Bij de antwoorden op deze twee vragen kwamen in veel gevallen de volgende kenmerken naar voren: Kenmerkend voor co-creatie is dat het een samenwerking betreft die zo vroeg mogelijk in het project dient plaats te vinden. Alle personen met wie gesproken is hebben dit bevestigd. Vroeg in het project zouden goede ideeën, ontstaan door de aanvullende competenties van de opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer, nog de ruimte hebben om te worden ingepast. Hoe verder het project zich vordert, hoe meer er is vastgelegd en hoe minder ruimte er over is nog een integrale oplossing door te voeren. Een tweede kenmerk van co-creatie is dat het moet worden toegepast op die vraagstukken waar niet van tevoren bekend is hoe het kan worden opgelost. De oplossing ligt dus niet voor de hand. Bijna alle personen met wie gesproken is, bevestigen dit. Echter is het de vraag in hoeverre de oplossing of het resultaat volledig onbekend hoeft te zijn. Volgens alle geïnterviewden personen zou co-creatie namelijk haalbaar zijn, ongeacht het (geïntegreerde) contractmodel dat wordt toegepast. Deze twee opvattingen wrikken met elkaar. Het huidige juridische kader van aanbestedingen en contracten is gericht op het sluiten van fixed price contracten met een resultaat verplichting. Dat betekent dat de belangrijkste keuzes voor het eindresultaat gedurende de aanbesteding al worden vastgelegd. In hoeverre kan dan gedurende de contractfase nog gesproken worden van een oplossing die van te voren niet bekend is? Met betrekking tot een niet voor de hand liggende oplossing, werd door alle geïnterviewden beargumenteerd dat een hogere complexiteit de effectiviteit van en behoefte voor co-creatie doet vergoten. Hier werden echter een aantal belangrijke opmerkingen bij gemaakt. Een persoon melde dat je niet perse wil co-creëren als je te maken hebt met een hoge complexiteit als zodanig, maar je wil co-creëren in een project waar de mate van waarin je elkaar nodig hebt om de opgave tot een succes te kunnen brengen klaarblijkelijk aanwezig is. De complementaire competenties van beide partijen (opdrachtgever – opdrachtnemer) zijn dus nodig om het beste antwoord op het vraagstuk te geven. Een ander persoon gaf aan dat co-creatie tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer niet perse nodig is als de complexiteit van een opgave puur in de techniek schuilt. De technische opgave is over het algemeen namelijk een duidelijke verantwoordelijkheid van de opdrachtnemer en de opdrachtgever is hier over het algemeen minder in gespecialiseerd. Daardoor zou zijn inbreng op dit gebied ook minder van belang zijn. Ligt de complexiteit van een opgave echter in de omgeving en de stakeholders, dan zou bij geïntegreerde contracten wel moeten worden ingezet op co-creatie. Volgens verschillende personen, heeft dit laatste namelijk een ruime inbreng van de opdrachtgever nodig. Dit zijn de projecten waar co-creatie tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer gewenst zou zijn. Een derde kenmerk wat duidelijk uit de gesprekken naar voren kwam is dat onder co-creatie, opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer elkaar als gelijkwaardige moeten zien en behandelen. Daarbij zou

70

Co-creatie is het op een interactieve en gelijkwaardige manier optimaal benutten, delen en versterken van kennis op basis van respect, vertrouwen en transparantie.

123

de identiteit van de organisaties van het begin tot het eind overeind blijven. Onder co-creatie zouden de partijen dus naar een horizontale relatie moeten streven: een samenwerking op basis van gelijkwaardigheid. Echter moet de betekenis van gelijkwaardigheid verder worden toegelicht. Met gelijkwaardig zijn wordt door de meeste personen bedoelt dat partijen elkaar gelijkwaardig dienen te behandelen, maar dat betekent echter niet dat de partijen gelijk zijn. Meerdere geïnterviewden beargumenteerden juist dat opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer willen co-creëren omdat ze ongelijk zijn. De invalshoek van gelijkwaardigheid lijkt onder de geïnterviewden te verschillen. Er zijn daarom diverse opmerkingen wat betreft gelijkwaardigheid gemaakt die elkaar aanvullen. Er zijn een aantal personen die duidelijk beweren dat opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer niet gelijkwaardig zijn, en dat ook niet hoeven zijn. Een van de juristen benadrukte dat als je kijkt naar de manier waarop Rijkswaterstaat gewend is te werken, er geen gevoel van gelijkwaardigheid heerst maar een gevoel van ‘wij betalen dus wij bepalen’. Een aantal personen beargumenteerde dat partijen gelijkwaardig worden als ze een gelijkwaardige inbreng en toevoeging aan tafel hebben. Hebben opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer een gelijke toevoeging aan tafel? Verder worden er door bijna alle geïnterviewden verschillende waarden genoemd die in relatie staan tot gelijkwaardigheid:     

Respect Vertrouwen Transparantie Openheid Interafhankelijkheid

In bijlage IV worden deze waarden verder toegelicht aan de hand van resultaten en kernuitspraken voortkomend uit de interviews. Een vierde kenmerk is het zoeken naar een passende oplossing voor verschillende partijen. De dialoog wordt daarbij door vrijwel alle personen benoemd als belangrijk medium. Een persoon beschrijft co-creatie als een zoektocht naar een gezamenlijk doel wat de individuele belangen niet bovenmatig schaadt en wellicht zelfs beide partijen beter maakt. Het gezamenlijke doel wordt dan ook door alle personen gekenmerkt als een voorwaarde voor co-creatie. Daarbij kwam uit de gesprekken naar voren dat de focus bij co-creatie op een korte termijn oplossing ligt waarmee partijen weer een stap verder komen. Een groot deel van de personen met wie gesproken is ziet een samenwerking in co-creatie dan ook als projectgebonden. Toch is dit niet voor alle personen een onderscheidend kenmerk en blijven de meningen hier over verdeeld. Samengevat zijn dus de volgende vier kenmerken van co-creatie naar voren gekomen uit de gesprekken met de praktijk:    

Samenwerking zo vroeg mogelijk in het project De oplossing voor een opgave is van tevoren niet bekend Partners zijn niet gelijk maar dienen elkaar gelijkwaardig te behandelen Focus is op het vinden van een oplossing die voor alle betrokken partijen passend is (d.m.v. dialoog)

124

Begrip co-creatie: beschreven aan de hand van kenmerken met uiteenlopende opvattingen

Bundelen van krachten Een eerste kenmerk waar de meningen over verdeelt zijn is in hoeverre de opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer de ‘krachten bundelen’. De krachten bundelen legt nadruk op de hiervoor genoemde complementaire competenties van partijen. Dronkers benoemd dit nadrukkelijk in zijn opinie stuk in Co-bouw. Echter zou Dronkers’ definitie van co-creatie volgens vele geïnterviewden te veel gericht zijn op het uitwisselen van alleen kennis. Co-creatie zou veel meer zijn dan dat. Echter waren er ook personen die zich hardop afvroegen of co-creatie wel gaat over het delen van kennis. Volgens een persoon zou dit helemaal niet de essentie van co-creatie zijn. Co-creatie zou veel meer gaan over het openstaan voor elkaars belangen en problemen. De volgende ‘krachten’ werden vele malen genoemd:   

Uitwisselen van kennis Uitwisselen van vaardigheden (en bijbehorende middelen) Uitwisselen van belangen en positie

In bijlage X worden deze krachten verder toegelicht aan de hand van resultaten en kernuitspraken voortkomend uit de interviews. De opvattingen laten een duidelijke verdeeldheid zien. Verdelen van verantwoordelijkheden opdrachtgever opdrachtnemer Een tweede kenmerk waar de meningen uiteenlopen is betreft het delen of verdelen van verantwoordelijkheden en risico’s onder een samenwerking in co-creatie. Om goed te kunnen samenwerken moeten partijen weten waar ze aan toe zijn. Op de vraag hoe opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer met risico’s en aansprakelijkheid onder co-creatie om moeten gaan is men nog zoekende. De meningen zijn hier duidelijk over verdeeld. Zo werd er door verschillende personen opgemerkt dat co-creatie suggereert dat wanneer je samen iets bedenkt je er ook gezamenlijk voor verantwoordelijk bent. Een aantal voorbeelden uit de gesprekken: 

Wat co-creatie in zich heeft, is dat je er echt samen verantwoordelijk voor bent.



Co-creatie heeft iets in zich van: Samen bedacht dus samen verantwoordelijk.



Wat mijn filosofie is waarom Dronkers de term co-creatie is gaan gebruiken is eigenlijk om dat co-creatie af te zetten tegen geïntegreerde contracten waarin je duidelijk een risico verdeling hebt. Dus hij wil eigenlijk meer de gemeenschappelijkheid in verantwoordelijkheid en risico’s. Dat verwijst dus heel erg naar allianties.



Hoe duidelijker je weet wat ieders verantwoordelijkheid is, hoe minder de kans op conflicten. Co-creatie vraagt eigenlijk om onduidelijkheid in contracten omdat partners dichter bij elkaar komen.

125

Tegelijkertijd wordt er door vrijwel alle personen beweerd dat co-creatie in beginsel onder elke contractvorm mogelijk zou zijn en dat er prima kan worden gecocreëerd ondanks dat verantwoordelijkheden tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer verdeeld zijn. Een aantal voorbeelden uit de gesprekken: 

Co-creatie wordt nu dus afgezet tegenover DBFM contracten, en dat is eigenlijk raar. Want de principes achter co-creatie kunnen ook onder een DBFM contract worden toegepast.



Wat ik probeer aan te geven is dat je ondanks een verdeling in verantwoordelijkheden heel goed kan meedenken met de problemen van de andere partij. Dit begin ik co-creatie te noemen.



Het is niet zo van we gooien alles op een grote pot en we gaan alle risico’s delen. Nee, je moet dit per onderdeel van een project flexibel kunnen verdelen. Binnen een grote opgave kan volstrekt helder zijn wie een verantwoordelijkheid draagt: typisch gevalletje verantwoordelijkheid opdrachtgever of juist opdrachtnemer.

Zo lijkt er dus een tweestrijd over co-creatie: Ben je compleet gezamenlijk verantwoordelijk voor het eindresultaat of niet? De opvattingen uit de praktijk wijzen uit dat het eigenlijk allebei een optie is. Vervolgens is daarom de vraag gesteld of een gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid niet moet worden gezien als een drijfveer voor co-creatief gedrag? Daarop waren alle personen het eens. Gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid zou daarom dus als een parameter voor co-creatie kunnen worden gezien. Wat echter uit de interviews naar voren komt, is dat gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid ook een groot nadeel met zich meebrengt. Zowel opdrachtgever als opdrachtnemer lijken gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid ‘eng’ te vinden. Hoewel het dus als prikkel voor co-creatie wordt gezien, heeft het als nadeel dat wanneer er fouten zijn gemaakt dit kan leiden tot onduidelijkheid omtrent aansprakelijkheid. De volgende uitspraak typeert dit probleem: 

Je moet de stresstest erop loslaten. Vraag je af, er is een gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid, het loopt fout, wat dan? Wie is aansprakelijk? Voor co-creatie is dit nog een zoektocht.

Daarop wordt door een aantal personen een oplossing voorgedragen: 

Maar uiteindelijk moet je een wollig begrip als co-creatie concretiseren naar hele specifieke zaken. En dat is bijvoorbeeld over de levensduur van een werk of product, daar kan je hele heldere afspraken over maken. Dit gebeurt dan ook al.



Je moet heel goed weten waar je het over hebt als het gaat over het delen van risico’s. Het delen van risico’s en verantwoordelijkheden gaat over de onduidelijkheden in de vraag. De discussie is niet dat een marktpartij dat kunstwerk moet betalen, nee, de discussie is dat er in de ontwikkeling van dat kunstwerk een aantal onvoorspelbare dingen zitten. Daarover spreken we met elkaar af dat we gezamenlijk verantwoordelijk zijn. Dan hebben we het niet over de productierisico’s maar over de ontwikkelingsrisico’s. Dit soort specifieke risico’s moeten helder in kaart worden gebracht. Over de onzekerheden in het project moet je afspraken maken. Omdat je bij een DBFM nergens risico’s deelt maar alles ver-deelt vallen daar af en toe te harde klappen op onzekerheden die naar de markt zijn teruggegaan. 126



Risico’s zijn anders belegd in co-creatie. Op het moment dat je over eenzelfde soort competenties beschikt praat je over een evenredige input- risico verhouding. Maar op het moment dat je een bedrijf nodig hebt voor een cruciaal onderdeel wat maar 5 % inspanning bedraagt, dan ga je anders om met de risico’s en aansprakelijkheid. De partij met maar 5 % input zal logischerwijs een groter risico moeten dragen.

Hieruit kan worden opgemaakt dat uit de gesprekken blijkt dat de risicoverdeling en aansprakelijkheden bij co-creatie over maatwerk gaat. Er moet een passende verdeling van risico’s en aansprakelijkheden worden ingepast die voor ieder project weer anders kan zijn. Doel van co-creatie Door ongeveer de helft van de geïnterviewden personen werd nadrukkelijk ingegaan op het doel van co-creatie. Hieruit kwam sterk naar voren dat co-creatie als doel heeft een hoger oplossend vermogen te creëren. Zoals het vierde kenmerk beschrijft is dit een oplossing die voor beide partijen passend is. Dit doe je door in dialoog ook het onbespreekbare bespreekbaar te maken. Een persoon kon dit mooi verwoorden: 

Bij co-creatie kom je op een pijnpunt, door te praten alsof je op de tandartsstoel zit, dat voel je even, dat is niet altijd leuk. Maar dan krijg je die zenuwbehandeling, en wordt het probleem dus wel opgelost.

Ook werd door een persoon, nadrukkelijk bezig met co-creatie in de GWW, beargumenteerd dat er alleen van co-creatie gesproken kan worden als dit zou leiden tot een product, werk of dienst dat het maatschappelijke waardenniveau omhoog tilt. Met betrekking tot de GWW zou volgens deze persoon het maatschappelijk waarde niveau kunnen worden uitgedrukt in sociale, economische en ecologische waarde. Als je kan aantonen dat een van deze waarden omhoog gaat dan spreek je van een geslaagde co-creatie, daarom is co-creatie zo hard nodig, aldus de persoon. Vervolgens wordt beweert dat samenwerking op zijn hoogst leidt tot het onderhoud van het bestaande waardesysteem dat we hebben. Co-creatie leidt tot het optillen en verbeteren van het waardenniveau. Op deze manier zet de persoon co-creatie af tegen samenwerking. Doorlopen proces bij het ontwikkelen van een definitie voor co-creatie in dit onderzoek Om een gevalideerd beeld van de praktijk te krijgen, zijn er twee interviewrondes afgelegd. Het doel van een tweede interviewronde was om de voorlopige resultaten uit de eerste ronde weer voor te leggen ter validatie. Zo is er ook tewerk gegaan ten einde een definitie van co-creatie in de GWW te formuleren. Er zijn in totaal drie definities voorgelegd. Hoewel uit de gesprekken bleek dat men zich prima in verschillende definities kon vinden, was er voor iedere definitie ook kritiek. Er is begonnen een definitie voor te leggen vanuit het perspectief van ‘leading client’ en aanjager van co-creatie tussen opdrachtgever – opdrachtnemer: Jan Hendrik Dronkers, DG Rijkswaterstaat. Gedurende de eerste interview ronde hebben 13 geïnterviewden personen op deze definitie gereageerd. Daaruit is een tweede definitie voortgekomen die is voorgelegd aan 11 personen in de tweede interviewronde. Deze definitie was echter erg breed geworden. Daarbij zou deze definitie niet onderscheidend genoeg zou zijn. Daarom is er in de tweede interviewronde, naast de tweede definitie nog een derde definitie voorgelegd, voortkomend uit de literatuurstudie. Ook deze definitie

127

gaf uiteenlopende reacties: sommige personen konden zich er goed in vinden terwijl anderen juist kritiek leverden. Onderstaand een overzicht van de definities met bijbehorend commentaar. Definitie 1: Startdefinitie vanuit het perspectief van Dronkers Co-creatie is een samenwerking waarbij publieke opdrachtgever/aanbesteder en private opdrachtnemer/gegadigde(n) op een interactieve en gelijkwaardige manier hun kennis optimaal benutten, delen en versterken op basis van respect, vertrouwen en transparantie. Op de vraag of de geïnterviewden zich konden vinden in de startdefinitie van Dronkers kwam het volgende naar voren:      

De definitie is erg op kennis gericht, co-creatie is meer dan uitwisselen van kennis Gelijkwaardigheid op gebied van kennis zou volgens sommige personen niet nodig zijn Een persoon mist het complementaire en wederzijds afhankelijke in de definitie De definitie mist nadruk op de oplossing De definitie heeft de actoren te eng geformuleerd (dit is echter de scope van het onderzoek) Ook zou de zakelijke kant niet zijn vertegenwoordigt in de definitie: hoe ga je om met risico’s, verantwoordelijkheden en aansprakelijkheid

Definitie 2: Voortgekomen uit commentaar eerste interviewronde Co-creatie betreft samenwerking waarbij publieke opdrachtgever/aanbesteder en private opdrachtnemer/gegadigde(n) op een interactieve en gelijkwaardige manier elkaars kennis, kunde, belangen en positie uitwisselen op basis van respect, vertrouwen en transparantie om zo op een eventueel (gedeeltelijk) gezamenlijk verantwoordelijke basis tot een efficiënter oplossend vermogen te komen. Op vraag of de geïnterviewden zich konden vinden in de tweede voorgelegde definitie voortkomend uit de eerste interviewronde kwam het volgende naar voren:   

De definitie zou niet onderscheidend genoeg zijn en kan ook een definitie voor een alliantie zijn De definitie zou te breed en wollig zijn Je zou co-creatie ook op onderzoek kunnen doen. Dit zou alleen co-creatie in een project vertegenwoordigen (dit is echter de scope van het onderzoek).

Definitie 3: Perspectief literatuur (Wierdsma) Co-creatie is de manier van samenwerken, waarin je accepteert dat je interafhankelijk bent, elkaar nodig hebt, en dat er verschillen zijn die je wederzijds respecteert. Op de vraag of de geïnterviewden zich konden vinden in de derde voorgelegde definitie van Wierdsma kwam de volgende kritiek naar voren: 

Deze definitie zou te smal en altijd van toepassing zijn. In ieder contract zal een opdrachtgever zeggen, ik kan dat niet zo goed, hij kan dat beter, ik ben van hem afhankelijk, dus ik werk samen. Maar dat zijn nog niet voldoende ingrediënten om het co-creatie te

128



noemen. Louter samenwerken zou volgens een van de personen niet voldoen aan cocreëren. Te weinig nadruk op een wederzijdse inbreng die je doet vanuit een gedeeld doel. Onder deze definitie zou ketensamenwerking en alliantie ook kunnen vallen.

Zo zijn er verschillende punten van kritiek en is er een diversiteit aan opvattingen over welke definitie co-creatie het beste zou beschrijven. Er is op dit moment vanuit de praktijk daarom nog geen eenduidige definitie voor co-creatie mogelijk. Drijfveren van co-creatie Naast het formuleren van kenmerken zijn de geïnterviewden gevraagd om aan te geven wat zij als drijfveren voor co-creatie beschouwen. Dit is van belang voor dit onderzoek omdat het aangeeft in hoeverre men het belangrijk vindt in te zetten op co-creatie. De wil van zowel opdrachtgever als opdrachtnemer om te gaan co-creëren heeft vervolgens invloed op de haalbaarheid van co-creatief gedrag in de praktijk. Het feit dat Dronkers ervan overtuigd is dat co-creatie de nieuwe manier van samenwerken is zegt nog niet dat de hele sector er zo over denkt. Waarom wil men co-creëren? De volgende drijfveren zijn gedurende de twee interviewronden naar voren gekomen. Het bewustzijn van opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer dat co-creatie bijdraagt aan het succes van een project. De belangrijkste drijfveer die uit de gesprekken naar voren is gekomen is dat men er bewust van moet zijn dat een samenwerking in co-creatie nodig is voor het behalen van de projectdoelen. Ongeacht wat de desbetreffende geïnterviewde precies onder co-creatie zou verstaan, het bewustzijn is door alle geïnterviewden bevestigd als drijfveer. Onzekerheid bij de opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer over een geschikte oplossing door de complexiteit van de opgave Een tweede drijfveer sluit aan bij het kenmerk dat de oplossing van te voren niet bekend is. De vaklieden gaven aan dat onzekerheid door de complexiteit van de opgave van invloed is op of de oplossing van te voren al bekend is of niet. Daarom zou een hogere complexiteit van de opgave een drijfveer zijn voor een samenwerking op basis van de kenmerken van co-creatie. Door de complexiteit zouden de partijen elkaar beter moeten begrijpen om tot een goede oplossing te komen. Ook als co-creatie niet zou beteken dat beide partijen een gelijkwaardige inbreng van kennis en kunde moeten leveren is complexiteit nog steeds een drijfveer om beter open te staan voor de belangen en problemen van de ander. Onzekerheid bij de opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer over een duurzame oplossing door de invloed van een sneller veranderende sector Uit de gesprekken kwam naar voren dat de sector vandaag de dag sneller verandert. Voorbeelden die gegeven werden waren onder andere technologische veranderingen, nieuwe informatiesystemen en de manier waarop de eindgebruiker het netwerk van infrastructuur in de toekomst gaat gebruiken. Om sneller te kunnen anticiperen op deze ontwikkelingen zouden opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer meer moeten investeren in het uitwisselen van kennis en expertise. Hoewel niet iedereen ervan overtuigd is dat uitwisselen van kennis en expertise de essentie is van co-creatie, zorgt een sneller veranderende sector er wel voor dat co-creatie kan helpen om beter te anticiperen op deze

129

veranderingen door de dialoog op te zoeken en beter op de hoogte te zijn van elkaars belangen en problemen in relatie tot deze veranderingen. Aanwezigheid van een hoger doel bij de opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer Als een project bijvoorbeeld een grote toevoeging aan ons maatschappelijk welzijn kan opleveren, zou de wil om zo’n project goed te laten slagen bij kunnen dragen aan de manier waarop we met elkaar samenwerken. Wat dit doel dan ook mag zijn (een ander voorbeeld dat gegeven werd is dat een opdrachtnemer nadrukkelijk had uitgesproken te willen laten zien dat ze instaat waren een DBFM contract te kunnen laten slagen), het hogere doel kan het effect hebben dat zowel opdrachtgever als opdrachtnemer beter met elkaar willen samenwerken om het project te laten slagen. Er zou daarom beter gezocht worden naar oplossingen die voor beide partijen passend zijn, zodat het project weer een stap verder komt. Door de bijkomstigheid van zo’n hoger doel zou met name beter naar elkaar geluisterd worden. Dit zou een drijfveer zijn open te staan voor de problemen en belangen van de ander. Echter moet de kanttekening worden gemaakt dat dit soort drijfveren heel individueel kunnen zijn. Er werd dan ook vaak gezegd dat het team waarmee je het project uiteindelijk gaat realiseren uitermate belangrijk is voor deze zachtere kant van co-creatie. Echter werd ook opgemerkt dat de harde kant (een realistische prijs, een goede aanbesteding, juiste verdeling van risico’s en verantwoordelijkheden) een voorwaarde kunnen zijn voor de zachtere kant, het met elkaar ‘verder willen komen’. Een ander hoger doel dat als drijfveer genoemd werd was dat het project een bepaalde mate van opwinding zou moeten hebben. Projecten die een uitdaging hebben die bij zowel de opdrachtgever als opdrachtnemer een sfeer oproepen van: “laten we deze uitdaging gezamenlijk aangaan”. Dit zouden uitermate geschikte projecten zijn om op basis van cocreatie met elkaar samen te werken. Voorbeelden van dit soort projecten zijn de Delta werken, Ruimte voor de rivier en de A2 Hooggelegen. Het vermogen van de opdrachtgever en de opdrachtnemer om slimme oplossingen te koppelen Zoals al eerder aangegeven, zou co-creatie volgens verschillende personen niet te hoeven betekenen dat partijen een gelijkwaardige inbreng van kennis en kunde leveren. Zo zouden verantwoordelijkheden dan ook verdeeld kunnen worden. Ondanks van een verdeling in verantwoordelijkheden zou co-creatie tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer toch kunnen leiden tot slimme ‘integrale’ oplossingen. Afhankelijk van de prikkels in een contract, zou een integrale oplossing de kosten voor een project kunnen verminderen. Om dit idee beter te begrijpen gaf een van de personen een goed voorbeeld: De A59 Rosmalen-Geffen betreft een DBFM-contract. De aannemer is dan ook verantwoordelijk voor het onderhoud van de snelweg. De omstandigheden binnen het DBFM-contract regelen dat de aannemer betaald wordt aan de hand van de beschikbaarheid van de weg. Dus beschikbaarheid is een driver voor de aannemer. Vanwege zijn verantwoordelijkheid voor het onderhoud, moet de aannemer het gras maaien gelegen in de middenberm van de snelweg. Echter moet de maaier de weg over om op de middenberm te komen. Hierdoor zou de beschikbaarheid van de snelweg afnemen. Hoe kan de aannemer de beschikbaarheid verhogen? Is het toegestaan om kunstgras te gebruiken? Het antwoord is nee. Maar, als de aannemer in staat is om de middenberm iets te verbreden zodat hij een ingang via een trap vanuit een viaduct kan ontwerpen, zal de beschikbaarheid van de weg niet hoeven te lijden onder het maaien van het gras in de berm. Dit klinkt als een perfecte oplossing, maar is het toegestaan in het kader van het tracébesluit? Als 130

opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer de ruimte hebben gecreëerd om dit soort beslissingen mogelijk te maken, kan een slimme oplossing werkelijkheid worden. Wel moet de opdrachtgever dan 'open' staan voor de beschikbaarheidsproblemen van de aannemer. Het delen van risico’s en verantwoordelijkheden door opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer om innovatie en openheid voor elkaars belangen en problemen te stimuleren Uit de interviews bleek dat het delen van risico's een drijfveer is voor het ontwikkelen van innovaties. Aangezien co-creatie volgens vele geïnterviewden als doel heeft een betere oplossing teweeg te brengen, heeft co-creatie een duidelijke relatie met innovatie. Een van de juristen beargumenteerde dat de bijkomende risico’s van een innovatie vaak groter zijn dan wanneer er voor een bestaande oplossing wordt gekozen. Bij DBFM contracten ligt de verantwoordelijkheid voor onderhoud initieel bij de opdrachtnemer. Juist het onderhoud van een innovatie zou veel onzekerheden met zich mee brengen. Gaat een nieuw product bijvoorbeeld 15 of 20 jaar mee? Hierdoor zouden opdrachtnemers de bijkomstige risico’s van een innovatie niet alleen aandurven. Als een innovatie wel degelijk zou kunnen leiden tot bijvoorbeeld grote kostenbesparingen, dan is het zonde als deze niet wordt doorgezet. De opdrachtgever zou in dit soort gevallen moeten overwegen mee te delen in de lusten en lasten die de innovatie met zich mee zou brengen. Daarbij werd genoemd dat als opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer “in hetzelfde schuitje zitten” door risico’s te delen, dit een stimulerende werking zou hebben voor het openstaan van elkaars problemen en belangen. Het zou daarbij ook voor een gelijkwaardige inbreng van kennis en kunde kunnen opleveren (een kenmerk dat door sommige personen is opgemerkt als voorwaarde voor cocreatie). Een van de geïnterviewden personen benadrukte dat voor co-creatie, partijen beter naar elkaar moet luisteren. Co-creatie vraagt dus om meer inspanning. Het zou veel eenvoudiger zijn om je zwakke punten niet te delen en alleen te streven naar het bereiken van de individuele belangen. In plaats daarvan zouden co-creërende partners hun individuele problemen aan het licht moeten brengen. Als de risico’s van een project verdeeld worden, zou het meer inzicht vereisen om te begrijpen dat het belang van de partner net zo goed een belang voor de eigen organisatie zou kunnen zijn. Hoewel opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer volgens vele personen prima kunnen cocreëren zonder dat risico’s gedeeld worden, geeft een situatie waarin risico’s wel gedeeld worden een stimulans voor bovengenoemd gedrag. Aan de andere kant moet worden erkend dat zowel de opdrachtgever als de opdrachtnemer heeft aangegeven voorzichtig te zijn met het dicht op elkaar samenwerken. Verschillende argumenten zijn daarbij naar voren gekomen. Het eerste argument betreffende nauwe samenwerking is dat als het mis zou gaan, het een moeizame strijd gaat worden om uit te vinden wie er nou uiteindelijk aansprakelijk voor zou zijn. Een tweede opmerking die naar voren kwam is dat de opdrachtgever zijn gezag zou kunnen verliezen als er te nauw met de opdrachtnemer wordt samengewerkt. De invloed van de drijfveren op de haalbaarheid van co-creatie in relatie tot de invloed van de keuze voor een aanbestedingsprocedure of contractmodel De vraag is in hoeverre deze drijfveren van invloed zijn op de haalbaarheid van samenwerken op basis van co-creatie. Daar kan geen eenduidig antwoord op gegeven worden. Wel is aangegeven dat deze drijfveren van invloed kunnen zijn. Ook roept dit de vraag op in hoeverre de naar voren gekomen drijfveren een grotere invloed hebben op de manier waarop we met elkaar samenwerken 131

dan de gekozen aanbestedingsprocedure of contractvorm. Hoewel sommige bovengenoemde drijfveren ook kenmerkend zijn voor de keuze van een aanbestedingsprocedure of een bepaald contract, zijn er volgens verschillende personen ook drijfveren die niets te maken hebben met bijvoorbeeld de contractkeuze maar wel van grote(re) invloed kunnen zijn op de haalbaarheid van co-creatie tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer. Co-creatie versus Ketensamenwerking Over het algemeen blijkt uit de gesprekken dat co-creatie moeilijk te onderscheiden is van ketensamenwerking. De volgende opmerkingen geven aan dat de praktijk moeite heeft de begrippen van elkaar af te zetten: 

De termen alliantie, ketensamenwerking en co-creatie zijn allemaal broertjes.



Als ik iets ga kopen bij de Albert Heijn, dan hoef ik echt niet te co-creëren. Ik wil gewoon wat afnemen. Daarentegen is de auto-industrie naar mijn mening de markt om te gaan cocreëren omdat er een hele keten van leveranciers met elkaar moet samenwerken. Een goede samenwerking tussen leveranciers kan precies leiden tot die ene innovatie waarom mensen die auto willen kopen.



Ik vind het erg lastig een verschil aan te duiden aangezien ketensamenwerking voor allerlei verschillende dingen gebruikt wordt.



Ketensamenwerking is een woord dat onder het plakkertje van co-creatie kan vallen.

Sommige personen deden een poging verschil aan te duiden. Als het verschil echter bij een volgend persoon werd voorgelegd ter validatie waren er redenen die de opvatting weer deed ontkrachten. Zo leek het af en toe een strijd van opvattingen en interpretaties en blijken daarbij ‘alle broertjes’ in de praktijk verschillende betekenissen te hebben. Onderstaand een aantal opvattingen waar niet iedereen een eenduidige mening over heeft: 

In co-creatie kom je vrijwillig bij elkaar terwijl je in ketensamenwerking in verplichting bij elkaar komt.



Co-creatie heeft meer focus op oplossend vermogen. Terwijl ketensamenwerking zijn focus op een soepeler proces legt.

Toch lijken er vanuit de praktijk ook een aantal verschillen te bestaan die stand weten te houden: 

Bij ketensamenwerking gaat het alleen om de groep mensen die het werk ‘fysiek’ doet: de keten. De opdrachtgever zit hier dus niet bij. Bij co-creatie kan de opdrachtgever er wel bij zitten.



Een verschil tussen ketensamenwerking en co-creatie is dat je bij ketensamenwerking wel verbonden bent met elkaar, maar vanuit de eigen fase of schakel werkt. Over het algemeen ben je dus meer fasegewijs aan het werk bent: het gaat om het optimaliseren, versoepelen en lijmen van verschillende fases of schakels aan elkaar. Terwijl je bij co-creatie, weliswaar ook vanuit verschillende achtergronden, competenties en belangen, echt gezamenlijk aan dezelfde fase of schakel gaat werken: je komt in dezelfde fase of schakel bij elkaar. 132



Ketensamenwerking staat ook voor project ongebonden samenwerken, dus niet alleen ten behoeve van een project. Dat is misschien iets waar ketensamenwerking verschilt van cocreatie.

Als laatste een opmerking van een van de personen die de opkomst van co-creatie in een groter geheel weet te plaatsen: 

Termen als alliantie, ketensamenwerking en co-creatie zijn allemaal broertjes. Het feit dat ze opkomen zegt iets over de worsteling van de sector over hoe je nou het beste met elkaar kan samenwerken.

Co-creatie voor de aanbesteding Onderzoek Samengevat kan uit de opvattingen van de praktijk gesteld worden dat co-creatie het beste haalbaar is nog voor de aanbesteding. Hier zou co-creatie op onderzoek heel veel op kunnen leveren. Niet alleen co-creatie tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer is hier interessant. Alle partijen (publiek, privaat, kennisinstellingen, brancheorganisaties) uit welke sector dan ook, zouden in proeftuinen en research projecten de effectiviteit van co-creatie optimaal kunnen benutten zonder vast te zitten aan een eindresultaat wat van te voren is vastgelegd in contracten. Hier heeft co-creatie met name een sterke link met (product) innovatie. Rijkswaterstaat zet hier op in door in samenwerking met Vernieuwing Bouw een research project op te zetten en co-creatie een fysieke plek te geven: de bouwcampus. Op het Spoor & Infra forum van Vernieuwing Bouw was er eind 2014 de discussie wat voor voorwaarden gesteld moesten worden om marktpartijen naar deze bouwcampus toe te krijgen. Uit het forum is gebleken dat dit nog een zoektocht is. Er lijken heldere afspraken nodig betreft een verdienmodel zodat partijen in een ‘veilig klimaat’ kennis kunnen delen en innovatieve producten of diensten kunnen verwezenlijken. Op het forum werd ook beargumenteerd dat marktpartijen moeten beseffen dat ideeën gedeeld moeten worden in plaats van achter gesloten deuren te houden. In het kader van dit onderzoek, is de focus op co-creatie tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer in GWW projecten. Onderzoek als hierboven beschreven staat daar buiten. Een project begint met het ontwikkelen van de uitvraag. Het ontwikkelen van de uitvraag Ook wordt er nog voor de aanbestedingsfase begint een uitvraag voor een project ontwikkeld. Afhankelijk van de opgave kan de uitvraag uiteenlopen van functioneel tot technisch gedetailleerd. Als de uitvraag ontwikkeld is wordt deze op de markt gezet, alvorens de aanbesteding kan beginnen. Uit de opvattingen van de praktijk kwamen de volgende belemmeringen voor co-creatie in relatie tot de uitvraag naar voren: Technisch of gedetailleerd uitvragen wordt nadrukkelijk bestempeld als belemmering voor co-creatie tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer gedurende het vervolg van het project. De aanbestedende dienst legt daarmee de oplossing vast voordat de opdrachtnemer überhaupt bekend is. Op deze manier komt de oplossing dus niet gedurende een interactief proces tot stand. Als de aanbestedende dienst de oplossing al in de uitvraag probeert te formuleren heeft dat volgens de geïnterviewde personen de volgende consequenties:

133



Hoe groter het aantal gespecificeerde eisen, hoe minder ruimte voor de opdrachtnemer om in samenwerking met de opdrachtgever nog te co-creëren.  Hoe groter het aantal gespecificeerde eisen, hoe groter de kans op verschil in interpretatie en of fouten in deze eisen.  Hoe groter het aantal gespecificeerde eisen, hoe groter de kans dat eisen elkaar gaan tegenspreken. N.B. Als een opdrachtnemer geen ruimte krijgt, dan zal hij zich qua ontwerp vooral onderscheiden op de prijs. Degene die wint, heeft dus waarschijnlijk laag aangeboden en gaat zich focussen op dit soort tegenstrijdigheden/fouten om uiteindelijk iets terug te verdienen. Om co-creatie tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer te stimuleren zou dus functioneel moeten worden uitgevraagd. Maar uit de gesprekken is ook gebleken dat naarmate de uitvraag functioneler wordt opgesteld, er ook meer onzekerheden optreden. Samengevat, werden de volgende problemen genoemd en bevestigd door alle personen geïnterviewd in de tweede ronde: 

Ruimte voor co-creatie tussen aanbestedende dienst en de gegadigden neemt af door een vroege goedkeuring en invoering van het tracébesluit. Een persoon benadrukte dat de aanbesteding van geïntegreerde contracten vaak pas begint als het tracébesluit is goedgekeurd. Met oog op functioneel uitvragen zou deze langer opengehouden moeten worden. Zo heeft de oplossing meer vrijheid zich te ontwikkelen gedurende een proces waarbij opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer gezamenlijk tot een resultaat kunnen komen. Echter kwam uit de gesprekken naar voren dat zowel opdrachtgever als opdrachtnemer voordeel ziet in een van te voren vastgelegd tracébesluit. De onzekerheid dat het tracébesluit gedurende het project niet word goedgekeurd blijkt met name voor de opdrachtnemer een groot risico. De goedkeuring van het tracébesluit kwam daarom naar voren als belemmering voor functioneel uitvragen.



Een tweede opvatting is dat er expertise nodig is voor het opstellen van heldere functionele gunningscriteria. Dit is niet per se een onzekerheid maar het kan het uitvragen wel duurder maken. Daarbij zou de beste expert er voor kunnen kiezen niet mee te willen werken aan de ontwikkeling van de uitvraag (kant van de opdrachtgever) omdat er een kans bestaat vervolgens niet meer mee te mogen doen aan de aanbieding (kant opdrachtnemer).



Daarbij zou door functioneel uitvragen de vergelijkbaarheid van biedingen afnemen doordat de ontwerpen enorm kunnen gaan verschillen. Echter zou je op deze manier ook juist meer nadruk kunnen leggen op de kwaliteit van een bieding. Volgens een expert op het gebied van aanbesteden zou een vergelijking nooit de uiteindelijke gunning moeten bepalen. Hoewel vergelijken kan helpen, moeten de gunningscriteria de uiteindelijke winnaar naar voren brengen.



Ook werd opgemerkt dat er soms aan de voorkant al zoveel vergunningseisen zijn opgesteld dat hierin veel bepaald is. Op papier lijkt er dan ruimte door functioneel uitvragen, maar als er naar alle vergunningseisen wordt gekeken blijft er weinig over. Dit is het publiekrecht, voorbeelden die werden gegeven zijn de omgevingswet en de waterwet.

Alle personen bevestigen wel dat, net als met co-creatie, functioneel specificeren nooit een doel op zich zou moeten zijn. Het zou heel goed kunnen dat het volstrekt duidelijk is wat er in een project gemaakt moet worden. Bij projecten waarin dit duidelijk is moet de uitvraag dan ook ver gevorderd bij de markt worden neergelegd zodat er gewoon gebouwd kan worden.

134

Aanbesteding – Co-creatie in vergelijking met de concurrentie gerichte dialoog Deze paragraaf geeft een samenvatting van wat er in de gesprekken is gezegd over co-creatie in de aanbesteding. Er kwam naar voren dat zowel opdrachtgever als opdrachtnemer in de aanbesteding de meeste moeite ondervinden te werken op basis van de kenmerken van co-creatie. Hoewel met name de juristen opmerkte dat er veel mogelijk zou zijn onder de concurrentie gerichte dialoog procedure, blijkt het moeilijk om open te zijn naar elkaar. De volgende redenen kwamen daarbij naar voren:    

Verschillende of zelfs tegengestelde belangen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer Zware competitie tussen de gegadigden Gebrek aan vertrouwen in geheimhouding en toepassing van regels voor ‘level playing field’ van de aanbestedende dienst Verantwoording van ‘het individu aan tafel’ naar achterban eigen organisatie

Een tweede opmerking wat duidelijk naar voren kwam uit de gesprekken is dat de gegadigden een vaste prijs moeten bepalen voor hun aanbieding in de aanbesteding. Het resultaat moet daarom al vroeg worden vastgelegd terwijl een kenmerk van co-creatie is dat de oplossing nog niet bekend is. Als gevolg worden grote ontwerpkeuzes, al dan niet opgelegd in specificaties, veelal zelfstandig en dus niet in co-creatie met de opdrachtgever gemaakt. Ook zorgt de prijsbepaling dat er minder ruimte overblijft voor co-creatie na gunning. Daarbij zou het, afhankelijk van de uitvraag, kunnen voorkomen dat de gegadigden geen ruimte hebben om voor te sorteren op een briljante oplossing. Bij een dichtgetimmerde uitvraag is de oplossing dus al voorgeschreven. Er blijft zo nauwelijks ruimte voor co-creatie over. Contractfase – Co-creatie in vergelijking met andere bouwcontractmodellen Volgens de geïnterviewden personen is het in beginsel mogelijk onder bestaande contractmodellen als het D&C contract, het DBFM contract en de alliantie te werken op basis van co-creatie. Echter zou het ene model zich beter lenen voor een samenwerking in co-creatie dan het andere. Deze paragraaf geeft een samenvatting van de belangrijkste opvattingen over co-creatie in vergelijking met deze contractmodellen. D&C contract Onder de Model Basisovereenkomst en de UAV-GC 2005 zou de betrokkenheid en inbreng van de opdrachtgever voor het bedenken van een oplossing te veel buiten beeld blijven, dit in vergelijking met het (al dan niet controversiële) kenmerk van co-creatie wat zegt dat een gelijkwaardige inbreng van krachten (kennis, kunde, middelen, belangen) een voorwaarde van co-creatie is. Krachten zouden gebundeld moeten worden voor het bedenken van een betere oplossing die voor beide partijen passend is. Een persoon zei daarop het volgende: 

Er is naar mijns inziens geen co-creatie zonder dat de partij die niet verantwoordelijk is voor een bepaald domein daar wel een procesmatige en/of inhoudelijke input of bijdrage aan levert.

De invalshoek van deze opvatting geeft aan dat volgens deze persoon co-creatie wel degelijk mogelijk is onder de basisovereenkomst en bijbehorende UAV-GC 2005 waar verantwoordelijkheden tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer verdeeld worden. Zoals een ander persoon al eerder opmerkte: 135



Ondanks een verdeling in verantwoordelijkheden kan een partij heel goed meedenken met de problemen van de andere partij. Dit begin ik co-creatie te noemen.

Verder zou er in de UAV-GC ook te weinig aandacht zijn voor de manier waarop opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer met elkaar communiceren. Ook dit is niet in lijn met het kenmerk van co-creatie dat stelt dat er moet worden gefocust op het vinden van een oplossing die voor beide partijen passend is. De Model Basisovereenkomst en UAV-GC zou een interactief ontwerpproces missen wat de verwachtingen en interpretaties van de eisen beter zou accommoderen. Als de opdrachtgever alleen een (functioneel) Programma van Eisen zou opstellen (eerste variant van artikel 5 Mbo) dan zou meer interactie tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer gedurende het ontwerpproces benodigd zijn. Daarom zou de eerste variant, in vergelijking met de andere twee, meer co-creatie uitlokken. Echter is er dus niet goed omschreven hoe het proces van interactie tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer op een goede manier kan worden ingevuld. Wel moet worden afgevraagd of bovengenoemde punten ook daadwerkelijk een belemmering zijn voor co-creatie. Het hangt er in ieder geval vanaf wat er precies onder co-creatie verstaan wordt. DBFM contract Vergeleken met het Design & Construct contract is er onder het DBFM contract nog meer verantwoordelijkheid naar de markt geschoven. De sterke verdeling in verantwoordelijkheden onder de DBFM geeft volgens verschillende personen geen prikkel de krachten te bundelen. Een van de personen zei hierover het volgende: 

DBFM en PPS zijn contraproductief aan co-creatie. Het zet twee domeinen neer dat streng gescheiden zijn. Bij co-creatie lopen deze domeinen in elkaar over.

Verschillende personen beargumenteerden dat onder sommige DBFM contracten de opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer te veel in hun eigen hokje kwamen te zitten. Het gevolg was dat de partijen uit elkaar zouden groeiden. Een opdrachtgever verwoorde dat als volgt: 

Je groeit uit elkaar en het contract verbind je niet meer maar doet je beide in positie brengen.

Toch is dit volgens vele geen reden niet open te staan of mee te denken met de problemen van de ander. In de praktijk lijkt dit kenmerk van co-creatie dus wel mogelijk ondanks een verdeling in verantwoordelijkheid en een ongelijke inbreng van kennis en expertise. Sommige DBFM projecten zijn dan ook een succes gebleken. Daarbij zou je onder het DBFM contract, net als bij de UAV-GC, prikkels voor co-creatie kunnen inbouwen door bijvoorbeeld een aantal risico’s of benutting van kansen te delen om zo binnen een bepaald domein toch meer focus te leggen op meer samenwerking. Risico’s kunnen dus binnen een DBFM gedeeld worden als opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer overtuigd zijn dat ze deze risico’s samen beter aankunnen dan alleen. Ook wordt aangegeven dat in vergelijking met de UAV-GC, het DBFM model zich positief onderscheidt door een extra prikkel voor co-creatie. De duur van het contract is namelijk veel langer (25-30 jaar). Dit zou volgens een aantal personen een gelijkwaardige relatie ten goede komen omdat partijen weten dat ze langer met elkaar door een deur moeten en er aan een duurzame relatie moet worden gewerkt. 136

Een laatste punt dat naar voren kwam heeft te maken met het kenmerk dat bij co-creatie de oplossing van tevoren nog niet bekend is. Co-creatie heeft daarom een sterke relatie met innovatie. Innovatie heeft volgens een van de geïnterviewde personen een hoger risicoprofiel. Onder een DBFM contract, met de maintenance aan de kant van de opdrachtnemer, zal het onderhoudsrisico van een nieuw product dus aanvankelijk bij de opdrachtnemer liggen. Een innovatieve oplossing zal voor de opdrachtnemer daarom een groter risico met zich meebrengen. In beginsel zal dit een opdrachtnemer kunnen weerhouden innovatief te zijn. Dit zijn domeinen waar de optie voor gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid besproken moet worden om innovatie en co-creatie te stimuleren dan wel niet te belemmeren. Alliantie Uit de gesprekken is naar voren gekomen dat co-creatie veel gelijkenissen heeft met de alliantie. Volgens een aantal personen, met nadrukkelijke ervaring in alliantie constructies, zijn de kenmerken van co-creatie onder een alliantie een vereiste. De alliantie zou een stap verder gaan dan co-creatie. Bij het opzetten van een alliantie vorm je een nieuwe geïntegreerde organisatie. Binnen deze organisatie (de alliantie) worden de risico’s, winsten en verliezen gedeeld. Voor een samenwerking in co-creatie zou het delen van risico’s, winsten en verliezen volgens verschillende personen geen kenmerk zijn. De organisaties zouden dan ook hun eigen identiteit behouden. Wel zou gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid een prikkel kunnen zijn voor het openstaan voor elkaar belangen en problemen: een kenmerk dat nadrukkelijk werd genoemd voor een samenwerking in co-creatie. De volgende kernopvattingen zijn hierover naar voren gekomen: 

Een alliantie veronderstelt co-creatie. Anders moet je er niet aan beginnen.



Alliantie is een contractvorm die dezelfde projectcriteria ondersteunt als co-creatie.



Onder een alliantie constructie is er met nadruk een procesmatige en inhoudelijke inbreng van zowel opdrachtgever als opdrachtnemer. Een alliantie kan niet zonder co-creatie. Om een alliantie te laten werken heb je de competentie van co-creatie nodig. Alle andere contractvormen kunnen in mijn definitie zonder co-creatie, met is beter, maar het kan ook zonder.

Een alliantie is dus bij uitstek geschikt voor co-creatie. Echter zijn er een aantal belemmeringen voor het opzetten van allianties uit de interviews naar voren gekomen: 

In beginsel mag het parlement beslissen of een overheidspartij deel neemt aan een alliantie. Er zijn grenzen voor overheidsparticipatie. Deze procedure kan daarbij lang duren. Dit staat beschreven in de comptabiliteitswet (Art. 32 t/m 39).



Het Alliantie denken is net als co-creatie anders, werknemers die dit niet eerder gedaan hebben lijken zich hiervan af te zetten. Opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer lijken het eng te vinden gezamenlijk op te trekken. Een alliantie zou daarbij meer management inspanning kosten in vergelijking met een ander geïntegreerd contract. Voor een Alliantie en ook cocreatie zijn daarom bepaalde type mensen nodig die zo willen werken.

137



Er zijn door de minister tot 2017 ongeveer 30 projecten aangewezen die vast staan DBFM te worden. Deze projecten zullen dus niet als alliantie worden uitgevoerd.



Er bestaat bij een alliantie een open risico einde. Volgens een opdrachtgever durven opdrachtnemers dit niet meer aan te gaan. De rek is er bij opdrachtnemers uit en zo’n risico zouden ze niet (meer) willen lopen.

Verschil in opvatting over co-creatie tussen verschillende groepen uit de praktijk Om een goed beeld te krijgen van wat de belangrijkste actoren uit de praktijk verstaan onder cocreatie zijn er gedurende twee interviewrondes verschillende soorten vaklieden uit de GWW geïnterviewd: 1. 2. 3. 4.

De publieke opdrachtgever: focus op Rijkswaterstaat De markt: aannemers en ingenieursbureaus Bouwrecht advocaten Brancheorganisaties en kennisinstituten

Het is interessant om te analyseren in hoeverre er tussen deze groepen opvallende verschillen in interpretatie over co-creatie zijn op te merken. Aan de hand van de tabel in bijlage X bleek dat er nauwelijks opmerkelijke verschillen te vinden zijn. Ook moet worden vermeld dat een aantal vaklieden aan beide kanten van de sector gewerkt hebben: als opdrachtgever en als opdrachtnemer. Daarbij werkt het ingenieursbureau tegenwoordig steeds vaker aan de kant van de publieke opdrachtgever ter ondersteuning van de aanbesteding. Een duidelijke scheiding tussen publiek en privaat is daardoor soms moeilijk te onderbouwen. Toch zijn er drie constateringen: 





In vergelijking met de publieke opdrachtgever legt de markt meer nadruk op de voorwaarde dat er in co-creatie een veilig klimaat moet zijn waarbij van te voren heldere afspraken betreft verantwoordelijkheid en aansprakelijkheid zijn gemaakt als basis voor een goede samenwerking. In het verlengde daarvan, legt de markt meer nadruk op het feit dat een ‘eerlijke aanbesteding’ met rechtvaardige prijs-kwaliteitsratio een voorwaarde is voor co-creatief gedrag gedurende realisatie. De publieke opdrachtgever legt op haar beurt weer meer nadruk op de gedachte dat cocreatie naast over het uitwisselen van kennis over het uitwisselen van vaardigheden en middelen zou moeten gaan.

138

Appendix III. Overzicht van naar voren gekomen kenmerken co-creatie Table 16. Overview of appointed characteristics during the interviews

A

P A

P A

P A

A

A

A

A

D

P

P D 1 5 4 3

2 9

P

P 2 9

P 3 9

P P P

P P P A

A P P

P P

7 1

? A A A A A A D

P

P

P

P P

P P A

P

A P

A P P

P P

P P D

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

P P A

P P A

? P

5 1

1 8

1

1

2 4

1

5 4

P A P 2 1

7 4

P P

P

P P P

P P A A A

P

A D A A A A

P P

P

P

A A A

?

A P

P

P P P ?

3

6

P P

5

3

P

P

A A

P P 4 6

Higher Solving capacity

Increase of social value

Common goal

Dialogue

Solution/result unknown in advanced A

P

P A

joint responsibility for (specific ) risks

Safe and fair environment

Exchange of interests

Exchange of competencies

Exchange of position

Exchange of resources

A A A A A A A

Exchange of skills

A A A A A A A

Exchange of knowledge

A A A A A A A

Interdependency

Transparency

? A ? D ? A A ?

Openness

trust

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Proposed (P) Agreed (A) Depends (?) Disagreed (D)

respect

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Objectives

equality

Interviewees

Characteristics

6

A 2 10

1 1

139

Appendix IV. Resultaten en kernuitspraken interviews, gerubriceerd naar aanleiding van voorwaarden en kenmerken van co-creatie. Deze bijlage heeft als doel de resultaten en kernuitspraken te bundelen naar indeling van voorwaarden en kenmerken van co-creatie. De resultaten laten zien of de personen zich kunnen vinden in voorwaarden en aspecten van co-creatie. Zijn de personen het met elkaar eens of heerst er een duidelijk verschil in opvatting? Vervolgens worden de belangrijkste opvattingen omtrent een voorwaarde of kenmerk gebundeld. Dit geeft een duidelijk overzicht van de verschillende opvattingen omtrent co-creatie in de GWW. Voorwaarden Vertrouwen In de eerste interviewronde waren 10 van de 13 personen het eens met Dronkers dat vertrouwen een voorwaarde voor co-creatie is. De andere 3 personen hebben hier niet klaarblijkelijk over geoordeeld. Er is 0 keer uitgesproken dat vertrouwen geen kenmerk is. Op basis van de resultaten van dit onderzoek kan daarom gesteld worden dat vertrouwen een voorwaarde van co-creatie is. Uitspraken: 

Als partijen complementaire competenties hebben is het veel moeilijker inschatten en oordelen wat de andere partij kan en doet. Daarom speelt vertrouwen bij co-creatie een grote rol.



Hoewel vertrouwen moet worden opgebouwd moet je bij co-creatie de insteek hebben elkaar te vertrouwen. Je moet elkaar het vertrouwen durven geven. Geef elkaar die ruimte, van beide kanten. Bewust zijn van dat vertrouwen nodig is.



We komen uit een sfeer van wantrouwen. Nieuwe wet op de aanneemovereenkomst in 2003 gaat over al die dingen die wij akelig vinden aan een aannemer: meerwerk, niet informeren, gegevens achterhouden etc. Je proeft de irritatie. In de UAVs wordt hier echter weer vanaf geweken. Dat mag, maar de wet aanneemovereenkomst wordt hierdoor eigenlijk niet gebruikt. Terwijl de nieuwe wet uit 2003 de verhouding tussen OG-ON harder wilde maken is dat dus niet gelukt. Dit geeft dus wel die slechte verhouding OG-ON aan. Co-creatie zou een antwoord kunnen zijn op die vijandelijkheid.

Transparantie In de eerste interviewronde waren ook 10 van de 13 personen het eens met Dronkers dat transparantie een voorwaarde voor co-creatie is. De andere 3 personen hebben hier niet klaarblijkelijk over geoordeeld. Er is 0 keer uitgesproken dat transparantie geen kenmerk is. Op basis van de resultaten van dit onderzoek kan daarom gesteld worden dat transparantie een voorwaarde van co-creatie is. Uitspraken: 140



Een voorwaarde voor co-creatie is dat aanbestedende dienst / opdrachtgever en gegadigden / opdrachtnemer tijdens iedere fase elkaars belangen transparant maken.



Voor co-creatie moeten we zorgen dat de belangen, en alles wat daar omheen speelt, heel transparant bij de markt komt te liggen. Dan kunnen we samen met de markt kijken welke oplossingen mogelijk zijn.

Respect In de eerste interviewronde waren ook 10 van de 13 personen het eens met Dronkers dat respect een voorwaarde voor co-creatie is. De andere 3 personen hebben hier niet klaarblijkelijk over geoordeeld. Er is in de tweede interviewronde nog een door 1 persoon voorgesteld dat respect een voorwaarde is. Er is 0 keer uitgesproken dat respect geen voorwaarde is. Op basis van de resultaten van dit onderzoek kan daarom gesteld worden dat respect een voorwaarde van co-creatie is. Uitspraken: 

Gelijkwaardigheid gaat dus ook over respect. Heb je die plek aan tafel, neem je die plek ook op je, vertegenwoordig je je achterban?



In succesvolle projecten heb je een team van professionals met respect voor elkaar die weten wat ze kunnen en wat ze niet kunnen.



Respect, transparantie en vertrouwen is de basis voor redelijkheid en billijkheid. Dit moet vanaf het begin. Hier ligt de verantwoordelijkheid bij de opdrachtgever.

Openheid In de definitie van Dronkers, voorgelegd aan de geïnterviewde personen in de eerste ronde, staat het begrip openheid niet beschreven. Het begrip openheid is niet voorgelegd aan de geïnterviewde personen in zowel de eerste als tweede interviewronde. Toch zijn er in twee interviewrondes 8 van de 18 personen die zelf hebben aangegeven dat openheid een voorwaarde voor co-creatie is. Er is geen persoon die heeft aangegeven dat openheid geen voorwaarde is. Hoewel niet alle personen dit kenmerk hebben benoemd of geïntroduceerd kan worden gesteld dat het begrip vanuit de praktijk duidelijk gerelateerd wordt met co-creatie. Uitspraken: 

Doordat je aanvullende competenties hebt, moet je ook meer openstaan voor elkaars competenties. Sterker nog, je moet op een andere manier openstaan voor elkaar. Anders dan wanneer je precies weet wat een andere organisatie kan, omdat je gelijke competenties hebt.



Het gaat niet alleen om delen van kennis, maar ook van openheid: inzicht geven in elkaars positie en belangen.

141



Het is lastig om je open op te stellen omdat je te maken hebt met een enorme achterban waar je verantwoordelijkheid aan moet afleggen. Je kan dus niet altijd open zijn.



Openheid ontstaat in een proces, niet door aan de voorkant te zeggen dat je open moet zijn. Door het werken ontstaat het, niet door er alleen maar over te praten.



Partijen moeten de intentie hebben vanaf het begin open te zijn naar elkaar.

Interafhankelijkheid In de definitie van Dronkers, voorgelegd aan de geïnterviewde personen in de eerste ronde, staat het begrip interafhankelijkheid niet beschreven. 3 van de 13 personen gaven toch aan het begrip te missen in de definitie van Dronkers. In de tweede ronde, is het begrip wel voorgelegd in de definitie van Wierdsma. 6 van de 11 personen gaf aan het eens te zijn met dit begrip. 4 personen hebben hier niet klaarblijkelijk over geoordeeld. 1 persoon gaf aan dat opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer al snel interafhankelijk zijn. Als partijen interafhankelijk zijn zou dat volgens de persoon nog niet betekenen dat er ook gecocreëerd wordt. Hoewel niet alle personen dit kenmerk hebben benoemd of geïntroduceerd kan worden gesteld dat een groter gedeelte van de personen dit begrip relateert aan co-creatie. De meningen lopen hierbij dus uiteen. Uitspraken: 

Met ‘Markt tenzij’ concludeerde de opdrachtgever: wij gaan op afstand staan, wij hebben regie. Maar Dronkers heeft ontdekt dat er naast ‘Markt tenzij’ ook een echte interafhankelijkheid bestaat. Het kan niet zo zijn dat de opdrachtgever op afstand blijft, de opdrachtnemer heeft de opdrachtgever iedere dag nodig. Deze interafhankelijkheid heeft Dronkers co-creatie genoemd.



In co-creatie zit ook iets complementairs, wederzijdse afhankelijkheid, dat mis ik een beetje in de definitie van Dronkers.



Co-creatie wil je niet perse doen als je te maken hebt met een hoge complexiteit als zodanig, maar je wil co-creëren in een project waar de mate van waarin je elkaar nodig hebt om de opgave tot een succes te kunnen brengen klaarblijkelijk aanwezig is.



Co-creatie is heel bewust met partijen, elkaars afhankelijkheden respecterend, tot oplossingen komen die voor beide partijen de functionaliteiten vertalen in passende oplossingen, binnen bepaalde tijd en geld.



De definitie van Wierdsma is te smal en altijd van toepassing. In ieder contract zal een opdrachtgever zeggen: ik kan dat niet zo goed, hij kan dat beter, ik ben van hem afhankelijk, dus ik werk samen. Maar dat zijn nog niet voldoende ingrediënten om het co-creatie te noemen. Louter samenwerken is naar mijn idee niet co-creëren. Te weinig op de inbreng die je doet vanuit een gedeeld doel.



In Nederland vinden we afhankelijkheid heel normaal. Denk aan lage waterspiegel, dijken. De Nederlandse maatschappij vraagt daarom om co-creatie.

142



Die interafhankelijkheid, dat vinden mensen spannend. Jeetje ik ben van hem afhankelijk, dat wil ik niet. Mensen willen nog onafhankelijk van elkaar acteren terwijl het daar niet meer overgaat.

Krachten Uitwisselen van kennis In de eerste interviewronde waren 8 van de 13 personen het eens met Dronkers’ definitie dat uitwisselen van kennis een kenmerk van co-creatie is. 2 personen gaven aan dat dit afhankelijk is van het soort project. 1 persoon gaf duidelijk aan dat kennis uitwisselen niet tot de essentie van cocreatie behoort. Hoewel een groter gedeelte het met Dronkers eens is, lijken de meningen hierover dus verdeeld. Uitspraken: 

In co-creatie is kennis de verbindende schakel tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer.



De definitie van Dronkers is te veel op kennis gericht.



Gelijkwaardigheid tussen opdrachtgever en opdrachtnemer op gebied van kennis is niet nodig.



Je spreekt pas van co-creatie als beide partijen aanvullende inzichten en kennis leveren.



Gelijkwaardig is het niet: Als wij de markt vragen te ontwerpen, kunnen we zeggen dat wij gelijkwaardige kennis inbrengen maar dat is niet zo. Zij ontwerpen en wij niet.



Daar waar wordt beweerd dat co-creatie over kennis delen gaat, denk ik dat dat helemaal niet de essentie is van co-creatie. Ik denk dat het veel meer gaat over openstaan voor elkaars kennis en bereid zijn als het gaat om innovaties daar ook risicodragend in te participeren. Ik geloof er niets van dat Rijkswaterstaat nou zoveel kennis heeft dat het haar kennis op een gelijkwaardige manier met de markt kan delen.

Uitwisselen van vaardigheden en middelen In de definitie van Dronkers, voorgelegd aan de geïnterviewde personen in de eerste ronde, staat de kracht ‘uitwisselen van vaardigheden’ (en bijbehorende middelen) niet beschreven. 2 van de 13 personen gaven toch aan de kracht te missen in de definitie van Dronkers. In de tweede ronde, is het begrip wel voorgelegd in de definitie die is voortgekomen uit de opvattingen omtrent co-creatie uit de eerste ronde. 6 van de 11 personen gaven aan het hiermee eens te zijn. De andere 5 personen hebben hier niet klaarblijkelijk een uitspraak over gedaan. 0 personen gaven aan het hier niet mee eens te zijn. Hoewel het uitwisselen van vaardigheden en middelen in vergelijking met andere kenmerken niet veel besproken is, wordt het door menig persoon geaccepteerd en gerelateerd aan co-creatie. Uitspraken:

143



Het klopt, maar neem als voorbeeld het tv-programma Voetbal International (VI). De mannen aan tafel hebben veel kennis over voetbal, maar als ze zelf een wedstrijd zouden spelen maken ze er een potje van. Ik mis dus de ‘goede voetballers’ die het daadwerkelijk kunnen doen. Met andere woorden, ik mis het vakmanschap. Co-creatie is krachten van partijen bundelen: Kennis, kunde, know-how. Dus niet alleen het ‘weten’ maar ook de ‘kunde’ en de ‘middelen’. Met middelen bedoel ik goede mensen of een boormachine.

Uitwisselen van belangen en positie In de definitie van Dronkers, voorgelegd aan de geïnterviewde personen in de eerste ronde, staat de kracht ‘uitwisselen van belangen en positie’ niet beschreven. 5 van de 13 personen gaven toch aan de kracht te missen in de definitie van Dronkers. In de tweede ronde, is het begrip wel voorgelegd in de definitie die is voortgekomen uit de opvattingen omtrent co-creatie uit de eerste ronde. 10 van de 11 personen gaven aan het hiermee eens te zijn. 1 persoon heeft hier niet klaarblijkelijk een uitspraak over gedaan. 0 personen gaven aan het hier niet mee eens te zijn. Op basis van dit onderzoek kan daarom gesteld worden dat het uitwisselen van belangen en positie als een kenmerk van co-creatie wordt gezien. Uitspraken: 

Inzicht geven in elkaars positie en belangen is een ‘key succes factor’ voor co-creatie.



In principe gaat co-creatie over dat je bereid bent met elkaar om de tafel te zitten i.p.v. dat je je advocaat erop afstuurt.



We zijn projecten aan het uitbesteden die niet echt werkbaar zijn. De een zit hier en de ander zit daar, je bent niet meer verbonden. Je groeit uit elkaar en het contract verbindt je niet meer maar doet je beide in positie brengen. Door te co-creëren probeer je elkaar inzicht in elkaars positie te geven zodat er weer naar een passende oplossing kan worden toegewerkt.



Co-creatie gaat over het communiceren van je eigen belang, positie, en daar open over zijn.

144

Appendix V. Overzicht van resultaten op gesloten op vragen Table 17. Results of closed questions and hypothesises procurement

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Vraag/Stelling [Aanbesteding]

Ja/Eens

Afhankelijk

Nee/Oneens

Kan aanbesteder in concurrente gerichte dialoog alle benodigde project specifieke kennis delen met gegadigde(n)? Kunnen de gegadigde(n) al hun benodigde kennis delen met aanbesteder?

3,4,6,9,10,11, 12,13 1,4,9,12,13

1,5

Zijn aanbesteder-gegadigde (n) tijdens aanbestedingsprocedure met concurrentie gerichte dialoog goed op de hoogte van elkaars belangen? Om gelijkwaardig te kunnen onderhandelen moeten OG en ON beter op de hoogte zijn van elkaars belangen. Onderhandelen over/vanuit belangen is een voorwaarde voor een goede relatie na gunning. Hoe groter het gezamenlijke belang, hoe beter er kan worden gecocreëerd.

4,9,13

Gedurende een aanbesteding in concurrentie gerichte dialoog zijn aanbesteder en gegadigde(n) gezamenlijk aan het ontwerpen? Belemmeren de huidige aanbestedingsregels dat er gezamenlijk kan worden ontworpen in de aanbesteding? Alle grote ontwerpbeslissingen / oplossingsgerichte keuzes worden al in de aanbesteding gemaakt. Publieke aanbesteder verliest steeds meer (technische) kennis. Aanbestedende dienst wil daarom ‘leren met de markt’ en heeft daarom behoefte om te co-creëren op basis van kennisuitwisseling. De gegadigde(n) hebben behoefte om te co-creëren. Ontstaat door de mogelijkheid van co-creatie in de aanbesteding meer en/of betere innovaties? De onderhandelingsprocedure wordt door publieke opdrachtgever ten onrechte vermeden. Hier zou vaker gebruik van moeten worden gemaakt

1,2,3,4,6,8,9 ,10,12,13 5,8,9,12,13

Resultaat

2

Geen antwoord 7,8

3,11

2,5,6,10

7,8

45% Ja

6,10,12

1,2,3,5,8

7,11

27% Ja

10

7,11

91% Eens

2, 3,4,7,11

83% Eens

1

72% Ja

1,3,4,5,6,9,10, 11,13 3,4,9,10,12

12=duidelijk

2

7,8

82% Eens

2,5

1,6,11,13

7,8

45% Ja

1,6

3

11,13

18% Ja

1,2,3,4,5,8,10, 12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8,9,12,13 6,9,12

9,13

2,4,5,7,8,9, 10,12 6

7,11

73% Eens

10

11

85% Eens

Je moet managen! 5,6,10

1,2,3,4,5,10, 13 2,9

7,8

27% Eens

3,7 4,7

36% Eens 85% Eens

8

12,13

1,2,3,4,5,6, 7

40% Eens

1,4,12,13 1,2,3,5,6,9,10, 12,13 9,10

Table 18. Results on closed questions and hypothesises contract phase Vraag/Stelling [Contractfase]

Ja/Eens 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ,9,12 7,8,10,12,13

10,11,13

7,10,12

13

1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10, 12 1,5,6,9,10,12,13

11,13

6

Co-creatie is net als BVP een denkwijze en kan daarom in beginsel altijd worden toegepast ongeacht de contractvorm. Daar waar de oplossing niet vanzelfsprekend is, zou door co-creatie tussen publieke OG en private ON (met gezamenlijke deling van lusten en lasten) de beste oplossing tot stand komen omdat marktpartijen een complexe en grootschalige innovatie pas aandurven te bieden als de risico’s in realisatie en gebruiksfase gedeeld worden. Flexibele afspraken over risicodeling gedurende DBM fases op basis van redelijkheid en billijkheid is een voorwaarde voor co-creatie. Hoe meer lusten en lasten er tussen OG-ON gedurende de contractfase gedeeld kunnen worden, hoe effectiever (op hoger niveau) er kan worden gecocreëerd. Door de over het algemeen ver gedetailleerde uitvraag in de aanbesteding is er in de contractuele fase nauwelijks meer ruimte om te co-creëren. Hoe complexer het project, hoe groter de effectiviteit van co-creatie.

7

Hoe langer de life-cycle in een contract, hoe meer er kan worden gecocreëerd.

8 9

Goed kunnen samenwerken is het belangrijkste gedurende realisatiefase. Beschikken over een efficiënt oplossend vermogen is gedurende een ontwerpfase belangrijker dan gedurende de uitvoering. Co-creatie is alleen aantrekkelijk voor de grote publieke opdrachtgevers. Als er door een gedetailleerde uitvraag weinig ruimte is voor co-creatie gedurende contractfase, doe het dan vooral niet.

1 2

3 4 5

10 11

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 ,9,10,11,12,13 2,3,4,6,7,8,9,11, 12,13 9,10,11,13 9,11 10,13 6,7,9,10,13

Afhankelijk

Nee/Oneens

3

Geen antwoord

Resultaat 77% Eens

1,2,3,4,5,6, 11

100% Eens

1,2,3,4,5,6,8, 11 7,8

75% Eens

4,7,8,11

88% Eens

82% Eens

100% Eens 5

10

1

83% Eens

10,12,13

1,2,3,4,5,7,8 1,2,3,4,5,7,8

80% Eens 40% Eens

9,11,12 12

1,2,3,4,5,7,8 1,2,3,4,5,11

40% Eens 71% Eens

12

8

145

Appendix VI. Interview met opdrachtgever X (geaccordeerd) Om een indruk te geven van de manier waarop de gesprekken gevoerd zijn, is een van de uitgeschreven interviews anoniem opgenomen in deze bijlage.

Te hanteren definitie van co-creatie in dit onderzoek 1.

In hoeverre bent u al bekend met het begrip co-creatie?

Wel bekend, co-creatie is samen dingen maken. Vorige definitie te eng geformuleerd. Naast kennis ook vakmanschap en middelen nodig. De kracht en de middelen om het te realiseren. 2.

Vanuit de context van dit onderzoek, kunt u zich vinden in de definitie voor co-creatie? Mist er nog iets? Ben ik volledig?

Het klopt, maar neem als voorbeeld VI, veel ‘kennis’ over voetbal, maar als ze zelf een wedstrijd zouden spelen maken ze er een potje van. Ik mis dus de ‘goede voetballers’ die het daadwerkelijk kunnen doen. Met andere woorden, ik mis het vakmanschap. Co-creatie is krachten van partijen bundelen: Kennis, kunde, know-how. Dus niet alleen het ‘weten’ maar ook de ‘kunde’ en de ‘middelen’. Met middelen bedoel ik goede mensen of een boormachine. Drivers 3.

Wat zijn vanuit uw discipline de drivers om te gaan co-creëren?

Je hebt iets van een hoger doel nodig waar mensen voor willen werken. Voorbeeld: Hooggelegen, maar ook ‘ruimte voor de rivier’. De doelstellingen van het project waren: A. Zorgen voor veiligheid mensen achter de dijken. B. Toevoegen van ruimtelijke kwaliteit: natuurontwikkeling, recreatie, mooie vormgeving. De ‘B’s waren doelen die mij als individu stimuleerde eraan te werken. Je moet een inspirerend doel/met maatschappelijk belang/relevantie hebben! Daarnaast is het belangrijk dat het ondersteund wordt door de belangen van verschillende partijen. En dan heb ik het niet perse over geld. Een belang kan ook een ontwikkelingsbehoefte etc. nodig. Een partij heeft altijd meer belangen dan het platste belang: ‘geld’. 4.

Ziet u ook gezamenlijke (OG-ON) drivers/belangen?

Bij Hooggelegen was een van de redenen dit te gaan doen dat de bouwfraude net was geweest. Partijen wilde dit niet meer en waren opzoek naar een andere manier van samenwerken. Dus mensen wilde meer dan alleen maar een project maken! Of een wit voetje halen bij de minister: goed voor het imago van het bedrijf. 5.

Welke tegengestelde belangen leveren de grootste spanning tussen OG-ON (respectievelijk aanbesteding, contractfase)? a.

Geld

b.

Per definitie geen gelijkwaardige verhouding in aanbesteding

c.

Vanwege publiek geld, staan de benodigde aanbestedingsregels co-creatie in de weg

d.

Bij alliantie achtige samenwerking loop je tegen allerlei juridische complicaties gedurende aanbesteding:

Kunt u een voorbeeld geven van zo’n juridische complicatie: Aan tafel niet vrij zijn om alles te zeggen i.v.m. level playing field. Randvoorwaarden voor co-creatie 6.

Wat zijn vanuit uw ervaringen als alliantiemanager nog meer voorwaarden/eisen aan co-creatie?

146

Je hebt professionals nodig die met elkaar iets moois willen maken. Daarmee moeten ze (niet volledig) de belangen van de eigen organisatie los kunnen laten zodat er ruimte ontstaat om nieuwe oplossingen te bedenken die uiteindelijk vaak beter zijn en de belangen van de eigen organisatie soms net zo goed of beter. Er is altijd macht en dat speelt altijd een rol. Het hoeft niet perse machtsvrij te zijn volgens mij. 7.

Is co-financiering de juiste prikkel een gezamenlijk doel te vinden? Zijn er andere contractuele prikkels die co-creatie meer ruimte geven?

Toch plezierig om samen geld in de pot te stoppen. Anders heb je direct een scheve verhouding. Maar het gaat niet alleen om geld, je moet ook wat in hebben te brengen (kennis en kunde). Zoals Douwe Egberts en Philips. Toegevoegde waarde hebben en elkaar daar in aanvullen/nodig hebben. Voorbeeld: Olympische spelen: Twee Nederlandse roeidames. Olympisch kampioen, jullie zijn dag en nacht samen, jullie zullen wel goede vrienden zijn? Nee helemaal niet, we hebben elkaar gewoon keihard nodig! Aanbesteding 8.

Welke aanbestedingsvorm (concurrentie gerichte dialoog, innovatieve partnerschap, anders) biedt volgens geïnterviewde de meeste mogelijkheden voor co-creatie en waarom?

Ik denk altijd iets waarin je de mogelijkheid hebt om met elkaar de dialoog aan te gaan. Aanbestedingsprocedure over het algemeen een handicap. Maar als je al in de aanbesteding de dialoog aangaat, zodat na gunning je al in de dialoogmodus zit en daarmee een gevoel van gelijkwaardigheid hebt opgebouwd dan is dat erg prettig. Dialoog helpt om gesprek aan te gaan: wat is moeilijk, waar zitten de risico’s? Echter kan de dialoog ook heel autoritair worden ingevuld. Dan is het dood in de pot. Onderhandelingsprocedure: Mogelijkheid is er wel, maar wordt niet benut door RWS. Ik zou niet weten waarom RWS hier zo weinig gebruik van maakt. Vraag aan RWS (Charles Petit): Waarom wordt er zo weinig gebruik gemaakt van onderhandelingsprocedure? Je zou je gunning wat naar voren willen halen als het project nog niet zo ver is uitgewerkt. En dan moet je dus niet alles dichttimmeren. Je zou na gunning meer mogelijkheden moeten hebben om te gaan co-creëren. 9. Welke juridische belemmeringen ziet geïnterviewde bij de verschillende aanbestedingsvormen? 10. Is aanbesteden eigenlijk wel goed te verenigen met co-creatie zoals dat in dit onderzoek gedefinieerd is? Het is een handicap, maar er is best wel wat te doen (de dialoog). Maar als je meer richting alliantie vorm gaat, we delen de lusten en lasten, in meer en mindere mate, dat helpt enorm om straks te gaan co-creëren. Ik beginsel moet co-creatie altijd kunnen, maar de ene vorm stimuleert het wat meer dan de ander. Als mensen willen, dan kunnen ze het wel voor elkaar krijgen. Maar mensen worden altijd gehinderd door geld, belangen etc. In de contractfase kan de OG met ON (mits het gelijkheidsbeginsel/wezenlijke wijziging/transparantie niet in het geding komt) zonder beperkingen voor open dialoog gaan co-creëren. 11. Hoe kan aanbesteder de uitvraag zo formuleren dat juist in de contractfase nog genoeg ontwerpvrijheid overblijft om te cocreëren? Om maatschappelijk draagvlak voor een project te krijgen, moet er heel veel uitgewerkt worden (planologische procedures zoals ruimtelijke ordeningsprocedures, tracewet procedure om tot besluitvorming te komen) dat je vaak al heel ver moet gaan in de uitwerking. Dit is een beperking, hierdoor blijft er minder ontwerpvrijheid over voor de fase daarna. Veel projecten hebben dat. Maar, bij sommige projecten (Project A2 Maastricht) hebben ze dit weten te ontlopen. Door ruimtelijke ordeningsprocedures te vervlechten met de aanbestedingsprocedures (dit maakt het wel ingewikkeld) met als resultaat meer ontwerpvrijheid! En dan zie je dat er slimme oplossingen uitkomt! Dit is zeer goed georganiseerd! Er is een spectrum van DO (definitief ontwerp) uitvragen tot functioneel uitvragen waar nog geen schets is gemaakt. Functioneel uitvragen geeft co-creatie na gunning de ruimte! Waarom gebeurd dit dan zo weinig? Wat zijn de nadelen van functioneel uitvragen?

147

Omdat je je gaat binden aan een partij terwijl je nog geen idee hebt wat je gaat doen, wat het gaat kosten en wat de stakeholders er van vinden.. Dat betekent eigenlijk dat in dit geval de publieke OG de markt daar gewoon niet genoeg voor vertrouwd? Beetje negatief maar ik denk dat dat wel speelt. En soms dat je nog niet weet wat je wilt. Dan weet je ook nog niet hoe dat maatschappelijk en politiek gaat verlopen. Het is te vroeg om zakelijke afspraken te maken. Dus is niet perse wantrouwen. Je gaat ook niet op dag 1 met elkaar trouwen.. Dus dingen hebben ruimte en tijd nodig om te ontstaan. Ergens moet je daarin de balans vinden. Hoe denkt u dat publieke aanbestedende dienst dat het beste kan doen? Kan per project verschillen maar is ook afhankelijk van het zelfvertrouwen van partijen. In de infra heb je altijd te maken met hele grote projecten waarin veel tegenstrijdige belangen aanwezig zijn. Er zijn altijd partijen die de nadelen van een project hebben. Daarom is co-creëren tussen een aannemer en leverancier veel gemakkelijker dan wanneer je in een maatschappelijke-politieke context zit te werken. Dus het is afhankelijk van de politieke en bestuurlijke context. Het moet ook passen in de groep mensen waarmee je zit te werken. Contractfase 12. Welk type contract/juridisch kader zou volgens de geïnterviewde de meeste mogelijkheden bieden voor co-creatie?  Geïntegreerde contracten onder de UAVgc  Alliantie contracten  DBFM(O)  Anders Alliantie contracten zijn simpelweg bedoeld om een gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid te dragen/te co-creëren. Bij de andere contracten kan je prikkels inbouwen voor co-creatie door bijvoorbeeld een aantal risico’s of benutting van kansen te delen om zo binnen een bepaald domein toch te gaan samenwerken en de lusten en lasten te delen. Je bent dus geen risico’s aan het VERDELEN maar aan het DELEN. Omdat je denkt dat je ze samen beter kunt aangaan dan alleen! Maar alliantiecontracten in allerlei vormen. Je kan ALLE lusten en lasten delen: Hooggelegen. Dit is vrij extreem. Maar je ziet ook contracten waar alleen binnen een bepaald domein de lusten en de lasten worden gedeeld. Hoe groter dat gemeenschappelijke domein, hoe makkelijker het wordt! Want als je zegt: we gaan vrijdagmorgen co-creëren en de rest van de week niet, dan wordt dat heel erg lastig voor mensen. Co-creatie zou dus in beginsel kunnen ongeacht de gekozen contractvorm. Maar door alliantie-achtige prikkels (in wat voor contract dan ook) in te voeren kom je hoger op de ladder van co-creatie? Ja, zo simpel is het. Maar als je contracten maakt waar geen ruimte/vrijheid meer is om te co-creëren, doe het dan ook niet. Doe dan niet net of je aan het co-creëren bent. Maar bij DBFM ben je heel erg bezig met het VERdelen van risico’s.. Ja en dat zit het toch wel een beetje in de weg. DBFM maakt het toch wel een beetje lastig. Traditionele rolverdeling OG ON. Is het daar het moeilijkst om het gezamenlijke belang te vinden? Ja. Maar ook al heb je je eigen taken en verantwoordelijkheden, je moet toch met elkaar samenwerken om deze verantwoordelijkheden tot een succes te brengen, je bent toch wederzijds afhankelijk… Je bent daarom altijd aan het co-creëren. Maar dus lager op de ladder! Daarbij is co-creatie niet zaligmakend! Denk bijvoorbeeld aan Michelangelo’s Sixtijnse Kapel. Er komen nog steeds honderden mensen per dag dit bekijken. Dit was alles behalve co-creatie! Dit was een hele dominante man waarbij iedereen zich moest schikken aan de dienst van zijn visie. Je kan prachtige dingen maken die niks met cocreatie te maken hebben. Wat ik bedoel te zeggen is dat er ook sectoren, projecten, doelen etc. waarin je absoluut niet moet co-creëren. Bij wat voor projecten zou er volgens u dan niet moeten worden gecocreëerd? Bij projecten waarin heel duidelijk is wat er gemaakt moet worden, uitvraag dus heel ver gevorderd. Geen gelul, nou moet er gewoon gebouwd worden. Als ik iets ga kopen bij de AH, dan hoef ik echt niet te co-creëren. Ik wil gewoon wat afnemen. De auto-industrie daarentegen is naar mijn mening DE markt om te gaan co-creëren omdat er een hele keten van leveranciers met elkaar moet samenwerken. Een goede samenwerking tussen leveranciers kan precies leiden tot de innovatie waarom mensen die auto willen kopen.

148

Er moet een grote uitdaging liggen van iets wat je alleen niet kan om dan die co-creatie te gaan zoeken. Als je iets nieuws wil ontwikkelen dan past co-creatie dus heel goed. Ja, het moet een beetje open liggen. Dus hoe minder complex de opdracht is, hoe minder de toevoeging van co-creatie. Precies. 13. Kunt u dit motiveren? 14. Kunt u ook aangeven welke specifieke juridische belemmeringen u bij genoemde contractvormen (met name alliantie) ziet voor co-creatie? 15. Hoe ziet geïnterviewde het spanningsveld tussen co-creatie en aansprakelijkheid in een alliantieachtig contract?

Als je samen ontwerpt, en je voert samen uit, dan ben je ook samen aansprakelijk. In dat opzicht is dat lastiger omdat het diffuser wordt dan wanneer je risico’s gaat VERdelen. Dus je moet dat heel goed regelen. Als het fout gaat, ook al spreek je af dat je samen verantwoordelijk bent, de brug stort in, zijn we dan nog steeds vrienden of gaan we toch een rechtszaak aan? Dit moet door jurisprudentie langzaam worden opgebouwd/helderder worden. Hoe kan je dat diffuse helderder krijgen? Wat we bij Hooggelegen bijvoorbeeld deden is dat we op de documenten beide partijen ook lieten tekenen. Is dat nou wantrouwen? Je tekent toch al als een team? Maar we dachten ook, dit is nieuw, dus 2 handtekeningen is toch sterker. Borgingsmiddelen om zo die gemeenschappelijkheid tot uiting te brengen! Dit trokken we volledig door naar uitingsvormen als een gemeenschappelijk projectlogo te gebruiken op mokken, vlaggen, kaarten noem maar op. Je moet er ook echt in gaan geloven dat je 1 partij bent? Ja, als je gemeenschappelijk wilt zijn, straal dit dan ook uit! 16. Wat voor afspraken zouden er moeten worden gemaakt mbt co-creatie tussen publieke OG en private ON over aansprakelijkheid van de uitvoering van onderaannemers down-stream in de keten?

Je ziet dat die alliantie ook wel z’n uitstraling heeft naar onder. Had positieve spin-off. Onderaannemers gingen op die manier ook een beetje mee. Maar, in het geval van Hooggelegen werd er door onderaannemers en leveranciers wel op de normale manier gewerkt. Dus lusten en lasten werden niet gedeeld maar ‘traditioneel’ verdeeld. Je zou die alliantie nog verder door kunnen zetten naar je leveranciers etc. We hadden het financieel ook niet doorgezet, dus dan blijft het traditionele. Dat wordt ook lastig om financieel door te zetten? Is ook zo. Bij Hooggelegen bedacht om ontwerpen gezamenlijk te doen, daar zag je vindingrijkheid. Maar dan sloot je af met werkpakketen. Daar komt een bepaalde prijs op te staan. Dus de uitvoeringsrisico’s was weer ieder voor zich, maar de ontwerprisico’s waren 50-50. 17. Wat zullen de toekomstige gevolgen van co-creatie tussen RWS en aannemer zijn voor een ingenieursbureau als RHDHV dat alleen kennis/advies als dienst verleend?

Een ingenieursbureau neemt een aannemer over om een sterkere speler te worden in het veld (Oranjewoud-Strukton). Maar over het algemeen beperken ingenieursbureaus zich tot het leveren van een dienst en zijn daarom dus ook zeer beperkt aansprakelijk. De ingenieursbureaus zijn aansprakelijk tot de hoogte van de financiële inbreng van de mensen en verder niet. Daarmee kun je niet zeggen, we worden samen verantwoordelijk. Is dus niet pro co-creatie. Als deze ontwikkeling zich doorzet, dan zal dat er toe leiden dat er veel meer coalities, fusies of overnames tussen aannemers en ingenieursbureaus moeten ontstaan. Maar als je kijkt naar de gehele markt zijn alleen de grote opdrachtgevers ( RWS, RGD, ProRail) de publieke partijen die groot genoeg zijn om echt aan die verandering van co-creatie mee te doen. Dat denk ik ook, voordat deze nieuwe visie op samenwerking door dreunt en gestandaardiseerd/ te behappen is voor de kleine opdrachtgevers (alle gemeentes) dat duurt nog heel lang?

149

Ja, misschien komt dat ook wel nooit. Je moet het vermogen hebben je anders te organiseren! Je kan ook zeggen, doe het niet, keep it simple. De grote gemeentes zoals Den Haag, Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Utrecht, die natuurlijk wel. Gesloten vragen - Co-creatie in de aanbesteding

1.

Kan aanbesteder alle benodigde project specifieke kennis delen met gegadigde(n)? (Ja/Nee) Beetje genuanceerd. In het kader van co-creatie zeg ik ja.

2. 3.

Kunnen de gegadigde(n) al hun benodigde kennis delen met aanbesteder? (Ja/Nee) Concurrentie gevoelige dingen Zijn aanbesteder-gegadigde (n) tijdens de aanbesteding goed genoeg op de hoogte van elkaars belangen? (Ja/Nee) Maar de dialoog is daar juist om erachter te komen

4.

Stelling: Om gelijkwaardig te kunnen onderhandelen moeten OG en ON beter op de hoogte zijn van elkaars belangen. (Eens/Oneens)

5. 6.

Stelling: Hoe groter de tegenstrijdige belangen, hoe moeilijker het is om te cocreëren. (Eens/Oneens) Je moet hem omdraaien! Ontwerpen de aanbesteder en gegadigde(n) al in de aanbesteding? (Ja/Nee) Maar aannemer is wel aan het onderzoeken. De aannemer ontwerpt wel, maar niet perse gezamenlijk! In de dialoog wel meer, want dan hoor je wat de ander belangrijk vindt.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Zo ja, belemmeren de huidige aanbestedingsregels dit? (Ja/Nee) Stelling: Alle grote ontwerpbeslissingen worden al in de aanbesteding gemaakt. (Eens/oneens) Hangt af van de uitvraag! Stelling: Aanbestedende dienst verliest steeds meer kennis (Ja/Nee) Stelling: Aanbestedende dienst heeft daarom behoefte om te co-creëren op basis van kennisuitwisseling. (Ja/Nee) Stelling: De gegadigde(n) hebben behoefte om te co-creëren. (Ja/Nee) Ontstaat door de mogelijkheid van co-creatie in de aanbesteding meer en/of betere innovaties? (Ja/Nee)

Gesloten vragen - Co-creatie in de contractfase

13.

Stelling: Hoe meer lusten en lasten er tussen OG-ON gedurende de contractfase gedeeld kunnen worden, hoe effectiever (op hoger niveau) er kan worden gecocreëerd. (Eens/oneens)

14.

Stelling: In de contractuele fase is er nauwelijks meer ruimte voor OG-ON om gezamenlijk te ontwerpen. (Eens/Oneens) Hangt weer af van de uitvraag!

15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Stelling: Hoe complexer het project, hoe “verticaler” de OG-ON relatie. (Eens/Oneens) Nee, ik vind dat dat dat niet moet zijn Stelling: Hoe complexer het project, hoe groter de behoefte tot co-creatie. (Eens/Oneens) Stelling: Hoe langer de life-cycle in een contract, hoe meer er kan worden gecocreëerd. (Eens/Oneens) Wordt er op het moment voldoende gebruik gemaakt van geïntegreerde software systemen? (Ja/Nee) Stelling: In beginsel kan co-creatie toegepast worden ongeacht de gekozen contractvorm. (Eens/Oneens)

Relatie contractvorm en samenwerken. Een contract is een verzameling van afspraken die je procedureel vastlegt volgens een bepaalde contractvorm. Samenwerken gaat over de manier waarop je de gemaakte afspraken met elkaar realiseert. Kortom, bij contracten gaat het om procedures, bij samenwerken om het proces tussen mensen (Rapportage evaluatie uitvoeringsfase A2 Holendrecht-Oudenrijn, 2010). Hier ben ik het niet mee eens. Het gaat altijd over 1.) de inhoud/resultaat wat er uit moet komen. 2.)Je hebt altijd processen of procedures hoe we met elkaar omgaan. 3.)En je hebt altijd een interactie tussen mensen. Wat je ook doet, ze zijn altijd alle drie aanwezig. In een contract gaat het ook over alle drie. Daar regel je ook hoe vaak een bouwvergadering plaatsvindt, dus hoe vaak de interactie plaatsvindt etc.etc.. Ik vind niet dat het ene de een is en het ander de ander Wat is oplossend vermogen? Is dat ontwerpen, is dat uitwerken, is dat beide? Is het alleen samenwerken? Oplossend vermogen is het allemaal. Je kan fantastische oplossingen bedenken, maar het moet ook uitgevoerd worden. In een goed ontwerp zit al een goed proces, alles gaat hand in hand! Deze vraag is belangrijk omdat gezamenlijk ontwerpen een gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid voor dat ontwerp als gevolg kan hebben. Dit brengt nieuwe complicaties met zich mee waar van te voren afspraken over gemaakt zouden moeten worden om een veilige omgeving voor co-creatie te conditioneren. Co-creëren gaat niet alleen over ‘zacht’ (samenwerken) het gaat ook over ‘hard’ (gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid). Als jij in het café met vrienden gaat drinken, dan praat je over alles en nog wat, maar je moet het ook hebben over wie, wanneer en hoe er wordt afgerekend. Je

150

hebt dus altijd die zakelijke kant! Die moet dan ook in je definitie terug te zien zijn. Het moet er allemaal in zitten, het gaat ook over die gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid. Co-creatie kan ook niet altijd leuk zijn! Daarbij kan het ‘zachte’ (mensen bijvoorbeeld aanspreken op hun gedrag/kwaliteit) veel harder zijn dan het harde! Je komt dus heel dicht bij hoe mensen in elkaar zitten. In deze sector zijn mensen opgeleid in de techniek en hebben vaak wat minder sociale kwaliteiten. 18. Zijn er nog meer redenen waarom er door Rijkswaterstaat vergeleken met ProRail zo weinig gebruik wordt gemaakt van het Alliantie-contract?

ProRail maakt ook geen juridische entiteit voor die projecten, ze hebben ook een constructie dat ze alliantie achtig samenwerken. ProRail heeft er overtuigd voor gekozen, zij geloven heilig in deze samenwerkingsvorm. Bij RWS is dat niet zo. Wat daar precies de reden voor is dat weet ik ook niet, je ziet wel dat RWS in een ontwikkelingsfase zit. RWS doet stinkende best doen om steeds uniform naar de markt toe te gaan. Mijn beeld is dat RWS eerst de D&B, DBFM contracten goed wil uitvoeren voordat ze weer iets nieuws willen doen. Niet te veel hooi tegelijk op de vork nemen. Ik denk dat dit wel een rol heeft gespeeld. Ik wil dit ook liever niet in de kranten hebben, want ik weet ook niet zeker of dat zo is. Maar als je naar de visie van Dronkers luistert, dan krijg je het idee dat in de hogere kringen van RWS de mening overheerst dat ook RWS nu meer richting dat Alliantie-achtige samenwerken moet. Dat is ook zo. Symposium Hooggelegen heeft hij dat ook gezegd. Ik zie dat hij met de organisatie naar Allianties zoekt. Dat geldt niet alleen voor projecten, maar ook met de waterschappen, ProRail. Het gaat dus ook weer over het delen van kennis, kunde, ervaringen en mensen. Daar komen allianties van de grond maar dat is dus niet met aannemers. Er zijn er dus een paar geweest en er zijn mensen bezig die Allianties op de kaart te krijgen, ook in Den Haag. Maar het is niet zo dat er al weer nieuwe Allianties op de markt worden gebracht. Er wordt over nagedacht, en wordt beleid op gemaakt maar in de praktijk zie je nog niet dat dit leidt tot een toename van het aantal Allianties in de bouw. U denkt dat dat tijd nodig heeft? Ja. En het heeft te maken met de ontwikkeling die er binnen RWS aan de gang is. En het is ook zo dat er hele goede dingen gebeuren, hele mooie projecten. Denk dus niet dat allianties altijd maar zaligmakend zijn. Ik denk dat een burger over sommige projecten in Nederland denkt van wauw, dat hebben ze mooi gemaakt! Gooit dit dus niet zomaar over boord. RWS is volgens mij wel de partij die met het initiatief komt voor co-creatie in de gww, toch? Ja de RGD, ProRail, RWS de grote partijen. Is er dan echt een probleem dat moet worden opgelost met co-creatie of zijn er dingen die gewoon beter moeten? Er zijn toch ook grote projecten die flink over de kop gaan, hun planning niet halen etc. Ja, maar ik denk dat dat de laatste tijd reuze mee valt. Laatste jaren stuk beter onder controle. Er zijn best wel verbeterslagen gemaakt. En dan kan je het hebben over co-creatie en allianties, maar dat moet zich ook nog maar bewijzen dat dat beter en goedkoper is. Co-creatie en alliantie hebben nog de verwachtingsvolle belofte dat dat misschien beter gaat. Maar als je straks 100 projecten zo gaat uitvoeren, zullen er ook echt wel 10 fout lopen. Ja, dan gaat het dus toch weer om het individu, de mensen binnen een projectteam? Ja, dat is zeker belangrijk. 19. Functioneel escaleren was een manier om een conflict (in hogere kringen) sneller op te lossen. Zijn er nog meer van dit soort methodes toegepast?

Dat is inderdaad een manier om een probleem niet te lang te laten sudderen. Er is een heel scala. Mensen blijven soms veel te lang met een probleem zitten. Ik ben zelf ook bouwreflector geweest. Google: Bouwreflectie, dat je reflecteert op samenwerking, houding en gedrag tussen OG-ON en dat je kijkt of mensen daarvan bewust zijn en of ze daar vervolgens wat aan willen doen. Vroeg stadium signaleren zodat het niet verder uit de hand loopt. Ik ben een voorstander dat mensen meer getraind worden op sociale vaardigheden, communicatie vaardigheden etc. Daar zitten soms zwakke plekken. Op het moment dat je een probleem benoemt dan gaat het bewegen en komt het vaak al goed.

151

Wordt de kracht (=oplossend vermogen) van co-creatie groter in de fase waarin meerdere partijen grote en belangrijke tegengestelde belangen hebben? Dus niet alleen in de relatie OG-ON, maar dat er nu ook nog eens andere grote partijen een belang hebben bij een bepaalde keuze en dus druk zetten op een contract van buitenaf? Ja, helemaal mee eens. Ik denk dat het verdeel en heers (OG-ON) zijn beperkingen heeft, dat je op een gegeven moment niet meer tot nieuwe oplossingen komt. Co-creatie helpt daarbij. Ik ben het niet met je eens dat we de relatie OG-ON inmiddels hebben geïnstitutionaliseerd. Je hebt gelijk dat deze relatie volledig is geëvalueerd, maar dat betekent niet dat het door iedereen ook zo wordt uitgevoerd. Hetzelfde als wanneer je verliefd bent o fzo. Je kan het wel beschrijven, maar als je het niet hebt ervaren. Dat zijn twee verschillende dingen. Elke generatie of individu moet weer opnieuw in valkuilen trappen en zijn eigen leerervaringen opdoen.. 20. Geloofd u in co-creatie? Ziet u co-creatie als een nieuwe visie? Wat maakt co-creatie anders dan bijvoorbeeld pps, ketensamenwerking? Of is het voor u een mode-woord die mensen weer opnieuw moet leren nadenken over hoe we het beste met elkaar moeten samenwerken?

Ja ben er groot voorstander van, maar niet altijd. Ik zelf ben het type mens dat in zo’n soort samenwerkingsconstructie het meeste plezier uit mijn werk haal. Het is maar net hoe je een samenwerkingsvorm een naam geeft. Denk je dat co-creatie een modewoord is om mensen opnieuw te laten nadenken? Volgens mij zijn het van die termen die het goed doen, want bijna iedereen wil samenwerken. Co-creatie heeft een positieve lading/emotie. Maar geen mens weet wat het precies is. Maar je moet wel met elkaar regelen van wie doet nou wat? En op die manier kan je ook last ondervinden van zo’n vage term. Ziet u daarom belang dat mensen mijn onderzoek lezen, zodat ze wel weten wat het betekend? Absoluut, het is die bewustwording die belangrijk is. Dat mensen zich beseffen van, waar zijn we nou eigenlijk mee bezig. Vaak denken mensen daar niet over na.

152

References Adcock, R. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of knowledge: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Open Road Media: Soho, NY, USA. Bloemendaal, & Van der Geest. (2011). A2 Hooggelegen - Het Experiment: Veerkracht. Bogers, M., Afuah, A., & Bastian, B. (2010). Users as innovators: a review, critique, and future research directions. Journal of management. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis (Vol. 248): London: Heinemann. Chao-Duivis, M. (2013). Bouwrecht in kort bestek: Instituut voor Bouwrecht. Chao-Duivis, M., Janssen, J., Samkalden, R., Kortmann, C., Ten Have, F., & Glaser, M. (2007). Verkenning van de mogelijkheden tot toepassing van ALLIANTIES door Rijksgebouwendienst. Chao-Duivis, M., Koning, A., & Bruggeman, E. (2010). A Practival Guide to Dutch Building Contracts (Vol. 2nd edition): Instituut voor Bouwrecht. Chao-Duivis, M., & Wamelink, J. (2013). Juridische aspecten van ketensamenwerking: Naar een multidisciplinaire benadering (Vol. 41): Instituut voor Bouwrecht. Chao-Duivis, M., Suy,W., & Meijerink, N. (2015). De hybride vraag van de opdrachtgever: Een onderzoek naar flexibele verdeling van ontwerptaken en –aansprakelijkheid in de relatie opdrachtgever-opdrachtnemer: Instituut voor Bouwrecht (IBR). Checkland, P. (1985). From optimizing to learning: A development of systems thinking for the 1990s. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 757-767. Checkland, P. B. (1989). Soft systems methodology. Human systems management, 8(4), 273-289. Deloitte, IBR, & Stibbe. (2007). Handleiding bij toepassing van allianties door Rijksgebouwendienst. Dhondt, S., Broekman, C., van der Torre, W., van de Berg, C., & Wiezer, N. (2013). Co-creatie van organisaties met consumenten. M en O: Tijdschrift voor Management En Organisatie, 67(5), 107-124. Dronkers, J. (2013). Voor Rijkswaterstaat is co-creatie de toekomst. Cobouw. Europa Decentraal. (2014a). Innovatief aanbesteden. Retrieved 3-10-2014, from http://www.europadecentraal.nl/onderwerpen/aanbestedingen/innovatie-en-aanbesteden/ Europa Decentraal. (2014b). Notitie nieuwe Europese aanbestedingsrichtlijnen. European Union. (2014). DIRECTIVE 2014/24/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL. Official Journal of the European Union. Forster, E. M., Das, G. K., & Beer, J. B. (1979). EM Forster: a human exploration: centenary essays: MacMillan Publishing Company. Gergen, K. J. (1992). Organization theory in the postmodern era. Hegger, D., de Boer, Y., Offermans, A., Merkx, F., Dieperink, C., Kemp, R., . . . Corvers, R. (2013). Kenniscocreatie: naar productieve samenwerking tussen wetenschappers en beleidsmakers. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Kooistra, J. (1988). Denken is bedacht. Culemborg: Giordano Bruno. Koolwijk, J. S., & Geraedts, R. P. (2006). Projectalliantie: procesinnovatie bij complexe bouwprojecten: VSSD. Koppenjan, J., Veeneman, W., Van der Voort, H., Ten Heuvelhof, E., & Leijten, M. (2011). Competing management approaches in large engineering projects: The Dutch RandstadRail project. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6), 740-750. Lenferink, S., Tillema, T., & Arts, J. (2013). Towards sustainable infrastructure development through integrated contracts: Experiences with inclusiveness in Dutch infrastructure projects. International Journal of Project Management, 31(4), 615-627.

153

Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications (Vol. 29): Addison-Wesley Reading, MA. Maldonado, P. E., Maturana, H., & Varela, F. J. (1988). Frontal and lateral visual system in birds. Brain, Behavior and Evolution, 32(1), 57-62. Mertens, P. (2006). Leiderschap en nodale oriëntatie, Kennisprogramma Leiderschap en Maatschappelijke Integriteit, Bijdrage voor studiedag, Politieacademie. Nagelkerke, M., Oehler, J., Muntz-Beekhuis, J., & Van der Staay, D. (2009). De concurrentiegerichte dialoog: Een handreiking op basis van de ervaringen tot nu toe van de Rijksgebouwendienst, Rijkswaterstaat en Defensie: Rijksoverheid. Noordhuis, M., & Vrijhoef, R. (2011). Ketensamenwerking in de bouw RRBouwrapport 139. Zoetermeer: Stichting Research Rationalisatie Bouw. Peikoff, L., & Ward, J. (1993). Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand: Mind Assoc. Pijnacker Hordijk, E., van der Bend, G., & van Nouhuys, J. (2004). Aanbestedingsrecht: Handboek van het Europese en het Nederlandse Aanbestedingsrecht [Procurement Law: Handbook of the EU and Dutch Procurement Law]: The Hague, the Netherlands: Sdu. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2002). The co-creation connection. Strategy and Business, 50-61. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers: Harvard Business Press. Ramaswamy, V. (2011). It's about human experiences… and beyond, to co-creation. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 195-196. Rijkswaterstaat. (2014a). Een inspirerende leefomgeving maken we samen. Dagverslag RWS marktdag 2014. Rijkswaterstaat. (2014b). Publiek-private samenwerking. Retrieved 28-10-2014, from http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/over_ons/missiekerntaken/publiek_private_samenwerking/ Rijkswaterstaat. (2015). Contracten GWW. Retrieved 23-01-2015, from http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/zakelijk/zakendoen_met_rws/werkwijzen/gww/contracten_g ww/ Spekman, R. E., Kamauff Jr, J. W., & Myhr, N. (1998). An empirical investigation into supply chain management: a perspective on partnerships. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 3(2), 53-67. Swieringa, J., & Wierdsma, A. (1992). Becoming a learning organization: Beyond the learning curve: Addison-Wesley Wokingham. van der Horst, H. (2013). Aanbestedingswet 2012 Tekst en Toelichting. Amsterdam: Berghauser Pont Publishing. Verschuren, P., Doorewaard, H., & Mellion, M. (2010). Designing a research project: Eleven International Publishing. Volberda, & Oortwijn. (2013). Sociale innovatie in de ingenieursbranche - Belang, voordelen en aanpak van sociale innovatie. Deltek. Volberda, H., Jansen, J., Tempelaar, M., & Heij, K. (2011). Monitoren van sociale innovatie: slimmer werken, dynamisch managen en flexibel organiseren. Tijdschrift voor HRM, 1, 85-110. Volberda, H., Van den Bosch, F., & Heij, K. (2013). Re-inventing Business: Hoe bedrijven hun business model innoveren. Assen: Van Gorcum. Volberda, H. W., Heij, C. V., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Jansen, J. J. P. (2012). Erasmus Concurrentie en Innovatie Monitor 2011-2012: Nederlandse bedrijven investeren meer in radicale innovatie. Rotterdam: INSCOPE Research for Innovation. Wierdsma. (1999). Co-creatie van verandering: Eburon Uitgeverij BV. Wierdsma, A. (2011). De principes van co-creatie. Centric Magazine Overheid, 10, 8-11. Wikipedia. (2014). Co-creatie. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design: Intellect Books.

154

Winsor, J. (2010). Flipped: How Bottom-up Co-creation is Replacing Top-down Innovation: Agate Publishing.

155

A study on the feasibility of co-creation between client and contractor in the infrastructure sector

Recommend Documents