The aim of this study is to explore company–consumer collaboration in the innovation process through the practice of interactive crowdsourcing. This type of crowdsourcing lies within the co-creation process and is characterized by close interactions between the two categories of actors. To pursue our aim, we draw on the concept of “boundary object,” developed within sociology. This concept can help understand the dynamics of interactions and collective action among disparate actors. The study’s findings show that boundary objects and boundary negotiating artifacts facilitate the exchange of knowledge and expertise between the world of companies and the world of consumers. They also highlight the role of these objects in revealing influence and power games liable to generate disappointment and tensions between actors. The study sheds new light on the advantages, limitations, and challenges of a co-creation process.
Aarikka-StenroosLJaakkolaE (2012) Value co-creation in knowledge intensive business services: A dyadic perspective on the joint problem solving process. Industrial Marketing Management4(1): 15–26.
2.
AkrichMCallonMLatourB (1988) A quoi tient le succès des innovations. Gérer et Comprendre97(11): 4–17.
3.
AndersonE (1985) The salesperson as outside agent of employee: A transaction cost analysis. Marketing Science4: 234–254.
4.
AnjembeE (2014) La projection d’usage des TICs La composition de fictions axiomatiques au service de la recherche technologique. Thesis in Political Science en, Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Grenoble.
5.
ArnouldEJ (2005) Animating the big middle. Journal of Retailing81(2): 89–96.
6.
BadotO (2000) Le recours à la méthode ethnographique dans l’étude de la fonction d’une entreprise de distribution, le cas McDonald’s. In: Proceedings of the 5th research day in marketing de Bourgogne, Dijon, pp. 7–28.
7.
BaronSWarnabyG (2011) Individual customers’ use and integration of resources: Empirical findings and organizational implications in the context of value co-creation. Industrial Marketing Management40: 211–218.
8.
BarrettMObornE (2010) Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Human Relations63(8): 1199–1221.
9.
BendapudiNLeoneRP (2003) Psychological implications of customer participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing67: 14–28.
10.
Bergvall-KårebornBHowcroftD (2013) The Apple business model: Crowdsourcing mobile applications. Accounting Forum37: 280–289.
11.
BoutetM (2010) Innovation par l’usage et objet-frontière, Les modifications de l’interface du jeu en ligne Mountyhall par ses participants. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances4(1): 87–113.
12.
BrabhamDC (2008) Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: An introduction and cases. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies14(1): 75–90.
13.
BrabhamDC (2010) Crowdsourcing: A model for leveraging online communities. In: DelwicheAHendersonJ (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Participatory Cultures, pp. 2–22.
14.
BrabhamDC (2012) The myth of amateur crowds: A critical discourse analysis of crowdsourcing coverage. Information, Communication & Society15(3): 394–410.
CallonM (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay. In: JohnL (ed.) Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 196–223.
17.
CarlilePR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science13: 442–455.
18.
CarlilePR (2004) Transferring, translating, and trans-forming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science15: 555–568.
19.
ChanKYimWKLamSK (2010) Is customer participation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures. Journal of Marketing74: 48–64.
20.
ChiocchioFForguesD (2008) Le rôle des objets-frontières dans l’apprentissage et la performance d’équipes d’étudiants travaillant à des projets de conception de bâtiments. Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire5(3): 6–21.
21.
CovaBCovaV (2009) Faces of the new consumer: A genesis of consumer governmentality. Recherche et Applications en Marketing24(3): 81–100.
22.
DjelassiSDecoopmanI (2013) Customers’ participation in product development through crowdsourcing: Issues and implications (Special issue on – Business models – Exploring value drivers and the role of marketing). Industrial Marketing Management42(5): 683–692.
23.
DjelassiSDecoopmanI (2015) Les facteurs de non-participation au crowdsourcing créatif: Quid des professionnels et des non-professionnels du monde de la création? In: Proceedings of the 31st congress of the AFM, Marrakesh, Morocco, 20–21 May.
24.
DongBEvansKRZouS (2008) The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science36(1): 126–137.
25.
FavreauELemoineJFRothY (2014) Travail ou pas? L’autonomie des participants au crowdsourcing et ses implications juridiques. In: 7th study days TIC – Information et Stratégies de la Société Française des Sciences de l’Information et de la Communication, Nîmes, October.
26.
FisherDSmithS (2011) Cocreation is chaotic: What it means for marketing when no one has control. Marketing Theory11(3): 325–350.
27.
GebauerJFüllerJPezzeiR (2013) The dark and the bright side of co-creation: Triggers of member behavior in online innovation communities. Journal of Business Research66: 1516–1527.
28.
GoffmanE (1974) Les rites d’interaction. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
29.
GoodwinC (1988) “I can do it myself”: Training the service consumer to contribute to service productivity. Journal of Services Marketing2(4): 71–78.
30.
GranjouCMauzI (2009) Quand l’identité de l’objet- frontière se construit chemin faisant. Le cas de l’estimation de l’effectif de la population de loups en France. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances3(1): 29–49.
31.
GrönroosC (2011) Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory11(3): 279–301.
32.
HopkinsR (2011) What is crowdsourcing? In: SloanP (ed.) A Guide to Open Innovation and Crowdsourcing. Londres: Kogan Page.
HoweJ (2008) Crowdsourcing. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
35.
KaufmannNSchulzeTVeitD (2011) More than fun and money. Worker motivation in crowdsourcing – A study on Mechanical Turk. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth Americas conference on information systems, Detroit, MI, 4–7August.
36.
KleemannFVoßGGRiederK (2008) Un(der) paid innovators: The commercial utilization of consumer work through crowdsourcing. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies4(1): 5–26.
37.
KnorrK (1995) Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In: JasanoffS. (eds) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. London: SAGE, pp. 140–166.
38.
KrippendorffK (2003) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 2nd edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
39.
LatourB (1989) La Science en action (Translated from English by BiezunskiM). Paris: La Découverte.
40.
LebratyJFLobre-LebratyK (2013) Crowdsourcing. London: John Wiley & Sons.
41.
LeeCP (2007) Boundary negotiating artifacts: Unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)16(3): 307–339.
42.
LeimeisterJMHuberMBretschneiderU. (2009) Leveraging crowdsourcing: Activation-supporting components for IT-based ideas competition. Journal of Management Information Systems26(1): 197–224.
43.
LévyP (1997) Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. New York: Plenum Trade.
44.
MarjanovicSFryCChatawayJ (2012) Crowdsourcing based business models: In search of evidence for innovation 2.0. Science and Public Policy: 1–15.
45.
MeadGH (1934) L’esprit, le soi et la société. Paris: Presse Universitaire de France.
46.
MeyerM (2009) Objet-frontière ou projet-frontière? Construction, (non-)utilisation et politique d’une banque de données. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances3(1): 127–148.
47.
MilesMHubermanAM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
48.
MladenowABauerCStraussC (2014) Social crowd integration in new product development: Crowdsourcing communities nourish the open innovation paradigm. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management15(1): 77–86.
49.
NambisanSBaronRA (2009) Virtual customer environments: Testing a model of voluntary participation in value co-creation activities. Journal of Product Innovation Management26: 388–406.
50.
NeffGFiore-SilfvastBDossickCS (2010) A case study of the failure of digital communication to cross knowledge boundaries in digital construction. Information, Communication & Society13(4): 556–573.
51.
NobletJPParentR (2006) L’enrôlement des parties prenantes dans un processus d’innovation technologique en contexte éducatif: un campus virtuel comme “objet-frontière.” In: Proceedings of the conference of the association de sciences administratives du Canada (ASAC), Banff, AB, Canada, 3–6 June.
52.
PayneAFStorbackaKFrowP (2008) Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science36(1): 83–96.
53.
PéninJ (2008) More open than open innovation? Rethinking the concept of openness in innovation studies. Working paper no. 2008-18. Strasbourg: BETA.
54.
PeretzH (2004) L’observation. Paris: La Découverte.
55.
PoetzMKSchreierM (2012) The value of crowdsourcing: Can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas?Journal of Product Innovation Management29(2): 245–256.
56.
PrahaladCKRamaswamyV (2004) Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy & Leadership32(3): 4–9.
57.
PrpicJShuklaPPKietzmannJH. (2015) How to work a crowd: Developing crowd capital through crowdsourcing. Business Horizons58: 77–85.
58.
RémondetM (2009) Objets-frontière à l’épreuve – La trajectoire du collectif autour de l’essai de thérapie génique DICS-X. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances3(1): 103–126.
59.
RenaultS (2013) Travailler pour des fèves de cacao. Crowdsourcing ou pourquoi les organisations jouissent de la contribution des “Oompa-Loompas. Gestion2000: 67–86.
60.
RocherS (2008) De l’implantation à l’appropriation d’un outil de gestion comptable dans le secteur public local: une approche interactionniste. Comptabilité-Contrôle-Audit14(1): 49–68.
61.
SchenkEGuittardC (2011) Towards a characterization of crowdsourcing practices. Journal of Innovation Economics1(7): 93–107.
62.
SmithDManeshMMAlshaikhA (2013) How can entrepreneurs motivate crowdsourcing participants?Technology Innovation Management Review: 23–30.
63.
StarSL (2010) Ceci n’est pas un objet-frontière! Réflexions sur l’origine d’un concept. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances4(1): 18–35.
64.
StarSLGriesemerJ (1989) Institutional ecology, “translations,” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals on Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science19(3): 387–420.
65.
TrompettePVinckD (2009) Retour sur la notion d’objet-frontière. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances3(1): 5–27.
66.
TrompettePVinckD (2010) Retour sur la notion d’objet-frontière (2) – Fécondité de la notion dans l’analyse écologique des objets innovants. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances4(1): 11–15.
67.
VargoSLLuschRF (2008) Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science36: 1–10.
68.
VerchèreCAnjembeE (2010) De la difficulté de fabriquer des objets-frontières. Le cas d’un projet de conception exploratoire. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances4(1): 1–35.
69.
WengerE (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
70.
WengerE (2000) Communities of practice: The key to knowledge strategy. In: LesserELFontaineMASlusherJA (eds) Knowledge and Communities. Boston, MA; Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
71.
WhitlaP (2009) Crowdsourcing and its application in marketing activities. Contemporary Management Research5(1): 15–28.
72.
WilliamsonOE (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: The Free Press.
73.
YeWXuPJiaY. (2012) Crowdsourcing for open innovations. Applied Mathematics & Information Sciences: 741–747.
