New Changes in Organizational Design to Instigate Co-creation Dynamics and

Innovation: A Model Based on Online Multiplayer Games

M. Panizzon1, L. B. Roldan1, M. A. Menegotto1, E. C. H. Dorion2
1

Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul/Universidade de Caxias do Sul, Porto Alegre/Caxias do Sul, Brazil
mpanizzo@ucs.br; lucas.roldan@pucrs.br; margamenegotto@hotmail.com; echdorion@gmail.com

a hub model that integrates and connects communities,

including the possibility of creating economic value. The basic
premise of a multiplayer game is that it allows multiple
players to participate (synchronously or asynchronously) in
the same game. Furthermore, this model currently
demonstrates its potential in generating profits. A report
produced by Digi-Capital on the current size of the global
gaming market, shows that mergers and acquisitions in this
sector produced for $ US $ 4 billion in 2012, while 38% were
generated by multiplayer games companies.
Since any economy extends itself up to a companys level,
it can be compared and observed that in several online
multiplayer games, the transactions of buying and selling to
occur in various environments, where the product created by
the players fit with the market value. Furthermore, a
multiplayer game provides its own evolution as a social
organization, where the players continually promote
improvements, customizations and changes to their rules of
operation from its combination of knowledge and interaction
with each other. Consequently, a multiplayer online game
constitutes an organization in constant change. A multiplayer
game has a different development scheme than an individual
game play style. Jos Pablo Zagal [1], in the late twentieth
century, brought this reflection for the first time and promoted
the following research problem What should be considered
when designing a multiplayer game? At the time of the
article, if multiplayer games were scarce, as discussed by the
authors, the definition of multiplayer today is set as a decisive
aspect in a game format, with a characteristic responsible for
its perpetuity or not. In fact, any multiplayer feature triggers a
series of dimensions that change the dynamics of the operation
of the game, and at the same time, can be a source of
innovation for organizations, when the online multiplayer
games models are confronted with the design of the
organizations.
This paper explores how the principles of electronic
multiplayer games can become an important mechanism for
dynamic co-creation and innovation for the organizations. To
establish a line of reasoning, a series of theories of
organizational design models, business networks and design of
online multiplayer games will be developed. Therefore, the
research question is which dimensions emerge due to the
feature of online multiplayer games and what elements
could alter the dynamics of organization-customer
relationship in a co-creation process?
It is understood that there is an ongoing research in the
studies related to the Internet, as a part of the co-creation
process, which has been explored and developed; however, in
the field of games, its is a research gap and it is still
considered as unexplored and incipient. In a paradigm shift,
the internet could be perceived as a platform for customer
engagement in product innovation in a process of co-creation
[2,3]. However, since such a platform allows an active
participation, either through emotional involvement or product
design, it still would not offer the same level of participation

Abstract This theoretical article proposes a Closed Cycle

Model of Online Dynamic Co-Creation (ODCC). Its an open
innovation model based on the principles of online multiplayer
games development for organizations in Business to Client (B2C)
context, as an alternative to promote Dynamic Online Cocreation and Innovation. Online multiplayer games have the
propriety to evoke dimensions that combine knowledge creation,
sense-making, loyalty, sense of community, interaction and
emotion, which are essential for continuous and dynamic process
of co-creation. This model opens the possibility that from the
moment the players community in a virtual environment, linked
to the organization, becomes a strategic asset for co-creation and
innovation, the games industry can serve as a new paradigm for
organizational design, going beyond purely entertainment.
Keywordsco-creation, open innovation, multiplayer games,
organizational modeling, strategy

I.

INTRODUCTION

This theoretical article proposes an open innovation model

based on the principles of online multiplayer games
development for organizations that implement Business to
Client (B2C), as an alternative to promote Dynamic Online
Co-creation and Innovation. In support of these arguments, a
contextualization and development on the theoretical field of
electronic games are developed with the purpose of
establishing a interface with the field of organization's design
and the mechanisms of co-creation.
In a period from classic games of the 80s to the
multiplayer phenomenon of the beginning of the XXI century,
electronic games have evolved significantly over the past 30
years, as well as their insight into organizations and the
business models in the field of games. A study from the
Global Games Market Report (2013) shows that the
projections of the game design market in 2016 will be U.S$ 86
billion. From this perspective, there is a thriving field for
research and development. In this context, the evolution of
electronic game design does not only present a technological
point of view, through the improvement of their graphic
elements for example, but gets into a deeper level of
understanding, in terms of conception design of a game,
particularly in terms of the level of interaction with the user
and between users. In this sense, the in-depth study of the
principles governing the new electronic games can contribute
to identify the elements that can generate a brand new
reflection on the functioning of organizations, specifically
when it comes to the elements of co-creation and innovation.
In essence, electronic games were initially conceived and
developed to have an individual player. They were designed
for a single individual to interact with the game. However,
with the advent of the Internet, the category of multiplayer
online games caused a massive structural change in the field,
where games were developed to be a simple script platform
programmed to generate temporary entertainment, to become

978-1-4799-5529-9/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE

467

Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE ICMIT

that a multiplayer game provides. These elements are

important to generate motivation, to engage and to maintain a
longer lasting, cyclic and dynamic co-creation process. For
example, the case of World of Warcraft shows that two
specific economic features emerge from this environment:
firstly, through the process of co-creation, where the original
content is produced by a gamer with its intellectual property
and, secondly, where the interaction of creation does not only
take place before the launch of the product (game), but still
continues after its release, in the form of continuous
interaction [4]. Then, such motivation and behavior are
important to be analyzed, since it affects the ability of cocreation [5].
However, the process of co-creation, which lies in a
dimension of product development, cannot be dissociated
from the organizational dimension, taking into perspective
aspects of models, strategies and processes. Partly, because
user interaction in the games industry can improve firm
performance (organization, business model) [6,7]. In that
context, what needs to be considered as organizational design
is an issue that was sought to be answered in different ways
for more than 70 years from the theories of administration. In
a more endogenous and mechanized perspective of the
organization per se, both the organic approaches for
enterprise networks and the principles in the field of
organizational design have evolved over time. These changes
are being driven by transformations in the dynamics, and the
conditions set up by the external environment of the
organizations: competition, cooperation, coopetition and cocreation. Therefore, it is relevant to investigate these elements,
since they affect organizational design and its capacity for
creativity and co-creation.
This paper is divided into three sections: the first part
elaborates on the aspects of the traditional organizational
design; the second refers to the network approach, and the
third brings a discussion on game design. Each approach
constitutes an element of the final model.
II.

common requirements of different organizations in different

states. The authors also believe that the organizational
structure is used to handle two types of relationships: (1) the
liability, which is responsible for what, and (2) the authority,
who reports to whom. Such a structure is conventionally
represented by a tree in which two-dimensional boxes
represent the responsibilities and hierarchy, and the lines
represent the flow of authority.
Cooperation between companies has aroused great interest
in the academic and the business community, through growing
increase in strategic alliances [12]. In this context, emerge the
concept of virtual organization, which represents an
association of independent organizations (partners), has
appeared strongly to share resources and skills, and to achieve
common goals such as exploring an opportunity [13]. There
are four principles that govern the design of the virtual
organization. The first is to create boundaries around a
temporary organization with external partners, where the
organization can look like a separate entity, in a joint venture.
The second refers to the use of technology to connect people,
goods and ideas. More too often, virtual organization is not
palpable in terms of separate offices, facilities and other
infrastructure, as it only exists in people's minds. The third
proposes that each partner brings its domain of excellence to
support the new form of structure; and the fourth one points
out the importance to seize opportunities and dissolve the
partnership when needed, absorbing the provided learning
[13].
The virtual organization offers to companies the ability to
move swiftly to exploit a favorable market opportunity. As
they are collaborative, it involves having skills in order to
generate new opportunities and profits, but also to share risks
and losses [14]. Virtual design also allows a company to
provide an extension of a product that would be impossible
otherwise and also jointly leverage organizational assets that
are distributed among the partners. Another virtual advantage
is the manner that an organization can be easily dissolved or
absorbed as the opportunity for collaboration disappears [14].
Virtual organizations are used to exploit a market opportunity
through partnerships with complementary organizations. This
happens because usually an organization does not have all the
necessary skills to meet the particular need of a market, so it
needs to find partners to reach their objectives (these could
even be competitors). Consequently, a virtual organization is a
strategic mechanism that generates temporary partnerships,
enabling the combination of knowledge, technology
appropriation, and flexibility. Therefore, its fundamental to
the process of co-creation, and mostly in the multiplayer game
context. It can be dissolved when necessary, without losing the
base knowledge that was built. Once the interactions occur
through digital means, records of communications are in
explicit knowledge. In this sense, the format of a virtual
organization becomes potentially suitable as a basis of cocreation environment. However, the type of interaction that
should occur in this environment is what will be discussed in
the following section, since a virtual organization can be
modeled in terms of competition or cooperation and
coopetition.

MODELING COMPETITION

The first studies dealing with organizational design aim at

modeling organization to competition. More turbulent are the
environments in which organizations are embedded, more
stability they seek. However, those organizations generally fail
to realize that their only equilibrium in a turbulent
environment is their dynamism. Consequently, in turbulent
environments, institutions and companies require to be able,
ready and willing to adapt themselves [8]. For the companies
actually competing in this market, it is essential that they have
established a more organic structure; proposing more than just
an organizational structure, but a complex pattern of
interactions and coordination that link technology, the tasks
and the human components of the organizations, to ensure that
they achieve their objectives. Part of the reflection of this
paper is to understand organizational design as a way to
facilitate the flow of information within the organization and
to integrate it in order to reduce uncertainty in decision
making [9].
More frequently, the organizations need to co-evolve in
changing environments; facing uncertainty and seeking
innovation through new forms of partnership [10,11].
However, the organizations are complex and dynamic
nonlinear systems that do not grow in a steady and predictable
manner. For the authors, organizational design is part of a
social architecture that is constituted by a set of drawings that
can be used to build a real structure, which constitutes a
representation of an idea that may constitutes a valid base for

III.

MODELING COOPERATION AND COOPETITION

After the analysis of the organizational design field linked

to competition, the concepts of networks with a focus on
cooperation and coopetition are introduced. In an economic
perspective, networks constitute organizational forms that are
ranging from a complete hierarchical integration to a total
individuality in the market [15]. Bringing the term

468

Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE ICMIT

"networking" in a social context, it can be defined as "a set of

actors who have been lasting relationships with repeated
exchanges one another and, at the same time, with no
legitimate organizational authority to arbitrate and resolve
disputes that may arise during the exchange "[16]. This
definition suggests that an organizational network has
longstanding relationships between the actors and the absence
of established authority to regulate these relations. Any
network structures that have such logic of their own, with
unique advantages, reach levels of integrity that cannot be
achieved in a dichotomous relationship of market-hierarchy
[16].
However, since both economist and sociologist are known
as correct, they studied, even so, only part of the subjects [17].
For the authors, networks can acquire both organizational
forms. The differences in structure and purpose first raise
partial hierarchy-market characteristics, such as joint ventures,
which can be guided in structural coordination mechanisms,
using contracts to avoid any kind of opportunism. On the other
hand, some networks may be based on social links, where the
actors do not consider opportunism as a determinant and seek
trust, reciprocity and mutual help as a basis for their relations.
The concept of networks of companies relates that they are
long-term purposeful arrangements among distinct, but
related individual profitable businesses, that allow each firm to
gain or sustain competitive advantages over their competitors
outside the network [18]. In an attempt to provide a better
understanding of the diversity of types of networks, was
developed a framework [19] called conceptual orientation
map, which indicates the main dimensions of networks and
how they are structured. The authors introduce, on a vertical
axis, the nature of the relationship between the network
participants [20]. The relations can either be established by
cooperation or hierarchy. Cooperation relations are generally
practiced by businesses of micro, small and medium size,
configuring networks of horizontal cooperation. The
conceptual model introduces a horizontal axis, which
represents the level of formalization in the existing network.
The relationships between the actors within a network can be
configured by a level of informal interaction, without the
existence of rights and duty's contracts such as alliances, or by
a level of formal relationships, established through contractual
documents, which regulate the relationship between the parties
in the business networks.
In an environment of increasingly dynamic business,
companies are realizing the importance of collaborating with
clients to create and sustain competitive advantages.
Collaboration with partners and even competitors has become
a strategic imperative for companies worldwide in business
networks [21], [22], [23]. Recently, scholars who study
marketing and strategy have focused on the collaborations that
occur with clients to co-create value [24], [25]. While
collaboration with clients can span multiple business
processes, one of the most important is collaborative value
creation through product innovation. In concordance of the
results of the authors, [26] address the involvement of actors
in networks, treating them as possible sources of collaborative
innovation. They indicate that the distinctive capabilities of
the fastest means of communication, such as the Internet,
serve as a platform for customer engagement, including
interactivity, greater range, endurance, speed and flexibility.
They also suggest that companies can use these resources to
engage with customers in product innovation through
collaborative mechanisms based on communication processes.
The same authors discuss on how these mechanisms may
facilitate the generation of collaborative innovation at
distinctive stages of product development (back end vs. front-

end steps) process and to different levels of customer

engagement through a sociological view of knowledge cocreation and sharing. However, with the emergence of the
phenomenon of innovation, and mostly of open innovation,
mechanisms that establish bonds of co-creation may turn out
to be decisive for new types of organizations. In this sense, are
there elements in the field of multiplayer games design that
could influence the design of organizations, through a view of
co-creation and innovation? How these principles have
adherence with the mechanisms of virtual organization and
cooperation through networking?
IV. CO-CREATION AND DESIGN OF MULTIPLAYER GAMES
First, it must be understood what consists in the design of a
game. The designer of a game is a visionary who plays such
game even before it was invented [27]. From this perspective,
a game designer can be seen as an entrepreneur who has an
idea and seeks to express it through the development of this
project.
The beginning of the development process of a game is
very similar to the process of developing a business plan. Just
as a game designer develops the concept paper, which regards
to the objectives and the context of the game, the entrepreneur
seeks from a market analysis to define his business model. The
context can derive from a research just to create an attractive
environment for the game. Afterwards, is developed the
structure of the game and its operational scheme, where in a
simplified manner, are found three basic elements [28]: i)
players, ii) rules and goals and iii) props and tools. The players
are the users who interact with the existing mechanisms and
tools in a game, to achieve certain objectives, conditioned to
rules. For every single game, there will be players, objectives
and defined rules; and a set of mechanisms and tools that
allow all players to achieve their goals in the specific game.
However, multiplayer game ads on new elements to its basic
model that promote the evolution of the game and the creation
of economic value, not just making an isolated computer
program.
In terms of game evolution, for the purpose of this study, it
was defined as the changes that occur over time, including its
rules and goals, and its mechanisms and tools, from its first
release. In summary, any game or any organization that
experiences a set of innovations is mainly due to the
interaction between the players.
In non multiplayer game, the program has no change with
regard to the dimensions of the rules and goals, and the props
and tools. The player must follow the rules of the game, trying
to achieve its goals. Thus, there is no co-creation involved, as
well as no interaction with other agents. However, in a
multiplayer game, modifications can occur in the rules of the
game (to improve the balance between the players, for
example), the creation of new features (stimulating player
interest and fidelity), which demonstrates the evolutionary
characteristic of a multiplayer game. In summary, there are six
new dimensions [28] that incorporate this type of game, as
shown in table 1:
TABLE I
DIMENSIONS OF A MULTIPLAYER GAME [28]

469

Dimension

Description

Social
interaction

It consists in the interaction and the communication between individuals who

are involved in the game. In a multiplayer game, this interaction can be
spontaneous or stimulated to enhance development during the game. The social
interaction is the dimension that makes the interface between the players, the
rules, the goals and tools, but still, this dimension is structural. In that sense,
Zhong [45] have assessed the influence that games like Massive Multiplayer
Online Role Play Gaming, have on social capital (online and offline) and
collective participation. Hsiao and Chou [46] have studied how this kind of
game influences on player loyalty in a virtual community.

Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE ICMIT

Dimension
Competition
and
Cooperation

Synchronicity
or
asynchronicity

Coordenation
Prop/Tool
dependance
Meta-gaming

which is also used by [31] to understand the operation of a

game. The Activity Theory is a concept that represents a
framework to understand human activity [32, 33]. The authors
suggest that human activity is mediated by auxiliary stimuli
that may be in the form of signs or tools. The model
emphasizes the inherent social interactions of human activity,
where the activities cannot be treated separately from
collective relations concepts, regardless of the conditions and
the ways in which they are developed. In such pattern, the
activity is a collective and systemic unity that is driven by an
object, which is considered as the main driving force activity.
It is perceived from the Activity Theory, as a model that
explains human activity, which elements such as rules and
tools are involved. The model incorporates two important
aspects regarding co-creation, in respect to the motivation and
sense-making of the value of creation. These two dimensions
affect individual issues, since co-creation is highly dependent
on these stimuli.
Still, this concept of Co-Creation is exploited by [34], who
analyze the concept of co-creation in terms of two dimensions:
the level of openness of the process (anyone can attend or if
there is a selection process) and property (level contribution).
In essence, once a client may openly contribute to the process,
community configurations can be observed. For [35], the
issues concerning the level of client participation related to the
level of organizational design are most critical to the
development of co-creation. The co-creation process in games
was also studied by [36], where the author concluded that the
level of customization, content, interactivity and
complementarily influence more quickly the level of
acceptance of the players (consumers with product
knowledge) and are still associated with their self-esteem. The
author believes this process, through interaction and cocreation ability to customize content, awakens a pleasant and
effective interaction between the players and the system
within these virtual communities.
These elements are aligned with the dimensions of the
Activity Theory and the Multiplayer Game Design model
(which involves the dimensions of sense-making, motivation,
interaction). Mainly, it must take into account that the games
promote interaction between players, offering mechanisms of
interdependence, which promotes experiences, fun and flow
[37]. For the authors, there are two important mechanisms that
stimulate a game; the task and the interdependence reward.
Conducting an experiment comparing the effects of low and
high task interdependence and of high and low reward
interdependence on three variables (fun, flow and
performance); the authors arrive at the following conclusion:
In a low interdependence task context, players experience
more fun, have higher levels of flow and realize better
performance when a low interdependence reward system is
obtained. In contrast, in a high interdependence task, all of
these means are larger and a high interdependence of reward
condition is also obtained. It also implies that in a behavioral
perspective, there is linearity in relation to fun when a taskreward is offered. These dimensions corroborate with the
proposal of [38], who analyzed online communities as sources
of innovation. They observed the phenomenon of frustration
and reaction, trying to analyze the triggers of positive and
negative behavior in a co-creation community. The authors
point out that positive or negative satisfaction at the results;
the perceived sense of community and justice are important
determinants to trigger co-creation in this type of environment,
and still involving the dimension of task-reward.
Finally, it was also observed in a survey that assessed the
effects of perceived security and fun in multiplayer games and
their influence on attitude and loyalty [38]. Still, these

Description
Depending on the rules and the goals of a game, competition or cooperation
among members of a team (community) may be necessary for its development.
This dimension is directly linked to the players and the rules of the game. In
fact, since many multiplayer games focus on competition, is through
cooperation between its players whom many of the objectives (quests or
missions) can be developed.
This dimension works with the time synchronicity factor, where a requirement
that all players be active at the same time to have the game to run. In a
synchronous game, all players must participate at the same moment, with rules
and penalties. In asynchronous games, there is the possibility of independence
among the players on the game platform. This dimension is linked directly to
the game rules, as well as their tools.
When the multiplayer question emerges, the coordination and capacity to
control its process becomes necessary to ensure the synchronicity required for
the game to develop.
This dimension refers to the level of technology (tools) needed for the game to
get underway. For example, a multiplayer game (like a game of paintball) that
does not require computers have low dependence prop, while a game that
requires a computer has a high level of dependence on technology.
It occurs due to the asymmetry of information between the players, and
consists in games that arise and occur in parallel, inserted into the main game.
This dimension relates to the rules and goals of the game and the players.

Based on these dimensions, the authors [28] propose a

model for the development of multiplayer games, presented in
figure 1, which shows the difference between a game
developed on the basic perspectives (players, rules and tools),
and the ones developed under a multiplayer perspective.
Apparent differences arise, primarily during the establishment
of the mechanisms that generate these dimensions; through the
conditions of co-creation of the game environment itself,
which may generate innovation, through social interaction and
collaboration. The players promote changes in the rules and
goals of the game, and even the tools in its possession as
players, and many times, such innovations may occur due to
meta-gaming, which are the focus of discussion and parallel to
the main game script.

Fig. 1. Model to design a multiplayer game [28]

It is important to mention that there are three main

perspectives in game development [29]. At the beginning,
games had a more behavioral focus with direct controls. It
secondly moved to a constructivist focus, characterized by a
socio-cultural context, beyond the constructivist perspective. It
is from this new generation of meaning, interaction and
culture that are provided enabling environments for cocreation and innovation. In this context, the issue of games as
platforms for open innovation are being exploited by [30], as
open innovation is considered as a shared activity which
involves social interaction, synchronicity and coordination
mechanisms, as well as the meta-type gaming events (not
directly related to core business), environments that appear
within the game, such as events that promote interactions to
promote open innovation.
Another theoretical approach that converges with the
Multiplayer Games Model Design is the Activity Theory,

470

Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE ICMIT

perspectives are aligned to the work of [26], which indicates

that the communities established in turbulent environments
need to observe an economic value generation, to supply the
initial stimulus and establish a positive and continuous cycle
of knowledge creation or co-creation. In this context, the
dimension of enjoyment and reward need to be associated. To
conclude, it can be understood that the development process of
a game is very similar to the process of developing a business
plan. It can merely propose an attractive environment for a
game, or market, or limit itself to either the processes or the
behavior that makes the whole context an evolutionary pattern.
Each pattern can either be of competition, cooperation or
coopetition. However, its understand comes through e relevant
and clear model to read.
V.

combine. The virtual ambient promoted by an online game can

provide these mechanisms.
Furthermore, it can be considered that, the environment of
the online multiplayer game, through its characteristics, has
the possibility to promote some dimensions (in a consumer or
creator perspective). These dimensions were findings from
previous gaming research. Therefore, the analysis uses these
conclusions in the Co-Creation context Model, as showed in
figure 4 and it can be observed the benefits of this new
approach. In this perspective of analysis, a new set of
questions about how de interaction between organizations and
customers emerge. How do customers become part of a
multiplayer online game company? Could a person have his
own avatar connected to games of various organizations
(organizations or networks) actively participating in the cocreation of their products? And how it would bring new
possibilities in terms of co-creation, given the fact that these
interactions trigger motivations, attribution of meaning,
aggregated value, behavior and interactions, combinations of
capabilities and access to stakeholders (through coalition
parties)?
TABLE II

THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL PROPOSED

Based on the elements identified in the previous sections,

it is observed that they all converge with two specific
structuring dimensions: strategic and behavioral. The strategic
dimension is related to organization, and the behavioral
dimension is related to the individual. The model presented in
figure 2 supports the co-creation concept has a set of
encounter process between the organization and the customer.
The organization plan, design and measure experiences and
opportunities to co-create. The customer participates in this
relationship experience in a manner that triggers your
behavior, and this can be done using emotion.
That is an important link with the proposed new model of
Dynamic Online Co-creation. The previous research showed
that games, especially multiplayer, can evoke a set of
dimensions, which mediate this relationship experience due to
the elements like task and reward, in a context of fun. The
games are mechanisms that can generate emotions, since they
deal with stories, archetypes, challenges, characters and
interactions. So, the multiplayer online game serves has an
encounter process between the customer and the organization.

DIMENSIONS OF MULTIPLAYER GAMES [28]

Dimension
Interaction and
open Innovation
[30]

sense-making and
motivation [31]

customization,
interactivity and
self-esteem [36]

task, fun and

reward [37]

Outcome
perception;
perceived justice
and sense of
community [38]
Access,
motivation, Value
and Capability to
Combine [40, 41,
42, 43]
Social capital and
Loyalty [39, 45,
46]

Contribution to dynamic and long term co-creation relationship

A multiplayer online game enhances the number of interaction, therefore,
enhances the number of ideas in an open innovation perspective. This kind
of game as a channel of idea's input, can promote not online a quantitative
enhancement, but also qualitative, due to the interaction between players
who serves as a source of diversity of and new ideas, in a context of
challenge and history.
These interactions occur in a context of challenge and history provided by
the game. The game isnt just a task, but can be modeled to be something
grater and with a long term timing, that somehow maintains the motivation
of the player (and therefore, his contribution in the co-creation process), in a
most effective way that just in a single campaign.
The possibility in multiplayer games of customization provides an important
mechanism for co-creation. When you provide the possibility to the player
to combine different types of alternatives (for example, the creation of a
personalized car), this enhances the interactivity and therefore, the
motivation to stay in the game, and also the self-esteem, because the
personalization in a game is a form of exteriorization of your inner self.
Some co-creation experiences use the task and reward approach. And
multiplayer uses the task and reward in a progressive way and in a fun
context. Therefore, the motivation can be sustained for long term,
especially because the game has the possibility to create new chapters,
quests, stories that maintain the produced knowledge of the player and puts
in a new and innovative context.
This approaches points that perceived justice in the game, and the
possibility to realize the outcome is an important element to sustain the
player in the community. Being part of a co-creation relationship, where the
player can see something in the game become a real product or an
incremental innovation of a product, can be an important mechanism to a
long-term relationship in this game..
The co-creation is, in essence, a combination of knowledge. A virtual layer,
or an online game, is a platform that makes possible for the act of accessing
new knowledges and the capabilities to combine in a manner that creates
value. As a player, the knowledge created can be more available than other
initiatives of co-creation, sustaining therefore, a long-term relationship.
Previous research concluded that multiplayer games can enhance social
capital (thrust) and therefore, loyalty, and this attributes are fundamentals to
sustain a long-term co-creation relationship.

Hence, the argument that is proposed in this study about

what changes would be necessary in the current organizational
design to promote co-creation and innovation is the
establishment of a virtual layer (virtual organization),
connected between the company and its customers, but not
simply a static layer, like a blog or a single game. An online
multiplayer game that evokes that dimensions observed in
literature has the possibility to sustain a co-creation process
more dynamic and long term.
Advances in organization design take place from a new
perspective when analyzed in a B2C perspective. In a business
to business (B2B) perspective, a higher level of interaction is
expected once all interested parties have their supply
contracts. However, in relation with the consumer, the
dynamics of attraction becomes different since distinct stimuli
are required to motivate and co-create. An online game could
only be used for brand awareness or unilateral customer
interaction purposes. However, an online multiplayer game is

Fig. 2. Co-Creation Model [44]

Therefore, the proposed conceptual model is based upon

the concepts bounded by the online multiplayer game model,
as a virtual layer of interaction between the company (or a
network of companies) and the client, through a virtual
community of creation, which embed the Transaction Cost
Theory, the Complexity theory, Management and the
Organization Community and Intellectual Property theories,
according [13,26]. Also, due to the nature of a co-creation,
which is, in essence, a new knowledge, is observed in the
literature that the generation of knowledge requires some
mechanisms [40, 41, 42, 43], like: a) access of the interested
parts to combine knowledge; b) possibility to see the value for
this combination; c) motivation to combine; d) capabilities to

471

Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE ICMIT

not just a promotion tool for brand awareness. A multiplayer

online game sets the stage for what is called a dynamic on-line
co-creation or co-creation in a closed cycle. An important part
of this mechanism is that, as participation and interaction on
the platform manage customer co-creation, the value
generated by their innovations return into the community. This
cycle creates individual and collective incentives for the
activity of co-creation, and enables the generation of economic
value from cooperation or coopetition between communities
of customers / players who interact in this environment.
The model proposed, the Closed Cycle Online DynamicCo-creation are shown in Figure 3 enhances the prospect of
[44] about co-creation, establishing the multiplayer online
game as a layer of virtual organization that mediates between
corporate networks and customer community. It is based in the
model proposed in Figure 2, which set a base for co-creation
(encounter process between customer and business),
aggregating the multiplayer elements presented in Figure 1
(bases of game: players, rules and goals, props and tools in the
context of multiplayer) which evokes the dimensions
presented in Table II. This is adherent with the relationship
experience, in terms of emotion, cognition and behavior of this
customer network. However, the closed cycle concept are set
in terms of value return for the client due his effort to cocreate. This model also expands the perspective on the model
in Figure 2: another change are due to the perspective of
cooperation. An online multiplayer game can be a virtual layer
of co-creation for a network of companies, and not just for a
single company. Through it, the combination of knowledge is
held and triggered by devices that enable these types of games
(sense-making, fun, task motivation), as noted by the authors.

changes to the products, since it has access to a whole

combination of knowledge (context/sense-making), could it
result in co-creation and innovation? Considering the effects
of social capital and loyalty that can be seen in games, could
this platform not be a new mechanism for retaining customers
from their involvement in the ongoing stories? The issue is
that products do have different life cycles, and these are
related to distinct types of co-creation, as exposed in Figure 4
[46].
In this sense, the process of co-creation should follow the
life cycle of the product, not just as an isolated moment (as
characterized most co-creations), to come to meet such
alignment. Therefore, industry games can plan multiplayer
games with a wide story, associated to achievements, temporal
marks and other gaming strategies to try to maintain the
collaboration of the player in the different stages of the timecycle. Normally, a process of co-creation is mostly used to the
starting point, a campaign like a contest to capture new ideas.
The sustain strategy pattern proposed here is to achieve this
via a closed-cycle in an on-line dynamic co-creation. After all,
the perceived outcome (value returned from business to the
client), is an important element to sustain the relationship, and
the customer relationship database.
This new perspective broadens discussions in terms of
contract needs and design, for example. Under such new
dynamic, could customers not become part of an organization
or even its shareholders? From the moment that the player is
continuously accessing the environment, performing some
kind of research and development, and being able to receive
real value for it, how would it affects on organizational
dynamics itself?

Fig. 4. Co-creation versus Life-Cycle [46]

Therefore, this paper aims to propose a model of dynamic

online co-creation, specifically for B2C business patterns,
from the implementation of a multiplayer game as a virtual
layer of interaction between a company (company networks)
and its customers. From the literature survey, it was identified
a potential for the application of this model, since it stimulates
essential dimensions for the establishment of co-creation and
value creation for the customer. This dimensions are expressed
in term of sense-making, motivation, interactivity, self-esteem,
task, fun, reward, outcome perception, social capital and
loyalty. In summary, on one hand, it is expressed as the active
multiplayer aspects of the game, such as motivation and
Sense-making; the friendly access to the game, its proper
capacity or output; and its ability to promote open innovation.
On the other hand, it incentivizes social capital and loyalty
through interactivity, fun and reward, as well as the perception
of outcome and sense of community. All these aspects are
essential to the process of co-creation, and this are an
important advancement in the theory and mechanisms of cocreation, and sustain the novelty of this model.

Fig. 3. The Conceptual Model of Closed Cycle Online Dynamic Co-Creation

This proposed platform, as a new layer in organizational

design, goes beyond a simple social network model (since
these networks do not incorporate storytelling/history
mechanisms, characters, motivation, tasks that arouse games);
it becomes a strategy pattern of a company to attract and
retain customers in a dynamic virtual environment, stimulating
co-creation and also generating economic value. Being a
virtual platform, this layer could serve medium-size
companies to small business networks. Also, the model
promotes the proprieties to the customer network to: a) access
of the interested parts to combine knowledge; b) possibility to
see the value for this combination; c) motivation to combine;
d) capabilities to combine.
Take, for example, any company producing surfboards,
skateboards, or even an automaker. As a massively
multiplayer online game, where clients are actively involved
in stories related to these context, tasks, interactions, get
involved and get entertained, discuss, amend and promote

472

Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE ICMIT

However, future research on the refinement of the

framework suggests, in view of the limitation of this study,
that the mechanisms of co-creation tend to have a different
behavior. For example, an automotive company that seeks to
implement an online multiplayer game as a co-creation
platform will require a distinct narrative scheme than a
smartphone or clothing company. Nevertheless, the purpose of
seeking meaning for co-creation via interaction, fun and
possible combination of knowledge for innovation are
common and fundamental elements, regardless of the business
sector.
Thus, this model of virtual organization extends theory in
the co-creation field, proposing the interaction among
networks of companies and customers (cooperation
dimension) through the virtual organizational layer: a
multiplayer game, which will continuously and dynamically
establish a new social organization and shall generate
economic value from the co-creation and innovation. In this
perspective, a discussion on competitive advantage emerges,
due the moment that the database of a virtual enterprise
environment becomes a strategic asset for co-creation and
innovation.
Therefore, this paper seeks to provide a new understanding
about the games industry. In this model, its role goes beyond
pure entertainment, since the multiplayer games must be
designed associated with an organizational environment
(integrating workflows and routines), through an attractive and
interesting scheme that retains market players in consumer's
environments, vying for time and attention, to promote
dynamic online co-creation of new products. As a future
research, this model provides a new perspective to extend the
range of operations from the gaming industry to converge with
open innovation models, which are sources of competitive
advantage for organizations. This article, hence, contributes
towards the development of this framework, presented in
Figure 3 whose purpose is to integrate the process of cocreation and dynamic on-line in a new form of organizational
design, establishing a virtual layer of multiplayer game to
interact (emotional dimensions evoked), as the process of
relationship between company and client. Based in this
framework, we suggest future case studies or experiments to
validate statistically the co-creation outputs and relationship
degree in an on-line multiplayer game environment directly
associated with an organization. This discussion goes even
further and proposes a discussion about a research agenda, in
the organizational, behavioral and technological dimensions to
achieve the implementation of this model in organizations or
network of organizations.
Lastly, the paper contributes to advances in organizational
design theory and co-creation theory, since this is a
contemporary discussion, provoked nowadays in 2014 by
[47]: whats new about news form of organizing?
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]

[10]

[11]
[12]

[13]

[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]

[20]

[21]
[22]
[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]
[27]
[28]

J. P Zagal, M. Nussbaum and R. Rosas. A model to suport the design of

multiplayer games, Presence, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 448-462, 2000.
M. Sawhney, G. Verona and E. Prandelli. Collaborating to create: the
internet as a plataform for customer engagement in product innovation,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 4-17, 2005.
L. B. Jeppsen and M. Molin. Consumers as co-developers: learning and
innovation outside the firm, Journal: Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 363-383, 2003.
M. Davidovici-Nora. The dynamic of co-creation in the video game
industry: the case of world of warcraft. Communication & Strategies,
no. 73, pp. 43-67, 2009.
V. Bilgram, A. Brem and K. Voigt. User-centric innovation in new
product development systematic identification of lead users harnessing

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

473

interactive and collaborative online-tools, International Journal of

Innovation Management, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 419-458, 2008.
P. LLerena, T. Burger-Helmchen and P. Cohendet. Divison of labor and
division of knowledge: a case study of innovation in the video game
industry. Schumpeterian Perspectives on Innovation, Competition and
Growth. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 315-33, 2009.
R. L. Ackoff. Towards flexible organizations: a multidimensional
design, Omega, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 649-662, 1997.
N. Anand and R. L Daft. What is the right organization design. Working
paper series. Unplublished. December 7, 2006.
A. De Toni, G. Biotto and C. Battistella. Organizational design drivers
to enable emergent creativity in web-based communities, Learning
Organization, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 335-349, 2012.
R. Duncan. What is the right organization structure? Decision tree
analysis provides the answer, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 7, no. 3,
pp. 59-80, 1979.
V. Eiriz. Proposta de tipologia sobre alianas estratgicas, Revista de
Administrao Contepornea, vol. 5, n. 2, pp. 65-90, 2001.
H. Afsarmnesh and L. Camarinha-Matos. A framework for management
of virtual organization breeding environments. Collaborative Networks
and Their Breeding Environments. Springer US, pp. 35-48, 2005.
H. Afsarmanesh, L. Carminha-Matos, S. Msanjila. On management of
2nd generation Virtual Organizations Breeding Environments, Annual
Reviews in Control, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 209-219, 2009.
O. Williamson. Markets and Hierarchies: Analsysis and antitrust
implications. New York. The Free Press. pp. 303, 1985
J. M. Podolny; K. L Page. Networks forms of organization, Annual
Review of Sociology, vol. 24, pp. 57-76, 1998.
M. Baldi; F. Lopes. Rede forma hbrida ou nova forma?, Revista
Portuguesa e Brasileira de Gesto, vol. 1, n. 3, 2002.
J. Jarillo. On strategic networks, Strategic Management Journal, vol.
9, no. 1, pp. 31-41, 1988.
M. Marcon and M. Moinet. La stratgie-rseau: ensai de stratgie. Paris:
ditions Zro heure., pp. 235, 2000.
A. Balestrin. A dinmica da complementaridade de conhecimentos no
contexto das redes interorganizacionais. Ph.D. dissertation,
Administration, Univ. Fed. Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2005.
B. Nalebuff and A. Branderburger. "Co-opetition: Competitive and
cooperative business strategies for the digital economy", Strategy &
Leadership, vol. 25, no.6, pp. 28 35, 1997.
R. Gulatti, N. Norhia and A. Zahere. Strategic Networks, Strategic
Management Journal, vol. 21, no. pp. 203-215, 2000.
M. Iansiti and R. Levine. Strategy as ecology, Harvard Business
Review,pp.1-11, march, 2004.
C.K. Prahalad and V. Ramaswamy. Co-creation experiences: the new
practice in value creation, Journal of Interactive Marketing, vol 18, no.
3, pp. 5-14, 2004.
S. H, Thomke and E. Von Hippel. Customers as innovators: a new way
to create value, Harvard Business Review, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 74-81,
2002.
M. Sawhney and E. Prandelli. Communities of creation: managing
distributed innovation in turbulent markets, California Management
Review, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 24-54, 2000.
R. Pedersen. Game design foundations. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
pp.309, 2009.
J. P Zagal, M. Nussbaum and R. Rosas. A model to suport the design of
multiplayer games, Presence, vol. 9, no. 5, pp., 448-462, 2000.
S. Egenfeldt-Nielsen. Beyond Edutainment: Exploring the Educational
Potential of Computer Games. IT University of Copenhagen,
Department of Innovation, 2005.
G. Vardaxoglu and E. Baraolou. Developling a plataform for serious
gaming: open innovation throught closed innovation. Procedia
Computer Science. vol. 15, pp. 111-121, 2012.
D. Lazarou. Using cultural-historical activity theory to design and
evaluate an educational game in science education, Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 27, no.5, pp. 424-439, 2011.
L.S. Vygotsky. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, ,
pp. 159, 1978.
Y. Engestrom. 1987. Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical
Approach to Developmental Research. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki, pp.
368, 1987.

Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE ICMIT

[33] M. Pater The 5 guiding principles of co-creation, Fronteer Strategy,

Amsterdam, white paper, unpublished, 2009.
[34] L. Pluijin. Realizing co-creation. Master thesis, Strategic Management,
Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Tilburg University.
2010.
[35] S. Yeh. Involving consummers in product design throught
collaboration: the case of online role-playing games. Cyberpsychology
Behavior and Social Networking, vol. 13, no 6., pp. 2010.
[36] B. Choi, I. Lee, D. Choi and J. Kim. Collaborate and share: an
experimental study of the effects of task and reward interdependencies
in online games, Cyberpsychology & Behavior, vol. 10, no 4., pp. 2007.
[37] J. Gebauer, J. Fuller and R. Pezzei. The dark and the bright side of cocreation: Triggers of member behavior in online innovation
communities. Journal of Business Research, vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 15161527, 2013.
[38] D. Shin. The dynamic user activities in massive multiplayer online
role-playing games, International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 317-344, 2010.
[39] J. Nahapiet and S. Ghoshal. Social capital, intellectual capital and the
Organizational advantage, The Academy of Management Review, vol.
23, no 2, pp. 242-266, 1998.
[40] W. Cohen, D, Levinthal. Aborptive capacity: a new perspective on
learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35, pp.
128-152, 1990.
[41] B. Kogut, U. Zander. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities
and the replication of technology, Organization Science, vol. 3, no. 3,
pp. 383-397, 1990.
[42] R. Grant. Towards a knowledge-based view of the firm, Strategic
Management Journal, vol. 17, winter special issue, pp. 109-122, 1997.
[43] A. Payne, K. Storbacka and P. Frow. Managing the co-creation of
value, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. vol. 36, no.1, pp.
83-96, 2008.
[44] Z. Zhong. The effects of collective MMORPG (Massively multiplayer
online role-playing games) play on gamers online and offline social
capital. Computers in Human Behaviour, vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 23522363,
2011.
[45] C. Hsiao and J. Chiou. The effect of social capital on community
loyalty in a virtual community: Test of a tripartite-process model,
Decision Support Systems, vol 54, no. 1, pp. 750 757, 2012.
[46] A. Orcik, Z. Tekic, Z. Anisic. Customer Co-creation throughout the
producct life cycle. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Management, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 43-49, 2013.
[47] O.Alexy and M.Reitig. Whats new about new forms of organizing?.
Academy of Management Review, vol. 39, no2, pp.126,180, 2014.

474