The DOI matches its Crossref record; 96 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Value of Codesign: The Effect of Customer Involvement in Service Design Teams
Open accessAbstract
Codesign allows a design team to combine two sets of knowledge that are key to service design: Customer insights into latent user needs and in-house professionals’ conversion of promising new ideas into viable concepts. While some studies highlight the potential of codesign, others are more skeptical pointing to a lack of clarity over how the involvement of customers affects the design process and outcomes. This article addresses this knowledge gap by reporting on a real-world comparison of design concepts generated by codesign teams with those generated by an in-house professional team and a team solely made up of users in the course of a library service ideation contest. The comparison indicates that codesign teams generate concepts that score significantly higher in user benefit and novelty but lower in feasibility. However, these outcomes are only possible in cohesive teams that develop design concepts collaboratively. In contrast, in teams where individuals dominate, conflict, less collaboration, and diminished innovation outcomes are more likely. The findings add to a better understanding of the value of codesign and shed light on the complex relationship between design team composition, intrateam factors, and innovation outcomes. Service designers obtain recommendations for selecting customers, assembling teams, and managing intrateam dynamics to enhance codesign success.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(1994) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80231-2 · Cited by 48,420
(1994) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/0002-8223(94)92216-0 · Cited by 45,910
Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 · Cited by 14,779
Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators
Damanpour, F. (1991) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256406 · Cited by 6,542
Qualitative Research from Start to Finish
Yin, R. K. (2010) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 5,667
Co-creation and the new landscapes of design
Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008) · CoDesign · doi:10.1080/15710880701875068 · Cited by 5,561
Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts
von Hippel, E. (1986) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791 · Cited by 4,650
von Hippel, E. (2005) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2333.001.0001 · Cited by 3,768
Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3 · Cited by 3,663
What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639702300303 · Cited by 3,526
Cited by
Holstein, K., McLaren, B. M., & Aleven, V. (2019) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23204-7_14 · Cited by 189
Williams, H., Lindström, A., Trischler, J., Wikström, F., & Rowe, Z. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121775 · Cited by 128
Self-citationConsumer perspectives on household food waste reduction campaigns
Kim, J., Rundle-Thiele, S., Knox, K., Burke, K., & Bogomolova, S. (2020) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118608 · Cited by 125
Lofters, A. K., Baker, N. A., Schuler, A., Rau, A., Baxter, A., Baxter, N. N., Kucharski, E., Leung, F.-H., Weyman, K., & Kiran, T. (2020) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05400-0 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Trischler, J., Pervan, S. J., Kelly, S. J., & Scott, D. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Service Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-07-10
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 75-100
- ISSN
- 1094-6705 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7379
- OpenAlex
- W2763931615
- Cited by
- 292
- References
- 96
- FWCI
- 31.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Value of Codesign: The Effect of Customer Involvement in Service Design Teams. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094670517714060
- The paper
- Trischler, J., Pervan, S. J., Kelly, S. J., & Scott, D. R. (2018). The Value of Codesign: The Effect of Customer Involvement in Service Design Teams. Journal of Service Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517714060
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.