Open communities of innovation pioneers: the Musigen case study  

Author: GIUSEPPE NACCARATO - Email: giuseppe.naccarato@unical.it  

Track: 25. ICT enabling Collaboration, Innovation and Knowledge Sharing: emerging “open” phenomena,organizational models and technological tools

  

Co-author(s): Vincenzo Corvello (University of Calabria)/ Eleonora Pantano (University of Calabria)

Access to this paper is restricted to registered delegates of the EURAM 2010(European Academy of Management) Conference 'Back To The Future'.

1 

 

Open communities of innovation pioneers: the Musigen case study

Abstract

We call innovation pioneers the experts in a scientific or technical domain in the early stages

of its development. Advances in information technologies allow networks of organizations

and individuals to exchange ideas and knowledge. Not differently from what has happened in

communities of consumers with the emergence of the so called prosumers, ICT can support

communities of innovation pioneers.

However, the role of IT in this domain has not been studied extensively in the management

literature. Understanding the dynamics of communities of innovation pioneers, instead, can

provide companies with precious knowledge on future breakthrough innovations.

This paper means to deepen our understanding of communities of innovation pioneers and the

role of IT in supporting them.

To achieve this goal, we investigate the case of Musigen, a new web platform with the

purpose to support knowledge sharing in the generative music field.

Keywords: virtual communities, prosumer, open innovation, lead users innovation, innovation

pioneers, generative music.

2 

 

1. Introduction

The new advances in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) developed new

powerful tools for exchanging ideas and knowledge. Both scholars and practitioners

frequently point out the importance of knowledge sharing technologies as a mean to share

individuals’ contributions in an efficient and effective way (Bertacchini, 2008, Febbraro et al.,

2008; Sippings, 2007; van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009).

In fact, the process of information exchanges among users on internet grew fast due to the

success of virtual spaces which facilitate the process itself. In particular, internet facilitates the

creation and the development of specialized knowledge through virtual communities (de

Valck et al., 2009). Hence, if compared to the offline groups, the virtual communities

represent a high specialized knowledge tool, available to a large number of people according

to his/her own preferences (ibid., 2009). Furthermore, these spaces attract users increasingly,

due to its main characteristics: the voluntary participation, and their consequent intentional

social action (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002; Dholakia et al., 2004), the goal-oriented knowledge

sharing (Koh et al., 2004), the flexible structure of the group, the users contributions toward a

common scope.

In particular, companies can tap into the creativity of crowds to generate new ideas, solve

problems, develop new products. They can source innovation from other companies or from

the users of their products. These open innovation processes involve knowledge domains

characterized by a wide diffusion of the underlying knowledge. The phenomenon is part of

the broader shift in innovation practices usually called Open innovation (Cheesbrough 2003).

There are domains, however, in which the involved communities are smaller and the

knowledge required to understand the studied problems is deeper: these are domains related to

scientific or technical fields in the early stages of their development.

3 

 

In this scenario, it is possible to define a new concept of user: the innovation pioneers.

Innovation pioneers are scientist or experts of a scientific domain in the early stages of its

development. Innovation pioneers try to organize in communities, but the dimensions of these

communities are usually smaller and their relations are more loosely coupled. Interactions and

knowledge exchange in this conditions can be more difficult.

ICT can support communities of innovation pioneers and reduce the barriers to their

interaction. However these phenomena have not been widely studied in the literature. Other

streams of literature, however, can be taken into account to generate insight in the

phenomenon of communities of innovation pioneers.

In some sense the innovation pioneer has the characteristics of the prosumer (a concept where

the figure of consumer and producer of a good coalesce in the same person). The idea of

prosumer has been developed since the 80s (Kotler, 1986; Van Raaij, 1993 ), even if it was

linked at beginning to the production and consumption of real goods and, afterwards, to the

digital goods produced and accessed via internet (Bertacchini et al., 2008).

Another concept which is in some features similar to the one considered in this paper is the

concept of lead users as described by Von Hippel (2005). In this case companies exploit the

possibility to intercept knowledge generated within communities of expert users in order to

innovate.

We build on concepts taken from the literature on prosumers and on lead users to study the

concept of communities of scientific pioneers.

Besides we present the Musigen system, a platform which has been developed in order to

facilitate and support knowledge exchanges among users in the generative music field, that is,

the field which studies the creation of melodies based on algorithms played by computers.

4 

 

2. Theoretical background: ICT and knowledge creation in open communities of

innovation pioneers

2.1 The role of Communities in knowledge creation and innovation processes

Communities have a critical role in supporting knowledge exchange. Knowledge management

literature in particular, has extensively studied communities supporting intellectual activities

of individuals. Communities have been studied at different levels and given different specific

names: Communities of Practice (Brown and Duguid, 2000); Occupational communities (Van

Maanen, Barley, 1984), Communities of Knowing (Boland and Tenkasi, 1995), Communities

of Practitioners (Blackler, 1995) and Microcommunity of Knowledge (von Krogh, Ichijo and

Nonaka, 2000). All have been described as an organizational subsets strongly influencing

knowledge creation and knowledge exchange processes. While some of these social entities

are defined as existing within one organization, others transcend organizational boundaries.

Lave and Wenger’s original definition of Community of Practice is “a set of relations among

persons, activities, and world, over time and in relation with other tangential and overlapping

communities of practice” and “the term community imply necessarily co-presence, a well

defined identifiable group, or socially visible boundaries. It does imply participation in an

activity system about which participants share understandings concerning what they are doing

and what that means in their lives and for their communities” (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 98

).

Several streams of literature in different fields point out the emergence of communities which

are labeled as “open” since anyone can enter the community or exit it at any time without

being asked particular explicit requirements. Open source software is the most common

example.

5 

 

More or less open communities are one of the manifestations of the Open Innovation

phenomenon. Open Innovation has been defined as “a new knowledge landscape”

(Chesbrough 2003) characterized by a growing use of external knowledge in innovation

processes and, at the same time, a tendency towards the external commercialization of a

company’s own technology (OECD 2008; Lichtentahler and Ernst 2008; Carlsson et al.

2009). In particular companies exploit the creativity and the problem solving capabilities of

individuals outside the firm. Web-based intermediaries likee Ninesigma, Innocentive or

Yourencore specialized in providing access to broad networks of scientists, researchers and

professionals which are potentially able to solve new technological problems proposed by

companies (Tapscott & Williams 2007; Chesbrough 2006; Fredberg et al. 2008; Lichtenthaler

& Ernst 2008, OECD 2008). While in the beginning of their activity Innocentive and the other

intermediaries only provided a point of contact between companies and innovators, now they

are all trying to build communities of innovators. This is probably a consequence of the fact

that intermediaries acknowledge the relevance of the community dimension for innovation

processes.

Another stream of literature in which the relevance of communities for innovation processes

is often stressed is the lead user innovation theory (Von Hippel 2005). Von Hippel observed

how users with a strong interest in a product and good technical competences (i.e. lead users)

are able to modify the same product and introduce significant innovations. Such lead users are

not isolated but exchange knowledge within communities. Being recognized as competent by

a community is also one of the strongest incentives to users’ innovations.

Hence, knowledge intensive processes take advantage of the existence of communities

supporting the learning processes of involved actors. The more knowledge intensive the

process the more useful the support of a community. Innovation processes and scientific

research are probably the most knowledge intensive processes. As a consequence both

6 

 

innovators and scientist are often involved in communities of individuals sharing their

interests.

2.2 Open communities of innovation pioneers

All the examples cited so far involve knowledge domains characterized by the diffusion of

knowledge among large communities. Both in the case of open innovation intermediaries and

in the case of lead users innovation, companies exploit the possibility to tap into knowledge

generated within large communities of interest.

There are domains, instead, in which the involved communities are smaller and the

knowledge required to understand the studied problems is deeper. We call these groups

“communities of innovation pioneers”. This is the situation characterizing the work of

scientists and experts in scientific or technical fields in the early stages of their development.

Cybernetics in the forties, Complexity theory in the seventies, Grid computing twenty years

ago are examples of scientific domains showing these features. For several years computer

networks were understood and used by few individuals with deep technical competences.

All these disciplines or technical domains have deep influence on our lives from a technical,

economical and/or cultural point of view. The small communities which studied these topic in

the early stages of their development strongly contributed to their success. Understanding

how communities of innovation pioneers work and how they can be supported can speed up

innovation processes, influencing positively the economic and technical progress of

companies and societies.

Supporting communities in these fields, however, is probably more complex than in others for

several reasons:

7 

 

− First, the underlying knowledge is complex; as a consequence it is more difficult to

transfer knowledge from an individual to another. Also the interactions among individuals

are made more difficult by the complexity of the discussed topics;

− Second, the knowledge is new and needs validation; each involved individual, as a

consequence, experiences a strong need for support from his/her colleagues;

− Third the communities are small and geographically dispersed. As a consequence bringing

the members together is more difficult than in other cases.

− Fourth, usually these communities are characterized by loose relations and, at the same

time, a high degree of closeness; that is members are not linked by strong ties but it is not

easy to join the community.

Researchers meet and communicate with each other seldom. Communities usually gather at

scientific conferences. These meetings have a critical role in allowing cooperation between

distant individuals. However they are held periodically, usually once a year, and this strongly

limits the interaction among innovators. As a consequence researchers mainly work alone and

exchange results only with a small co-located community, sharing their results with distant

colleagues only seldom. The overall result is that the relations among individuals and the

exchange of knowledge are not intense.

Besides communities of innovation pioneers are often not much visible. They specialize in

fields which are not likely to generate economic returns soon, so they suffer a lack of funds

for promotion.

As a consequence these communities are rather closed. New members are included seldom.

Since the knowledge required to participate in the community is complex, frequent contacts

with newcomers would be needed in order to involve them in the knowledge creation

processes.

8 

 

Communities of innovation pioneers would strongly benefit from the possibility to become

more “open”, that is, the possibility to become more visible, to involve more easily new

members and to have more frequent interactions among members.

ICT and in particular the internet now offer the possibility to make communities of innovation

pioneers more open.

2.3 ICT to support open communities of innovation pioneers

The potential usefulness of new ICTs for communities of innovation pioneers is evident. ICT

allows to increase the visibility of these communities, makes remote interactions more

frequent and richer (Daft and Lengel, 1986), makes knowledge diffusion easier.

There are several modes to support open communities of innovation pioneers through ICT:

1. Accelerate knowledge transfer through easier and richer interactions: this is the most

intuitive form of support ICT can provide to communities. The internet can be the agora

for scientific and technical discussions among members. There is a fairly broad literature

on tools supporting the creation of knowledge bases and on knowledge transfer. In fact

these two aspects can be considered the central functions of a KMS (e.g. Robey et al.

2000). Building searchable databases or preparing documents and tutorials (in other words

“packaging” the related knowledge) can support the members of a community;

2. Create a common knowledge base: communities can use ICT tools to collect, organize and

package knowledge related to each specific domain to be provided to the in order to speed

up the development of a common, domain-specific knowledge base. Collaborative tools as

document sharing, forums, blogs and wikis can also be used in order to create a common

knowledge base, in particular with respect to more unstructured issues. Web 2.0

technologies, in particular, provide possibilities to cooperate and exchange knowledge

(McAfee, 2006);

9 

 

3. Provide innovation toolkits: as noted by Von Hippel (2005), more and more often

companies provide customers with tools to modify and innovate their products. Adopting

this strategy is easier when the product is intangible and, as a consequence, the tools can

be transferred via the internet. Similarly, communities of innovation pioneers can provide

their members with tools to experiment with concepts and simulate situations;

4. Increase visibility and making access easier: a website or participation in other web-based

communities can make communities more visible. One of the main consequences of the

increased visibility is the possibility to bring together a larger number of members

previously not aware of each other;

5. Maintaining identity: communities are not just groups with a practical purpose. They are

social entities which share an identity. ICT can support identity formation and

maintenance by providing a milieu for relational exchanges among members.

There are still few examples of web-based tools aimed at supporting open communities of

innovation pioneers. The discussion of a web-portal created with this purpose is the aim of the

next section.

3. The Musigen case study

Generative music is a new topic in the scientific community, strictly linked to the use of

chaotic systems to generate music (Bilotta et al., 2007; Rizzuti et al., 2009). Generative

music, in fact, is based on an algorithm for the generation of numerical sequences and a

process for codifying these sequences in music patterns (ibid., 2007).

Generative Music aims to explore the use of acoustic representation for the study of

evolutionary systems, in order to gain further information on their behaviour. In this

perspective, the purpose of the research is to develop new acoustic representative method of

10 

 

the time series, emerged from the evolutionary chaotic systems, which can be integrated with

the 3D visualization or traditional techniques of analysis.

Secondly, Generative Music aims to investigate the way of use of dynamic systems emerging

from researches on complexity and chaos in art and music context.

It is a topic which requires specialist knowledge in mathematics and music and

complementary knowledge in informatics. Furthermore, as a scientific field, it is characterized

by a small community of dispersed experts. To achieve this task, the Musigen system has

been developed in order to facilitate and support the knowledge among users in the generative

music field.

3.1 The Musigen architecture and functioning

Musigen has been realized by using the open source software Joomla!. The system is based

on the Linux operative system, Apache web server, MySQL database server and the language

of programming PHP.

To date, Musigen (Figure 1) consists of a collection of information, documents, digital

materials and tools related the topic of generative music. The tools for creation of this kind of

music has been realized by ESG (University of Calabria) and are available for users, who can

use and support their development for creation of music.

11 

 

Figure 1: Musigen home page.

The layout is organized on 3 columns: on the left and on the right for the access to the main

functionalities, the central one shows the contents.

On the right 3 menu are available: the principal menu, the didactics module and the resources.

The first one consists of an informative part accessible to each users, related to the project,

news, FAQ, etc., based on a section with texts and images and an interactive one for

registered users.

The didactics module provides information related generative music, mathematical

symmetries in music and physics, new musical instruments, 3D immersive environments,

generative art.

Furthermore, users can upload their contributions and their evaluation and comments about

the contents available.

In addition, there is a module dedicated to the survey, capable to provide a constant feedback

with the users, about software or initiatives proposed on the community.

12 

 

The right column consists of 4 modules: (1) users login, (2) web TV, (3) mp3 player for

reproduction of the best music produced by users, (4) management of statistics and research

in the web site.

Concerning the research of contents, a new component has been ad hoc realized, capable to

manage the information retrieval process, which supports the management of texts and their

automatic index, as well as the efficient ranking tools, useful for the presentations of results

on the basis of their importance related the users’ requests.

3.2 Community interaction characteristics

According to de Valck et al. (2009), we assume that the members of this community display

different interaction profiles on the basis of their own interest versus the topic of the

community. Furthermore, we can suppose that most of these members have some experiences

with the generative music. In particular, they joined to the community with the aim to

increase their knowledge in the topic. They, therefore, can be academics or hobbyists.

In particular, there are 3 different level of access to the site: (1) administrator, (2) registered

user, (3) general user.

(1) Administrator. This kind of user can access to all section of the site, even if the ones for

back-end for the managing of the Content Management System.

(2) Registered user. He/she can access to the function on the front-end.

(3) General user. He/she can access to public contents and to the functionalities which doesn’t

need an identification of user for the access (insert username and password).

Furthermore, the users can interact with the systems by the following main actions:

- upload texts (news, articles, didactical contents) related to the topic of the community. Each

contribution will be evaluated by a scientific committee;

13 

 

- download and upload of documents, audio (new tacks realized by using the software of the

community), textbooks and software;

- recommend links to be added to the system;

- participation to the forum, where share opinions and open new discussions in a new way and

through a user-friendly interface;

- watch web TV, and in particular, the videos provided by the other members of the

community or by the scientific committee. Furthermore, in the same section it is possible to

participate to the chat and, as consequence, share instant messages with multi-user modality

directly on the web TV virtual screen.

Figure 2 summarizes users’ interaction characteristics with the system

4. Discussion

Current advances in technologies offer new tools for share knowledge in a global perspective,

as well as to create new communities of experts and hobbyists. In particular, two aspects of

the studied system are relevant from a theoretical standpoint: (1) supporting of knowledge

sharing among experts and (2) the promotion of niche researches in a global perspective.

(1) Supporting knowledge sharing among experts.

Figure2: Users’ interaction characteristics.

14 

 

The community offers several tools useful for users in order to share knowledge related to the

topic. In fact, users can download/upload software, papers, digital contents, as well as discuss

in the forum or comment the texts, watch videos and listen to audio related to the generative

music.

In this way, experts participate to the creation and diffusion of knowledge in the field, adding

their personal contributions, as well as general users interested in generative music can be

informed on the news on the topic and provide their opinion. In particular, users (both experts

and hobbiests) can exploit the digital space to meet each other and change opinions,

comments, links and chat, as well as to suggest new elements important for a deeper

understanding of the topic.

Therefore, users can exploit the scientific research products uploaded on the web site,

download, modify and upload the new product, in order to create new knowledge on the topic.

These information can support experts in production and promotion of new knowledge on the

generative music field. These can consists of an improving of scientific publications, creation

of networks for international projects and so on.

(2) Promotion of niche researches in a global perspective.

The topic of generative music is an interesting topic for scientific community, but the experts

are geographically dispersed. The proposed community can support them to bring them

together in an easy and fast way. In fact, it supports the cooperation between distant subjects,

as well as support the exchange of results with the other members of the community in a

global perspective, due to the possibility to share knowledge with distant colleagues very

frequently. In this way the exchange of knowledge can become very intense and promote the

diffusion of the research on the topic.

15 

 

Indeed, this kind of community benefits of the voluntary participation of experts from all over

the world and from the possibility to involve more persons. In this way, every individual,

from all over the world, with an interest in the topic can become a member and participate to

the building of new knowledge Hence, the community becomes more visible, and can have

more frequent interactions among members. In fact, the community become an international

network which involves participants from all over the words and offers a common virtual

space where interact and collaborate, by overcoming the boundaries of time and space.

6. Conclusions

Communities of innovation pioneers are one of the less studied manifestation of open

innovation phenomena. The reason for this lack of attention lies in several features of these

social groups. Two are particularly important:

1. They are small in number and loosely coupled. As a consequence they are not much

visible;

2. It is not clear whether a community is going to produce economic returns and, even when

this happens, the returns are expected only in the long term.

Nonetheless these communities can be a source of breakthrough innovation. Societies and

companies able to understand their processes and to absorb the knowledge they are able to

generate could, in the future, obtain a strong competitive advantage. Since the capacity to

absorb knowledge, in fact, is linked to the knowledge already possessed in a specific domain

(Cohen and Levinthal, 1990), it is clear that being able to understand communities of

innovation pioneers can help economic actors to be ahead of their competitors of several

years.

ICT can play a critical role in this process. ICT based tools can support the communities,

allowing innovation pioneers to interact effectively and to involve more participants. Besides

16 

 

the same tools can represent a window for external actors to tap into the knowledge generated

bi innovation pioneers.

Musigen is a first attempt at creating this kind of systems. The system is still in its early

stages but its creators expect it to grow rapidly and become a prototype for communities

scientists and experts at the leading edge. The same principles applied in this case to the field

of generative musc could be applied to several other fields.

3. Limitation and future works

The results of this study can affect also the edutainment sector, due to the analysis of several

entertaining tools for the diffusion of educational contents.

Although this study offers important issues, there are limitations that should be taken into

account.

In fact, studies involved only the experts/hobbiests of a specific topic. Moreover, in other

similar sites devoted to the diffusion of other scientific topics the characteristics of users’

interaction can be different.

Furthermore, it is possible to investigate the influence of web-site similar to musigen on the

learning process, and if it is more efficient for particular topics.

Moreover, new entertaining tools will be added to musigen. These will be related to music

production and software development. In fact, the software available on the site will be

accessed by new plug-in which allow “far” users to play music together in a common 3D

interactive environments. In fact, new software will be developed to give users the possibility

to interact in real-time by exploiting different modules.

17 

 

References

Bagozzi R.P. and U.M. Dholakia. 2002. “Intentional social action in virtual communities”.

Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16 (2): 2–21.

Bertacchini, P.A. 2008. “Prosumer and Development of Cultural Heritage”. International

Journal of Management Cases, Vol 10 (3), pp 543-550.

Bilotta E., Pantano P. S., Cupellini E. and Rizzuti C., 2007, "Evolutionary Methods for

Melodic Sequences Generation from Non-linear Dynamics Systems". In M. Giacobini (Ed.)

Proceedings of the "Evoworkshops 2007", Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 585-592.

Blackler, F. 1995. “Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and

Interpretation”. Organization Studies, 16: 1021-1046

Boland R.J. and Tenkasi R.V. 1995 “Perspective making and perspective taking in

communities of knowing”. Organization Science, 6: 350-370.

Brown J.S. and Duguid P. 1991.) “Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice:

Toward a Unified view of Working, Learning, and Innovation”. Organization Science, 2: 40-

57.

Carlsson S. Corvello V. and Migliarese P. 2009. Enabling open innovation: proposal of a

framework supporting ICT and KMS implementation in web-based intermediaries. In

Proceedings of the ECIS 2009 conference, Verona.

Chesbrough, H.W. 2003. Open Innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting

from technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Chesbrough, H.W. 2006. Open business models: how to thrive in the new innovation

landscape. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. 1990. “Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and

innovation”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-152.

18 

 

Daft, R. L. and Lengel R. H. 1986. “Organizational information requirements, media richness

and structural design”. Management Science, 32: 554-571.

De Valck, K., van Bruggen, G.H. and Wierenga, B. 2009) “Virtual communities: A marketing

perspective”. Decision Support Systems, 47: 185-203.

Dholakia, U., M., Bagozzi, R.P. and Pearo, L.K. 2004. “A social influence model of consumer

participation in social network-and small-group-based virtual communities”. International

Journal of Research in Marketing, 21 (3): 241-263.

Febbrao A., Naccarato G., Pantano E., Tavernise A. and Vena S. 2008. “The fruition of digital

cultural heritage in a web community: the plug-in “Hermes”. In P. Kommers (Ed.),

Proceedings of IADIS International Conference Web Based Communities. Amsterdam:

IADIS, pp. 93-99.

Fredberg, T. Elmquist. M. and Ollila, S. 2008. Managing OI: present findings and future

directions. Vinnova.

Koh, J. and Kim Y.-G. 2004. “Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an e-business

perspective”. Expert Systems with Applications, 26: 155-166.

Kotler, P. (1986) The prosumer movement: a new challenge for marketers. Advances in

Consumer Research Vol. 13 pp. 510-513

Lave J. and Wenger E. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lichtenthaler, U. and Ernst, H. 2008. “Intermediary services in the markets for technology:

organizational antecedents and performance consequences”. Organization Studies, 29 (07):

1003–1035.

McAfee, A. 2006. “Enterprise 2.0: the dawn of emergent collaboration”. Sloan Management

Review, 47 (3): 21-28.

OECD. 2008. OI in global networks. Paris: OECD Publications.

19 

 

Rizzuti C. , Bilotta E. and Pantano P. S. 2009. "A GA-Based Control Strategy to Create Music

with a Chaotic System". In Giacobini M., E A., Proceedings of the "EvoWorkshops".

Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 585-590.

Robey, D. Boudreau, M. and Rose G.M. 2000. “Information technology and organizational

learning: a review and assessment of research”. Accounting, management and information

technologies, 10 (2), 125-155.

Sippings, G., 2007. “Knowledge Appreciation: A mature approach to the effective use of

knowledge for performance improvement”. Business Information Review, 24 (3): 161-169.

Tapscott, D. and Williams, A. D. 2006. Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes

everything. New York: Penguin Group.

van den Hooff, B., and Huysman, M. 2009. “Managing knowledge sharing: Emergent and

engineering approaches”. Information & Management, 46(1): 1-8.

Van Maanen J. V. and Barley S.R. 1984. “Occupational Communities: culture and control in

organization”, in Staw B.M. and Cummings L.L. (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior,

Greenwich (CT): Jay Press, pp. 287-365

von Krogh G., Ichijo K. and Nonaka I. 2000). Enabling knowledge creation: how to unlock

the mistery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. New York: Oxford

University Press, Inc.

Van Raaij, W.F. 1993. “Postmodern consumption: architecture, art, and consumer behaviour”.

European Advances in Consumer Research, 1: 550-558.

von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.