Co-Design at the Boundary: Understanding the Dynamics of Open Innovation Between Companies and Communities
Eric Reynolds Brubaker, Francesca Bellesia, Elisa Mattarelli, Pamela J. Hinds
kHUB post date: July 2026
Originally published: March 8, 2026 (PDMA JPIM • Vol. 43, Issue 4 • July 2026)
Read time: 75 minutes
Access the Full Article
For over two decades, firms have built platforms and engaged open innovation communities to improve and customize their products through widened participation in the design process. While the benefits of involving those outside a firm as co-designers have been well described, how co-design processes unfold over time at the boundary between those in an organization and an open online community remains poorly understood. Using the theoretical lens of boundary work and a five-year ethnographic study with a firm that pioneered co-design in the automotive industry, we develop a theoretical model that shows how and why co-design between the firm and its open online community evolved over time. We describe three different types of co-design (intimate, instrumental, and limited co-design) and show how these are intertwined with existing types of boundary work (collaborative, configurational, and competitive boundary work). Importantly, we unravel the dynamic shifts between different types of co-design and associated boundary work, showing the driving forces that precede shifts. Our research extends the boundary work literature by proposing forces that prompt organizations to shift between types of boundary work, illustrating how these forces are tied to characteristics of the environment and open community and are integral to the work of the organization. More broadly, this study contributes new insight into the temporal evolution of design collaboration between organizations and online communities.
Managerial Summary
Investing in boundary work is important for sustaining open innovation over time, and the type of boundary work performed influences the dynamics and outcomes of co-design. Boundary work can take multiple forms–whether collaborative, configurational, or competitive—and a firm can tailor its boundary work based on its innovation strategy, prevailing market forces, and the readiness of its open innovation community at any given moment. For example, if a firm employs an innovation strategy focused on exploiting established ideas, it might pursue configurational boundary work involving relatively infrequent, formal, and structured feedback alongside strategic communications with community members around tightly scoped open innovation challenges. Alternatively, if employing an exploration focused innovation strategy, a firm might engage in collaborative boundary work, providing frequent, informal, personalized, and relationship-oriented feedback to community members around relatively open-ended innovation challenges. Additionally, it is important for firms to monitor the evolution of their community over time. Changes in community composition, competencies, and expectations or in a firm's needs can shift the readiness of a community and firm to effectively engage in co-design. Overall, there is no single best approach, but being intentional about boundary work can help firms and communities to more fruitfully design together.