doing more with more (venturespring white paper)

Co-creation: doing more with more

© venturespring 2010 2

Contents

0 Co-creation: doing more with more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1 The child of evolving innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Why are people co-creating? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 Co-creation – what it is and what it is not . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4 Co-creation and the internet: from content to purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4 .1 Moving on to Reality 1 .5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

5 Purposeful co-creation and innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

5 .1 It privileges quality not quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5 .2 It focuses on meaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5 .3 It blends real world and virtual reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5 .4 It’s dynamic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

6 Onions or Philips – purpose-driven co-creation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

7 Venturespring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

7 .1 Uncovering purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18


Co-creation: doing more with more

We humans have been co-creating since the dawn of civilization . Think of the pyramids or Stonehenge – no-one built those on their own . Today, much of our lives depend on products and services we co-create in companies . And we live our lives in societies based on political, economic and social systems that people have been developing collectively for millennia .

So why is there such a buzz around ‘co-creation’ now? What do people mean by ‘co-creation’ that’s different from all those things we just mentioned? And how does co-creation help with innovation?

Today’s co-creation is something new because we have a tool that people in other genera-tions simply didn’t have – the internet . The internet has transformed the scale on which we can work together . Suddenly, massive numbers of people can co-create .

Through the internet, new forms of collective activity are emerging that:

• connect people, ideas, knowledge, and funding far beyond traditional boundaries of organizations and geographical location

• inspire, accelerate and enable new developments by tapping into the power of the crowd

• take companies beyond market-driven to end-user driven innovation, involving con-sumers directly in developing new products and services

We’re seeing new market dynamics emerge beyond classical producer-consumer relation-ships . There is a whole spectrum of inter-involvement between business and consumers from mass customization to ‘prosumer’ relationships (such as individual consumers produc-ing apps for the iPhone) .

In this paper, we look at the how the changing nature of innovation is driving new forms of co-creation. We define what co-creation is and what it is not. And we set out a vision for the ‘purposeful’ internet and co-creation which genuinely lives up to its name – benefitting all who participate, and – hopefully – making the world a better place . In doing so, we maintain that the future of the co-creation is more about social science than computer science .


1 The child of evolving innovation

Much of the collaborative energy harnessed by today’s co-creation derives from the chang-ing nature of innovation itself . In the 20th century, large swathes of innovation were driven by scientists and companies eager to grow by offering people new technologies and products . This innovation helped shape our contemporary world . Now, the incessant drive for innova-tion means that innovation itself needs to change .

Ever shorter product lifetimes, globalization, and increasingly competitive markets – all are putting pressure on companies to be constantly ‘faster, better, cheaper’ . The days of secre-tive inventing and product development in corporate laboratories behind high fences are disappearing . It’s often simply too expensive and slow to innovate alone any more . For many companies open innovation – innovating together with outside partners – is a commercial imperative .

In their book, The Global Brain, Nambisan and Sawhneyi describe this new innovation land-scape as ‘network centric’ . They map this landscape based on two parameters: (1) is the innovation centrally owned or organized in a distributed way? and (2) is the innovation effort taking place in a demarcated domain or is it an open challenge?

Figure 1: Network Centric InnovationOrchestra: a group of firms coming together to exploit a market opportunity based on an ex-plicit innovation architecture that is defined and shaped by a dominant firm.

Creative Bazaar: involves a large firm sourc-ing innovative product ideas and technologies from external sources and using its proprietary commercialization infrastructure (including its brands, design capabilities, and access to distri-bution channels) to build on the ideas and make them market-ready

Jam Central: innovations are emergent in na-ture and involve the community to a much great-er extent – taking shape through the collabora-tive efforts of contributors, and evolving in ways that are not well-understood at the outset.

MOD station: an innovation context wherein a community of innovators come together to cre-ate new offerings by modifying, extending, and/or enhancing an existing innovation platform in ways that benefit all members of the network including the creator of the innovation platform.

Network Centric InnovationFour models

Emergent

Defined

Centralised Diffused

Network Leadership

Inno

vatio

n Sp

ace

Orchestra

Creative Bazaar

MOD Station

Jam Central


At the same time, the internet and its ability to put consumers into direct contact with busi-nesses and researchers is enabling completely new forms of relationships . Through internet-enabled activities like ‘crowd-sourcing’ ever more people of all kinds are getting directly in-volved in innovation activities .

There are some well-established examples such as Procter & Gamble’s Connect + Develop™, launched in 2003 . P&G currently has over 1000 active agreements with innovation partners . Another is InnoCentive, the “world’s first Open Innovation Marketplace™”, which was spun out from pharmaceuticals giant, Eli Lilly in 2001 .

The flourishing co-creation environment has produced a huge array of other examples. From open source software such as Linux and Apache (the server software which dominates the in-ternet), through the collaborative work of Wikipedia, to the activities of companies like FACE, a UK-based firm that helps companies get women and young people directly involved in brands through co-creation activities .

A recent McKinsey survey found that deploying participatory Web 2.0 technologies (such as social networks, wikis and mi-croblogs) to “create networked organizations that foster collaboration among employees, customers and business partners is highly correlated with market share gains”.ii


2 Why are people co-creating?

The motivations and rewards associated with these activities vary widely, depending on who is driving in the activity (e .g . a single company, a group of companies, a community of indi-viduals) and its nature (e .g . looking for new ideas or solutions to technical problems, design-ing new products and services) .

In essence, they can be summarized as:

• Faster, better, cheaper innovation based on sharing ideas and risks; opening up new markets that can’t be addressed by any one of the parties alone; recognizing that you can’t do everything yourself, nor does it make sense to .

• Getting answers to problems you can’t solve internally; buying and selling Intellectual Property .

• Creating networks of inventors / active lead users with innovative ideas; truly under-standing what consumers want and delivering it – end-user driven innovation .

• Recognizing that the internet is changing the balance of power between companies and consumers, and involving people in ways that strengthen brands and brand loy-alty .

• Creating products and tools that are useful to the entire community, without the need for traditional structures or proprietary solutions .

• For individuals involved – recognition / career openings and / or the satisfaction of participating in meaningful actions . The power of acting on the belief that ‘business as usual’ no longer applies – e .g . social innovation driven by communities .

Does this mean that all the activities labeled as ‘co-creation’ are truly ‘co-creative’? We argue that many are not . The distinction is important because if you want to use co-create as a tool for innovation you need more than just scale . Market research disguised as co-creation is still market research no matter how huge the scale on which you carry it out .


3 Co-creation – what it is and what it is not

For an activity to be genuine ‘co-creation’, it must contain two ingredients:

• ‘co’ – as in we: we do something together, sharing in the outcome• ‘creation’ – as in we make something new

That also means co-creation is not ‘innovation by invitation’ – something where one party stands to benefit, and others purely participate. (For instance, a company puts a website on-line where it invites people to envisage a ‘greener’ world to get ideas for its innovation pipe-line . People contribute ideas, but their participation (and reward) is limited to that .)

In other words, any activity whose outcome is purely for “me” – even if that outcome is highly innovative – is not co-creation, because the ‘co’ dimension is missing . Similarly, any activity that focuses purely on incremental cost-down steps or process innovation for existing prod-ucts or services is not co-creation, because the ‘creation’ dimension is virtually non-existent . Figure 2 illustrates this argument, showing where co-creation as we define it takes place in the network-centric innovation landscape .

Figure 2: the space for co-creationGenuine co-creation means “we” and “new”, not “me” and / or “incremental” .

Network Centric InnovationThe space for co-creation

Application domain

innovation

Market innovation

Feature innovation

Product innovation

Me Me & my partners

We All of usNetwork Leadership

Inno

vatio

n Sp

ace


4 Co-creation and the internet: from content to purpose

So how does the internet fit in this picture? Firstly, let’s be clear: co-creation (however you define it) does not require the internet. You can co-create without it. As we said in the intro-duction, what’s new is the internet’s ability to connect people and enable co-operation on a huge scale and in new forms .

However, when it comes to harnessing people’s energies, working together purely online leaves out a crucial dimension – the physical reality of human interaction . Meeting people face to face remains a powerful way to spark that ‘let’s go for it!’ moment and keep the energy alive during long-term projects .

Using the internet as your exclusive enabler for co-creation misses a trick, because while the internet has permeated our daily reality, it can also distance us from it . In a similar way to how globalization has led us away from the local; the internet has made us remote from the real .

In today’s “web 2.0” world, we’re all content creators: blogging, tweeting, sharing our lives and opinions, along with our knowledge and professional expertise . We entertain ourselves with massively parallel multi-player games and collaborate online through tools like Google docs . We get together in new types of internet-enabled activities like crowd-sourcing and crowd-funding, and huge co-creation efforts like Wikipedia . We use social networking to con-nect to “friends” and contacts across the world. Yet much of this activity is disconnected from physical reality and our everyday lives .

You may have hundreds, even thousands, of friends and connections in your online social networks . But count how many people you actually talk to and meet with every week, and the number gets a lot smaller. (On average, Facebook users have 130 “friends”, but interact regularly with just 4-6 .)iii

The fact is: life isn’t “virtual”. Real relationships – whether business or personal – have sub-stance . Our location and physical connections still matter . Face to face meetings help build trust, the essential foundation for any collaboration . The internet is part of the fabric of our lives; but the “real” world is the fabric of our lives .


4.1 Moving on to Reality 1.5It is precisely because the real world matters that we predict the next stage in the evolution of the internet will not be “web 3.0” or indeed “web” anything. It will be about people and their reality – or what we call “Reality 1.5”.

Reality 1 .5 is the term we use for our prediction of the next paradigm for the web . This new paradigm will be characterized by the seamless integration of the online with the physical in such a way that people’s sense of reality, predominantly in the physical here and now, is en-hanced with online functionality, services and capabilities .

Today, the pursuit of scale and size (how many friends do you have on Facebook? How many tweets do you write a day?) has become a status symbol: a way for individuals and even companies to position themselves in the on-line social hierarchy .

For some people, the online pressure has become so overwhelming they want their “ana-logue life” back (even leading to sites like Web 2.0 suicide.com). Reality 1.5 acknowledges this . In Reality 1 .5, being active on the web will not be an end itself . Instead, the focus will be on meaningful relationships and online activity that supports our lives in the real world in a purposeful way .

In short, we see technology-driven web giving way to a socially-driven reality; a reality which will be about “me, we and you” – not “me, me, and me”. Co-creation will follow this evolution, enabling sharing and collaboration towards purposeful ends that benefit everyone involved.

“Understand sociology, not technology” Paul Adams, Google, The Real Life Social Network ppt, Slideshare


Figure 3 : the evolution of the internet towards “Reality 1.5”

Technical internet Web world begins

Social internet a.k.a. Web 2.0

Purposeful internet Reality 1.5

what do people do? publish their content publish more (personal) stuff pursue a purpose in life, to which the web might be helpful

where do they do that? on their own website on someone else’swebsite

in a seamless mash-up between the real and virtual worlds (e .g . eSphere, see section 5 .)

why? because it was possible because people think they are sharing - whereas often others (e .g . companies) are mining their content and activity for commercial purposes

because reality is where we live: the internet is part of re-ality, but not all . People aren’t their online avatars; we need an integration of old and new forms of existence – real-world and online personas

allowing them to become (what kind of people?)

webizens (citizens on the web)

web contacts the web is a space where you can meet others (social net-working); the web is an end in itself: I’m active on the web, therefore I’m a real person .

online brand advocates, promoting companies whether they want to or not .

purposeful web users in the real world and online: the web becomes an enabler for rich social interactions and purposeful activity . The web does many things for you, but you’re connected to life beyond it in a meaningful way .

paradox people feel informed, but often are overwhelmed with information

people feel enabled, but are often manipulated; cyber-space isn’t a space, it’s a series of linear links; much of the “stuff” available is (rela-tively) meaningless

(as yet unclear)

hot topic & why privacy, because things you do are being exploited behind your back

meaningful relationships: it doesn’t make any sense to have a 1 .000 .000 friends; you want connections to people that play a genuine role in your life

not quite functioning wbecause…

you work for someoneelse’s brand / a brand has outsourced work to you and you’re made to feel you benefit from this

key concept market-driven social / crowd activity purpose-driventype of business reality outsourcing for cost-cutting;

advertising is dead; branding requires early community-engagement; people position themselves socially through on-line presence

clear-sighted co-creation

web-use getting others to do yourwork while making them feel privileged

working together online and in the real world to the benefit of all


5 Purposeful co-creation and innovation

What does this mean for co-creation for innovation? We expect the purposefulness of Reality 1 .5 to drive richer, more fruitful co-creation based on four key factors:

5.1 It privileges quality not quantityIn Reality 1 .5, it will be the nature and relevance of your network connections that matter, not just the quantity .

Certainly, the internet is enabling much greater direct end-user involvement in innovation, such as that envisaged by Eric von Hippel in his seminal book Democratizing Innovation (MIT Press 2005) .

But it’s interesting that in the age of “we think” and “the power of crowds” Apple – now the world’s 17th best brand (Interbrand Top 100, 2010) – made its success on proprietary tech-nology developed behind closed doors .

So while the internet enables crowd-sourcing, let’s not forget: if you’re driven by the crowd, you may be driven nowhere . Consumer-driven / end-user driven innovation is not a universal panacea . During the recent oil spill in the Gulf, BP asked for ideas to tackle the leak . But the problem was so complex and required such specialized knowledge that posing the question online was essentially meaningless . Reality 1 .5 co-creation will encourage meaningful inputs and networks that make sense in your context .

5.2 It focuses on meaningThese relevant connections enable a second key ingredient: the ability to bring meaning into innovation. This ability to create meaning goes beyond simply fulfilling “unmet needs”. Because while needs inspire, they can also constrain . They can tempt thinking towards the incremental, basing the future on the past . Consumer insights and market research often say more about now than the future .

For instance, would the millions of people in Africa who now use mobile phones as a form of banking have recognized that need in advance? They might have expressed a need for micro-credit or small transaction banking . How many phone manufacturers or network opera-tors would have concluded from that – I can fulfill that need? It takes a real creative leap to turn airtime into a currency .


Co-creating meaningful innovation requires specific kinds of networks. Companies like Alessi, the upmarket kitchenware company, succeed in meaningful innovation because they tap into the knowledge of people who are in the business of meaning .iv

They build permanent networks of people tuned into the emerging cultural / social context – a lasting network of expert contacts in areas such as design, the arts and social sciences that helps them create meaning over and over again .

In a corporate context, this doesn’t mean putting design – any more than technology or mar-keting – on a pedestal. Rather, it means finding processes and tools that allow everyone in the co-creation process to contribute in a balanced way, so the result carries the meaning that leads to innovation success .

5.3 It blends real world and virtual realityPurpose-driven co-creation builds personal contacts into the process . It understands that fruitful relationships are built in multiple dimensions – in the physical world as well as online .

Figure 4 : the role of design-based innovation— source Verganti 2008v

Design-driven innovation can generate new meaning and radical improvements

Adaptation to the evolution of

socio-cultural models

Incr

emen

tala

l Im

prov

emen

t

Generation of new meanings

Rad

ical

Im

prov

emen

t

MEANING (language)

FUN

CTI

ON

ALIT

Y (te

chno

logy

)

Market pull(user centred)

Design driven (design push)

Technology push


For instance, someone invites you to a Meetup or a meeting of a LinkedIn group. You’ve made some online contacts within the group, so you go along for a first time. Whether you go again – or indeed continue your online involve – is likely to depend heavily on whether the real world contacts spark your energy and imagination . Or think of it this way, how many of us would work on a lengthy or complex project with people we have never met in person?

Purposeful co-creation understands that working together is a social, human activity . It de-pends on shared languages, mutual respect and having fun – all of which are enhanced through face to face contacts .

Such blending involves a process which incorporates meetings and online collaboration . But the interweaving of the real and online will go much further as explorations like the eSphere at the 2010 STRP Art & Technology Festival demonstrate (See below “Who’s dashing in the eSphere?”)

Who’s dashing in the eSphere?STRP Festival is an annual technology and arts festival held in Eindhoven, the Netherlands . Its first three editions were primarily used to exhibit technology-as-art. Its fourth edition, STRP 2010, aims to introduce an extra dimension: technology as experience .

This was the starting point for the eSphere: a domain in which the physical world and virtual real-ity seamlessly blend. Participants receive an activated RFID chip card, allowing them to “dash”: establishing connections between themselves and the art works. (Why “dashing”? As a punctua-tion mark, a dash illustrates a relationship between two things.) If their profile in the eSphere web application is linked to Twitter and/or Facebook, visitors who dash art works will automatically tweet and update their Facebook friends about the works they like .

The eSphere aims to make internet functionality tangible (by using RFID to support dashing) . It also aims to make social media action-driven and to make social media social, by engaging individual participants in the joint creation of a collaborative tag cloud and even an online event panorama (visit www.womima.com, search for STRP to see the first festival world mind map).

Culturally, the eSphere was conceived as a modest tribute to Jean-François Lyotard’s 1985 exhibi-tion ‘Les Immatériaux’ at the Centre Pompidou in Paris . Les Immatériaux has become the icon for the exhibition as event, inspiring STRP Festival to pursue the eSphere as a seamless integration of the physical world with virtual reality .


5.4 It’s dynamicAlong with relevance, meaning and a more blended physical/virtual reality, comes continuous evolution . There are already many tools and websites devoted to collaborative work, idea generation and innovation processes . But their approach is frequently based on existing inno-vation processes. In effect, they fix how people think and work based on what went before. It’s often the familiar story of Marshall McLuhan’s “horseless carriage” analogy.vi Today’s cars look nothing like carriages pulled by horses, but the earliest designs of 19th century automo-tive pioneers started out that way because they envisioned their inventions based on what already existed .

Yet by definition, innovative innovation is dynamic. It must constantly evolve. So while exist-ing tools and processes can provide a starting point, the way of working must itself be co-created and continuously learning .

Reality 1 .5 will recognize this . Indeed, co-creation platforms will use the power of the web to actually enhance meaningful co-creation: for instance, using semantic techniques to au-tomate continuous learning, so processes and tools support ground-breaking thought pro-cesses and ways of working .


6 Onions or Philips – purpose-driven co-creation?

How does purpose-driven co-creation fit in the business world? Think of the difference be-tween an onion grower and a company like Philips .

The onion grower has a specific goal to grow onions and sell them to people who want on-ions . He could potentially offer customization – would you like your onions white, green, or pink? But in this business model, there’s little need or reason to co-create . In essence, this is a purely results-driven business . Success is measured by how many onions are sold and for what price and at what margin .

Companies like Philips are different and not just because of the industry they’re in . Philips has transformed from a company that sees itself as selling products (under the slogan “Let’s make things better”) to a company that “improves people’s lives” with the promise of “sense and simplicity”.

And “improving lives” is a purpose. In other words (assuming multinationals don’t change their corporate missions overnight), companies like Philips seem to have made the paradigm shift to become purpose-driven .

Purpose-driven companies don’t have to be large . A baker in Amsterdam (Taarten van Abel http://www .taartenvanabel .nl/ ) transformed his business by realizing that when people buy tailor-made cakes it’s not about eating, it’s about a shared experience . So he started talking to customers in detail about their special occasion and the people involved as part of the cake buying process. This special “intake” is part of a complete, personalized process. In effect, it’s cake buying transformed into cake-experience co-creation .

Indeed, as this last example illustrates co-creation is often a consequence of purpose-driven behavior . Purposes are generally broad and inclusive: few companies or organizations have the means to fulfill purposes alone.


7 Venturespring

Venturespring itself is developing out of a process of co-creative innovation . To date, Venturespring’s activities include working with Philips on sustainable development through the bamboostonesvii website and Connection Day, the first innovation workshop for sustainable development held in the Van Abbemuseum of contemporary art (Eindhoven, The Nether-lands) . Venturespring was also behind the creation of co-do,viii its first attempt at a collab-orative innovation environment which is backed by the ICSE (the International Centre for Sustainable Excellence) .

In projects like these, we explore with the initial partners the field in which they operate, the habits restricting change and the ‘currency’ in which innovation will be rewarded (such as growth in market share or new business opportunities) . In doing so, a sense of purpose emerges that we help fine tune towards a co-creation process and identify the potential players with whom to align . We work with our strategic partner U-Approach to develop a co-creation engine and with others to explore future web functionality (e .g . www .womima .com) .

7.1 Uncovering purposeCo-creation for many companies and organizations implies the introduction of a new orien-tation, one towards finding out what purpose is truly being pursued. It raises fundamental questions . What are we here for? If we stop what we do, who would actually be hurt? Whose benefit are we aiming to fulfill?

Answers to such questions hint at the real primary process of people finding themselves united in an organization. This is always specific to the actual people, and the time and place in which they find themselves; there is no “one size fits all” way of introducing co-creation.

Exploring your purpose, defining your primary process in terms of this purpose, aligning your-self with players in the market, pursuing innovation in a desired currency and other activities tend to be organization-specific and context-dependent. In the here and now, in this time and place, establishing how a blend of physical activities and virtual applications may help realize co-creation, is and has to be a learning process – and one that continues over a long period .


8 Conclusion

In a nutshell, we argue that people have always been co-creating, from constructing great monuments to driving political and social change . And that true co-creation requires two in-gredients: more than one person acts and shares the outcome (so there is some sort of “co-“) and that something new is realized (for “creation” to apply). The difference now is the internet, which allows us to co-create on a scale never before possible .

Moreover, we predict that the web (enabled by the internet) will evolve to a new paradigm that we call Reality 1 .5 . This Reality 1 .5 will be the next step in an evolution that began with the shift from the initial technology-driven internet to web 2 .0, in which social media become the center of activities (rather than maintaining individual websites) .

We use the term Reality 1 .5 because we believe the starting point will not be the web (unlike “web 2.0” or “web 3.0”) but the “real world”, i.e. physical reality. This shift will be characterized by a desire for meaningfulness in relationships and interactions, and the increasing availability of the internet everywhere and all the time – on phones, through connectivity in public spaces, etc .

Because of its focus on meaning, Reality 1 .5 will privilege quality over quantity of interac-tions . It will enable rich exchanges and like reality itself, be dynamic and continuously open to change and learning . As a result, web applications will increasingly integrate new semantic functionalities able to accommodate this continuous change .

Reality 1 .5 will also enable co-creation in ways that support a paradigm-shift underway in the business world . Many companies are becoming more market- and consumer-focused, and the web 2 .0 world has brought businesses and their customers closer together in many ways, even enabling customers to be directly involved in innovation .

However, we believe here too meaning and purpose will be more significant than the quantity of interactions . Mass participation is not the only – or indeed necessarily the best – route for truly ground-breaking innovation. It can limit the imagination to “horseless carriages”. As Ver-ganti argues successful – and truly ground-breaking – innovation often comes from networks of people who can bring meaningful insights, rather than simply a huge pile of ideas .

As companies like Philips shift to a purpose-driven business paradigm where meaning is key, Reality 1 .5 may provide more relevant tools for co-creative innovation . This approach, which begins by identifying the purpose with the company or organization can align, will make open innovation sensible, smart and meaningful .


References

i The Global Brain, Satish Nambisan & Mohanbir Sawheny, Wharton School of Publishing, 2007

ii McKinsey Quarterly, August 2010 and How companies are benefiting from Web 2.0: McKinsey Global Survey, September 2009 .

iii The Real Life Social Network, Paul Adams, Google – on slideshare .net

iv Design, meanings and radical innovation: A meta-model and a research agenda. Professor Roberto Verganti

v Design, meanings and radical innovation: A meta-model and a research agenda. Professor Roberto Verganti

vi Marshall McLuhan (2005: 319), Understanding Media: Routledge, London

vii www .bamboostones .net: an initiative by Royal Philips Electronics, The United Nations University, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Innovation Leadership Forum to help people

phrase their most fundamental questions related to sustainable development .

viii www .co-do .net

VenturespringApparatenfabriek Torenallee 32-34,5617 BD EindhovenNetherlands

w: www .venturespring .bize: ceesjan@venturespring .bize: stefan@venturespring .bize: susan@venturespring .bizm: +31 6 473 642 56

doing more with more (venturespring white paper)

Business