Enrique Wulff Barreiro
email: enrique.wulff@icman.csic.es

Trk family neurotrophin receptors and p75 receptor, a multiple competing hypothesis case in the nerve growth factor (NGF) history

Keywords: Oncogenetics, NGF, neurotrophin, trk, p75, history of neurosciences

In the area of Trk oncogene research has been revealed the different competing hypotheses made at the time of its discovery. A conflict of interest arised within the group who identified it as the nerve growth factor receptor (NGF). An auxiliary assumption, on the cardinal importance of the low affinity p75 receptor, resulted in that the consistency of the group take patterns of competence. The level of provocation affected the joint effort. In an environment that reminds the denial that Stehelin was given by Varmus and Bishop, in the race for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Nowadays p75 receptor functions are described as "enigmatic", and accepted that all the neurotrophins interact with two types of receptors: the specific to the ligands of the high-affinity Trk family of receptors and the low affinity p75 receptor (with structural similarities to the tumor necrosis factor and in liaison with the development of eye optical fiber). Against this background, papers concerning this subject and included in the ISI citation database are analysed. Categorizing them through a system of descriptors, according to their original publication date. Complete time vectors are approximated by setting the analysis with a growth model based on Gompertz function. After the criteria used by authorities like Rita Levi-Montalcini, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, Rodolfo Llinás and Victor McKunsick the selected material resulted in a database with 371 records. This data suggest the opportunity for historical sciences of a non discrimination compliance test performed on multiple hypotheses.

Introduction

Early in the nineties of XXth century it was known that nerve growth factor (NGF), a molecular Rosetta stone, has a receptor with oncogenic nature. In the February 1986 issue of Nature, Mariano Barbacid and his team discovered the tyrosine kinase gene, which plays a fundamental role in the maintenance of neurological functions. This same year Rita Levi-Montalcini received a Nobel prize for NGF. NGF is a chemical body which stimulates the proliferation of neuronal extensions (the dendrite or axon) and make their way to those cells with which the nerve cell is to establish contact. By analyzing tyrosine kinases and their enzymes, scientists hoped to chart the signaling pathways of several oncogenic proteins. And Barbacid definitive proof that trk gene was a proto-oncogene marked a new development in the fight against cancer. In fact, a transmembrane tyrosine kinase, this proto-oncogene termed trk (tropomyosin related kinase), was identified in 1991 by Mariano Barbacid as the nerve growth factor receptor [START_REF] Pellicer | Contribución de los científicos españoles en Estados Unidos a la bioquímica[END_REF].

Mariano Barbacid, a Madrid-born scientist, was the first who cloned a human oncogene in 1981. Together with two spanish biologists (Eugenio Santos and Vicente Notario), the italian Simonetta Pulciani and the north american biologists Linda Long and Anne Lauver they discovered the mutated gene H-ras implied in bladder cancer. This work combined gene engineering techniques with transfection techniques (inoculation into the cell of the cancer gene), which Barbacid learnt from the catalan pathologist Ángel Pellicer.

It was at one time possible for scientists to share freely biological materials, and genetic data. Today, when genetic sequences, microorganisms and research animals, computer algorithms, university conferences, and even surgical techniques fall within the scope of the intellectual property domain, this is no longer the case. Generally speaking these are all frontier objects, scheme that favors a diversity of priority claims and which conflicts with its social and legal status [START_REF] Krimsky | Who owns academic work? Battling for control of intellectual property[END_REF]. We understand that a conflict of interests has occurred inside the group which identified the human trk proto-oncogene. And that a frontier domain was defined as soon as appeared the auxiliary assumption on the role of the low affinity p75 receptor.

This protein tyrosine kinase family is the neurotrophin receptors set. The discovery that in cells expressing Trk receptors, neurotrophins promote cell survival changed everything previously knew about NGF. Indeed, by 1990, NGF had been known about for almost 40 years and it was thought that all have already been said about it.

Neurotrophins (NGF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), neurotrophin-3 and neurotrophin-4) are factors enhancing nerve cells growth potentialities. Nerve growth factor was the first growth factor identified, historically discovered by Rita Levi-Montalcini, in a work that began in 1949 following the suggestion of Victor Hamburger. The regulation of growth factors in neuronal development has rendered the difference between growth factors and neurotrophic factors useless, taking into account that neurotrophins shows numerous effects on non neuronal cells (specially on cells of the immune system). Due to the large number of actions attributed to these molecules, a current definition of neurotrophins covers the maturation, regeneration, differentiation, and even neuronal death among other issues.

Neuronal growth factor receptors temporally regulate cellular sensitivity to growth factors in their environment. Receptors are transmembranal because the answer of a cell to a particular growth factor depends on the expression of specific receptors in cell membranes (Siegel, 1998). Neurotrophins information transmission through its receptors toward the interior of the cell is translated into their adscribed effects [START_REF] Vecino | Las neurotrofinas y su uso en la clínica[END_REF]. So that a "new avenue to research for neurobiologists" was opened in 1991 with the discovery by a Spaniard of the nerve growth factor (NGF) trk receptor.

Objective

The objective pursued is to detect the differences between the scientific careers of the biologists Parada and Martín Zanca and the chemists Barbacid, with regard to trk oncogene. To accomplish this, we employ a Mann-Whitney test by computing the U statistic, calculating an acceptance region for null hypothesis and by examining the validity of such an hypothesis [START_REF] Conover | Practical nonparametric statistics[END_REF] [START_REF] Egghe | Introduction to informetrics[END_REF]. The null hypothesis will be rejected if the scientific content of the programs differ. Parada had play a role in the oncogene race, identifying Barbacid's work on T24 bladder gene, with Earl Jensen bladder gene results from the lab where he worked in 1980.This was an episode that a non-parametric proof can pose by testing two rival hypotheses; it is adequate when a priori information is not available on the distribution of population in the authors whose normative expectations and behavioral patterns evolve adjusted to two scientific practices against each other.

A clear indication of subject category, its frequency, shows the more or less use of key words in the records analyzed in the SCI (ISI Thompson) database that are retrieved to answer the research questions. Referring Figure 1 Table I shows significant differences. The largest sub collections of published documents on trk, retrieved from SCI (ISI Thompson) database are those of the authors Parada (41 papers) and Barbacid (35). Differences in leadership between these two scientists are relevant to an ordinal scale of subject categories. On the other hand, Martín-Zanca is much closer to Barbacid than to Parada. It can be accepted that the correction and continuity procedure suggested by this dissimilitude follow the trace of the postdoctoral collaborator Martín-Zanca [START_REF] Scherer | The emigration of German-speaking economists after 1933[END_REF].

On an experimental basis.

One of the leaders (Barbacid) shall maintain that the trk oncogene is the nerve growth factor (NGF) receptor. Supporting this hypothesis from his discovery of the oncogene in 1985 until today. The other leader (Parada) introduces an auxiliary assumption, to involve p75 protein, before formulating a different hypothesis. That in 1991 will define the second "hottest" field in biology, promulgated by the ISI. Interestingly enough, a conspiracy was suggested behind the question on Trk working alone [START_REF] Cherfas | Does Trk protein act alone, or is it a conspiracy?[END_REF].

On a historical basis. [START_REF] Cleland | Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method[END_REF] This multiple hypothesis formulation, in competence, to explain a fact that has happened, the oncogene trk discovery in colon cancer cells provide an opportunity to approach causal explanation in algorithmic historiography. A historiometric examination of this case makes available the right taxonomy of leadership [START_REF] Garfield | Why do we need Algorithmic Historiography[END_REF].

These causal etiologies, concerning the universe of publications and its influence, has their temporary threshold in April 1991 (on April 5 in the journal Cell in the case of Barbacid and on April 26 in the journal Science in the case of Martin-Zanca). Afterwards both Spaniards returned to Europe. One to conduct the newly formed CNIO (Spanish National Cancer Research Centre), and one to integrate a CSIC (Spanish National Research Council) institute located in Salamanca, west of Madrid.

From the graphical point of view, the convergence between Chao and Parada (in 1991) was the cover of Science (Nº 5005, April 26, 1991). A specific university-level finding for the scientist whose training was supported by the Spaniards biochemists in the US [START_REF] Levin | Sociology of scienceare the foreign born a source of strength for U[END_REF], for which he had acted as a postdoc; and whose relatively short career close to Barbacid seems the result of an uncritical adoption of the results of a model overemphasized by social factors. An outcome that remind the situation of Dr Stehelin (also first author in a contribution communicating a crucial discovery) in a program awarded with the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1989 (given to Varmus and Bishop) [START_REF] Wulff Barreiro | History of the discovery of the origins of the tumor formation: Dr. Barbacid's program at the beginning of the research on oncogenes[END_REF].

It is an undeniable challenge given that nowadays the p75 receptor functions continue to be intriguing [START_REF] Barker | P75NTR is positively promiscuous: novel partners and new insights[END_REF]. In this receptor are present the difficulties inherent in the "frontier objects", as in the painstaking process that follows the acknowledgment of the Spanish results relative to retinal apoptosis. In the central retina, dying cells create space for the axons converging to form the optic nerve. And this reconstruction of the retinal section moved towards increasing evidence on the signals generated by p75, as a promoter of programmed cell death [START_REF] Cuadros | Demonstration of phagocytic cell system belonging to the hemopoietic lineage and originating from the yolk sac in the early avian embryo[END_REF] [START_REF] Frade | Induction of cell death by endogenous nerve growth factor through its p75 receptor[END_REF].

Methodology

To some extent the 1986 winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine, Rita Levi-Montalcini, the director of the department of Physiology at New York University School of Medicine, Rodolfo R. Llinás, the emeritus professor of Genetics at Stanford University, Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza, and the professor of Medical Genetics at Johns Hopkins University, Victor A. McKusick, have been engaged in this research program by communicating contributions from other authors to the US National Academy of Sciences. First, the "absence of consensus" is scrutinized through the analysis of the content of the contributions communicated by these four scientists.

The prosopographical analysis of the authors (López Piñero & Terrada, 1993) [START_REF] Shapin | Prosopography as a research tool in history of science : the British scientific community 1700-1900[END_REF] invites to place the object of study between the problems faced within the OMIM (Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man) database, an institution that is a reference source in the subject. Entry #164970 "Oncogene trk" (created on June 1986 by Victor A. McKusick, in 2006 it moved to #191315, #191030) facilitated the documents with which was elaborated a database ('p75, trk'). By using the software Procite TM . This database covers a period of 23 years .

We searched all the documents included in the lists of references of the selected papers. And they were included in the database 'p75, trk'. The basic information on these publications was obtained in Medline, the U.S.

National Library of Medicine bibliographic database. The objective pursued was to define the system of keywords used to describe its content; to do so it was used the field #45 Keywords provided by the software 'Procite'.

The database also met the analysis of the review articles on the protein tyrosine kinases before the discovery of trk oncogene (in 1985) and on the neurotrophin receptors, after it became apparent the absence of agreement between the authors (1993).

Special problems were confronted in managing the term 'p75'. Because it was not used as a descriptor by the database Medline (at least until 2005), all the searches were made against SCI. The analysis of the time series which has resulted from the use of the keyword 'p75' in SCI, justified separate treatment in parallel to the developed through the database working with ProCite TM .

The time interval 1968-91 was chosen to verify the development of the scientific interest in this topic. From the 1968 review contribution on NGF by Nobel awarded Levi-Montalcini, to 1991 Barbacid contribution on NGF receptor). The information flow analysis method was chosen as the most convenient for the quantification of this archive [START_REF] Brozek | Dynamics of information flow in the field of rare earth carbides research[END_REF]. Once exposed the system of descriptors, its temporal evolution was computed on an exponential basis, seeking to use also the Gompertz approach applied as an "exponential growth process limited by exponential retardation" (eg a sigmoidal function) [START_REF] Akanuma | Parameter analysis of Gompertzian function growth model in clinical tumors[END_REF]. To analyze the data used to depict historical trends covering these years, we attempted to fit the Gompertz function. Because it adjust S-shaped better, and in its literature the growth of science is said to follow such a model. (Results are shown in Appendix 2 (Table IV andFigure 2)).

In the introductory section software HistCite TM was employed to draft Figure 1.

Results

1121 keywords classify all the aspects used by the information flows in a database of 371 records, elaborated using the software ProCite TM . Five of these descriptors are able to select 80 per cent of the contents in the database.

These descriptors are: G -Growth factor N -Nerve growth factor O -Oncogene R -Receptors cell surface T -Tyrosine

We carry out the production of the indexes G/S, N/S, O/S, R/S, T/S, where S is the sum of 80 percent of the total documents retrievable through this system of descriptors (G, N, O, R, T). Displayed over time these indexes can provide insights related to the historical development of the topic and the structure of its dynamic. (see Table II) Table II. The percentage of studies on neurotrophins, its receptors and oncogenes in the database 'p75, trk' (ProCiteTM)(%)

In turn, the keyword 'p75' in the database SCI selects 100 references. That can be spread over 17 thematic categories, as shown in the Table III.

Table III.

Distribution per thematic category in a search for papers using the term 'p75', during the period 1968-1991 (in the database SCI).

We are going to contrast the tendencies for interests in science that are displayed graphically in these two tables with the analysis of the empirical difficulties and the hypothesis formulated in the six contributions communicated by the four eminent scientists to the National Academy of Sciences of the US.

For Levi-Montalcini:

Communicated on August 9, 1993. The debate is: whether Trk constitutes the high-affinity NGF receptor by itself or whether the functional receptor represents a complex of the low affinity NGF receptor and Trk [START_REF] Ehrhard | Expression of nerve growth factor and nerve growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase Trk in activated CD4-positive T-cell clones[END_REF]. and Communicated on July 3, 1997. Reporting the discovery of small vesicles containing until one-third of the total Trk, and supporting the hypothesis that Trk receptors transduce the NGF signal from the platform of a small vesicle; in its turn it maintains that p75 does not appear to be down-regulated from the cell surface in response to NGF (Grimes, Beattie, & Mobley, 1993).

For Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforza:

Communicated on April 1, 1991(and received for review February 21, 1991). The hypothesis is that the high-affinity NGF-receptor complex is a substrate of tyrosine kinase activity (Meakin & Shooter, 1991).

For Victor A. McKusick:

Communicated on January 9, 1995. Trk contains intrinsic tyrosine kinase activity, that has been located to the cytoplasmic domain, and it is thought that activation of this kinase represents the initial step in the intracellular signal transduction pathway of NGF. In brain cells a specific association of Trk with p75 was not observed [START_REF] Mutoh | Ganglioside GM1 binds to the Trk protein and regulates receptor function[END_REF].

For Rodólfo R. Llinás:

Communicated on September 29, 1997. trkC is the most likely transducer of neurotrophin-3 in heart development; and p75 lacks intrinsic enzymatic activity (Tessarollo, Tsoulfas, Donovan, Palko, Blair-Flynn, Hempstead, et al., 1995).

The trk proto-oncogenic form discovered by Barbacid in 1985, is identified as the NGF receptor codification, the hallmark of NGF receptors.

As for the cell surface protein, designated as p75, the message remains obscure. Looking at Figure 1 (see Appendix 1), we find in 1986 Article 2 the initial expression, in rats, of the gene encoding for the low affinity NGF receptor in human cells. It is Dr Chao program, of which Article 15 is a part, a study with a chimeric form of p75. Furthermore in Dr. Barde contribution, Article 7, biophysical properties are expressed, and p75 physiological relevance remains unclear.

On the other hand, Article 11 provides crucial results with the "brand" of the cell surface receptors inside the family of the tyrosine kinase proteins for the high affinity NGF receptors. Together articles 11 and 12 advanced that the high affinity NGF receptors contained an assemblage subunit different from p75.

As the title of this contribution shows, emphasis given to the idea of multiple discoveries, the interpersonal relations of the scientists, their milieu [START_REF] Merton | Resistance to the systematic study of multiple discoveries in science[END_REF], are better understood by taking account the success of the "guiding assumption". The initial discovery of trk proto-oncogen. The scope of empirical difficulties suggested by the auxiliar assumption (p75) actuate stimulating the capacity to solve problems of the main program (trk), with no resolution through the auxiliar (p75) [START_REF] Laudan | Testing theories of scientific change[END_REF].

Conclusion

Since its discovery in the 1950s nerve growth factor, a Rosetta Stone for understanding the biology of cancerogenesis, becomes one of the best-characterized members of a later identified family of neurotrophic factors. The experiments that led to it revealed its essential role in the embryonic development of the brain, and that it is also involved each time new connections between nerve cells are established (eg at the time of learning). As NGF crystal structure provides a model for rational design of its derived drugs. Testing the NGF-receptor recognition was critical for a potential use of NGF and its relatives in the treatment of neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.

Mariano Barbacid, a molecular biologist at the Frederick Cancer Research Facility in Maryland, discovered the receptor for nerve growth factor (NGF) as a tyrosine kinase oncogene (in 1986), which he previously had identified in a human colon carcinoma biopsy (in 1982). But as a basic researcher he discarded its clinical applicability. In contrast, another Spanish biologist (Dionisio Martín-Zanca) at work inside his team, was involved with a Colombian (Luis Parada) from a lab that was also in the race to identify the lesion in the ras gene. A tale of two receptors resulted, that meant the renaissance of p75 as a signalling receptor with cell killing activities [START_REF] Barbacid | Nerve growth factor: a tale of two receptors[END_REF].

As every molecule tells a story, it must be noted that a "killer" (p75), better described as medicinal or pharmaceutical, came out really fast when receptor tyrosine kinases (Trk receptors) were isolated. It has been found that an original team characterizing the trk gene splitted in two. Significant time has been expended to identify neurotrophins and their receptors. And Nobel award could have been granted to NGF receptor discovery. In any event, assuming that neurotrophins and their Trk receptors play a crucial role in the development and maintenance of the vertebrate nervous system. Further sharpens the debate on "frontier objects" (like p75) that can be directed purposely to look for a cure.

The assertion formulated in the summary concerning the general consensus on the p75/Trk heterodimer model, as depicted in Figure 1 by articles Nr. 9, 15, 10, 13 and 14, is contradicted by the lack of biochemical evidence (immunoprecipitation studies) concerning the mechanism by which the p75 neurotrophin receptor and TrkA interact (as maintained in the Articles 6,[START_REF] Klein | The trkB tyrosine protein-kinase gene codes for a 2 nd neurogenic receptor that lacks the catalytic kinase domain[END_REF][START_REF] Klein | The trk protooncogene encodes a receptor for nerve growth-factor[END_REF]12 and 11).

p75 was regarded as a "drifting biological object" during the decade 1994-2004. Only the potential therapeutic utility of neurotrophins as an agent for clinical use, seems to have relaunched the until now incomplete understanding of the complexe molecular mechanisms with which this protein (p75) exert their actions (He & Farcia, 2004).

From the classical embryological observations of Viktor Hamburger, through the identification and purification of NGF by Levi-Montalcini, Barbacid provided the first the molecular verification of tyrosine kinase proto-oncogene as the NGF receptor.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Coding for NGF receptors (Appendix 1).

  above, in the year 1985 a postdoc then working with Mariano Barbacid at the National Cancer Institute, Frederick, Maryland, (Dionisio Martín Zanca) was involved in the cloning of a gene, called the trk gene, from colon cancer cells [Art. 3, Appendix 1]. In 1987 and 1990, Luis Parada and David Kaplan come to Frederick. [Art. 9] Barbara Hempstead and Moses Chao, from Cornell University Medical College, collaborate to build the group Chao & Parada (April 26, 1991, "p75K protein is clearly implicated in nerve growth factor (NGF) actions" [Art. 13]). Barbacid had published, three weeks before, an almost identical result, although he did not involve the low affinity receptor [Art. 8].

  The chosen time interval is 1986-2005. However, Medline indicators did not use the term 'Neurotrophin' until 1990 (as suggested by the question 'Neurotrophin*[mh] not 1991:2005 [dp]'); nor that of 'nerve growth factor receptor' until 1980, as indicated by the query 'Receptors, Nerve Growth Factor [mh] not 1981:2005 [dp]'); neither 'trk receptor' until 1988 (as expressed by the search 'Receptor, trk* [mh] not 1989:2005 [dp]').

Table I .

 I Mann-Whitney test for the scientific contents on trk.

	Question:	U Statistic	Acceptance region	Statistically significant difference
				between research contents
	TS=TRK and AU={M-Z,
	Barbacid, Parada}
	M-Z vs. Barbacid M-Z vs. Parada Parada vs. Barbacid	24 53 36	(21, +∞) (53, +∞) (39, +∞)	Contents does not differ Contents does not differ Significantly detectable difference

Acknowledgements E. W. B. thanks M.A. Cuadros and J. Navascués, in the Uni-versity of Granada, Department of Cellular Biology.

Appendix 1

List of articles used in


Louis-Etienne Dubois
email: louis-etienne.dubois@hec.ca

Pascal Le Masson

Benoit Weil

Patrick Cohendet

From organizing for innovation to innovating for organization: how co-design fosters change in organizations

Keywords: co-design, design, innovation, collaboration, change management

Amongst the plethora of methods that have been developed over the years to involve users, suppliers, buyers or other stakeholders in the design of new objects, co-design has been advertised as a way to generate innovation in a more efficient and more inclusive manner. Yet, empirical evidence that demonstrates its innovativeness is still hard to come by. Moreover, the fact that co-design workshops are gatherings of participants with little design credentials and often no prior relationships raises serious doubts on its potential to generate novelty. In this paper 1 , we study the contextual elements of 21 workshops in order to better understand what codesign really yields in terms of design outputs and relational outcomes. Our data suggest that codesign emerges in crisis situations and that it is best used as a two-time intervention. We also suggest using collaborative design activities as a way to bring about change through innovation.

Introduction

Open, cross-boundary, participative, collaborative, distributed: whatever the word used, innovation has become a practice known to involve a wide array of actors [START_REF] Chesbrough | Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology[END_REF][START_REF] Remneland-Wikhamn | Open innovation climate measure: The introduction of a validated scale[END_REF]. Amongst the plethora of methods that have been developed over the years, collaborative design activities, also known as co-design, are increasingly used to design new products, services and even public policies with users, citizens and other stakeholders [START_REF] Sanders | Co-creation and the new landscapes of design[END_REF][START_REF] Berger | Co-designing modes of cooperation at the customer interface: learning from exploratory research[END_REF].

While its tools and methods, as well as its benefits for design purposes, have been discussed at length, the settings in which such activities arise and more importantly its effects on the groups, organizations and design collectives remain to this date misunderstood [START_REF] Kleinsmann | Why do (n't) actors in collaborative design understand each other? An empirical study towards a better understanding of collaborative design[END_REF][START_REF] Schwarz | Sustainist Design Guide[END_REF]). Yet, initial contexts, which can be defined by and explored through the relationship between stakeholders, should be of major interest for they play a significant role in the unfolding of collaborative design or joint innovation processes [START_REF] Clauß | The Influence of the Type of Relationship on the Generation of Innovations in Buyer-Supplier Collaborations[END_REF]. Furthermore, the fact that co-design workshops often involves participants who lack design credentials and do not share some sort of common purpose raises serious questions on the potential for innovation and motivations to take part in such time-consuming activities.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the context of co-design activities and its outputs, arguing that it may be used as a change management intervention while being advertised as a design and innovation best practice. Through a multiple-case study, we investigate the contextual elements of 21 workshops in which stakeholders gather, often for the very first time, to design new products, services or processes together. Following an overview of the literature on innovation, design and collaboration, we lay out based on our results a typology of contextual crisis in which co-design is used. Finally, we suggest that co-design should not be seen as design best practice, but rather as a two-phase intervention in which relationships or ties must first be reinforced through design activities before innovation issues can be tackled.

Literature Review

Over the past decades, innovation has received increased attention from practitioners and academics altogether, resulting in new forms for organizing such activities and a large body of literature on its every dimension [START_REF] Remneland-Wikhamn | Open innovation climate measure: The introduction of a validated scale[END_REF]. Garel & Mock (2011:133) argue that "innovation requires a collective action and an organized environment". In other words, we need on one side people, preferably with relevant knowledge and skills (expertise), and on the other side, a collaborative setting in which diverse yet compatible collectives can come together to design new products, services or processes. This classic innovation scheme holds true for not only standard R&D teams, but also for new and more open forms of innovation in which users interact with industry experts in well-defined platforms [START_REF] Piller | Mass customization: reflections on the state of the concept[END_REF][START_REF] Von Hippel | Democratizing innovation[END_REF]. Accordingly, the literature review is structured as follows: first on the rationale behind the need for organized environment in which stakeholders can design and innovate, and then on the collective action that drives the collaboration between them.

From open innovation [START_REF] Chesbrough | Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology[END_REF] to participative design [START_REF] Schuler | Participatory design: Principles and practices[END_REF], the call for broader involvement in organizations' design, NPD and innovation activities has been heard widely and acted upon by many [START_REF] Von Hippel | Democratizing innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Hatchuel | Teaching innovative design reasoning: How concept-knowledge theory can help overcome fixation effects[END_REF]. Seen as a response to mounting competitive pressures, cross-boundaries practices are a way for organizations broadly taken to remain innovative, adaptive and flexible [START_REF] Teece | Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance[END_REF]. The case for openness, as put forth in the literature, is built on the promise of reduced uncertainty, more efficient processes, better products and positive market reaction to the introduction of the innovation [START_REF] Diener | The Market for Open Innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Thomke | Experimentation matters: Unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation[END_REF]. Rather than focusing on cost reductions alone, open and collaborative are to be implemented for the value-added and creativity they bring to the table [START_REF] Remneland-Wikhamn | Transaction cost economics and open innovation: implications for theory and practice[END_REF]. As a result, organizations are increasingly engaging with their stakeholders to tap into their knowledge base, leverage value co-creation potential and integrate them in various stages of new product or service development activities [START_REF] Lusch | Competing through service: insights from service-dominant logic[END_REF][START_REF] Mota Pedrosa | Customer Integration during Innovation Development: An Exploratory Study in the Logistics Service Industry[END_REF]. However, openness to outside ideas does not come naturally. The existence of the well-documented "not-invented-here" syndrome [START_REF] Katz | Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups[END_REF] has academics constantly remind us that open innovation can only emerge in settings where the culture welcomes and nurtures ideas from outsiders [START_REF] Hurley | Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination[END_REF].

The field of design has long embraced this participatory trend. Designers have been looking for more than forty years now for ways to empower users and make them more visible in the design process (Stewart & Hyysaalo, 2008). As a result, multiple approaches now coexist and have yielded a rich literature often focused on visualisation tools, design techniques and the benefits of more-inclusive objects that are obtained through sustained collaboration with users. Whether empathic (e.g. [START_REF] Koskinen | Empathic design: User experience in product design[END_REF]), user-centered (e.g. Norman & Draper, 1986), participatory [START_REF] Schuler | Participatory design: Principles and practices[END_REF] or contextual (e.g. [START_REF] Wixon | Contextual design: an emergent view of system design[END_REF]), streams of "user-active" design presupposes engaging with willing participants in order to improve the construction process and output. Still too often, the interactions between those who know and those who do remain shallow, and are limited to having users discuss the design of services or products [START_REF] Luke | Co-designing Services in the Co-futured City. Service Design: On the Evolution of Design Expertise[END_REF]. Worse, the multiplication of participatory design approaches, often calling a rose by another name, has resulted in practical and theoretical perplexity. According to Sanders et al. (2010: 195) "many practices for how to involve people in designing have been used and developed during the years» and as a untended consequence, "there is some confusion as to which tools and techniques to use, when, and for what purpose". Amongst these «better design methods», co-design seeks the active participation and integration of users' viewpoints throughout the entire design process. This expression has been in the design landscape for more than thirty years, initially to describe the simultaneous construction of hardware and software components of complex embedded systems [START_REF] Burkhardt | NATO Special Program Panel on Human Factors, & NATO special Program Panel on Systems Science, Environmental assessment of socioeconomic systems[END_REF].

Only lately has it been used to denote close integration of suppliers in the design of material goods (i.e cars, [START_REF] Spina | Factors influencing co-design adoption: drivers and internal consistency[END_REF] and customers in the design of consumer goods (Pillar, 2004).

More than a glorified focus group, outsiders gather to create the object, not just discuss about it.

According to Pillar et al. (2011: 9), the intended purpose of these activities "is to utilize the information and capabilities of customers and users for the innovation process". As such, codesign is often portrayed as a way to facilitate mass customization through platforms, enabling better design in settings where users are already willing to take part in the process. Yet, a more accurate and acknowledged definition of co-design refers to it as a collective approach "applied across the whole span of a design process, (where) designers and people not trained in design are working together in the design development process" (Sanders & Stappers, 2008:6).

However, active participation of stakeholders and users in innovation or design processes does not always lead to positive outcomes. For one, [START_REF] Christensen | The Innovator's Dilemma[END_REF] has studied situations (dilemmas) in which intensively catering to existing users leads to diminishing returns and loss of vision. Da Mota Pedrosa (2012) also demonstrate that too much user integration in innovation process becomes detrimental to an organization, and that the bulk of the interactions should occur early in the ideation process rather than in the later development and production stages.

Within innovation and design teams, many other authors have advocated for diversity and opposition of personalities in order in order to successfully generate novelty (e.g. [START_REF] Kirton | Adaptors and innovators-Why new initiatives get blocked[END_REF], only to find out that they stand falling into over-specialization pitfalls where [START_REF] Bilton | Management and creativity: From creative industries to creative management[END_REF].

Finally, [START_REF] Holzer | Construction of Meaning in Socio-Technical Networks: Artefacts as Mediators between Routine and Crisis Conditions[END_REF] raises the all-important mutual understanding hurdles that heterogeneous innovation groups face, which sometimes translates into a lack of shared meaning and conflict.

Collective action and collaboration in innovation are also well documented in the literature.

Choosing partners, whether it is your suppliers, buyers or other firms, is often portrayed as a strategic, yet highly contextual decision, where issues of trustworthiness, confidentiality and relevance are paramount [START_REF] Clauß | The Influence of the Type of Relationship on the Generation of Innovations in Buyer-Supplier Collaborations[END_REF]. Prior relationships, mutual understanding and common identity are also said to play a role in the successful development of social cohesion and innovation [START_REF] Coleman | Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital[END_REF][START_REF] Dyer | Creating and managing a high performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case[END_REF]. In other words, engaging in exploratory activities across boundaries requires that the actors know and trust each other, are willing to play nice and share a minimum of behavioural norms [START_REF] Clauß | The Influence of the Type of Relationship on the Generation of Innovations in Buyer-Supplier Collaborations[END_REF]. Along the same lines, Fleming et al. (2007:444) state that "closed social structures engender greater trust among individuals », which in turn generate more collaboration, creativity and ultimately more innovation. Simply put, the absence of social proximity or relationships precludes the expression of creativity and the emergence of novelty. This translates into settings or contexts in which open dialogue, inclusiveness and collaboration amongst individual leads to new objects [START_REF] Remneland-Wikhamn | Transaction cost economics and open innovation: implications for theory and practice[END_REF]. Without a common purpose, groups are bound to failure or conflict, for "goal incongruence hinders (the construction of) a joint solution [START_REF] Xie | Antecedents and consequences of goal incongruity on new product development in five countries: A marketing view[END_REF]. While relevant to our study, this literature remains elusive on more open forms of collaborative design, where relationships are multiple, often not obvious (i.e. not one firm and its few suppliers, but rather a "many-tomany" format) and not held together by contractual ties [START_REF] Hinde | Relationships: A dialectical perspective[END_REF]. Moreover, repeated interactions and equal commitment, two important drivers of collaboration in design [START_REF] Clauß | The Influence of the Type of Relationship on the Generation of Innovations in Buyer-Supplier Collaborations[END_REF], are unlikely in ad-hoc formats such co-design in which interests are seldom shared (i.e. users are hardly committed at improving the firm's bottom line). Figure 1 below combines these streams in the literature, in which collectives and expertise are considered as innovation inputs. Yet first-hand observation of co-design activities leads one to denote that it 1) often involves people who lack design credentials and 2) gathers people with little to none prior history of working together or even sometimes a desire to collaborate. Our extended immersion in a setting that holds co-design workshops on a regular basis, as well as observations of several workshops in Europe has yielded few successful design outputs to account for. What's more, participants are seldom lead-users with relevant deep knowledge [START_REF] Von Hippel | Lead users: a source of novel product concepts[END_REF], nor driven by shared values or purpose as in an organization or an innovation community [START_REF] Raymond | The cathedral and the bazaar[END_REF]Adler & Heckscher, 1996). As opposed to Saxenian & Sabel (2008: 390) who argue that «it is possible to foster collaboration (…) only when social connections have become so dense and reliable that it is almost superfluous to do so», collaborative design workshops often take place in relational deserts. Very few experts and poor relationships: what can we really expect?

To a point, this situation is consistent with what authors such as [START_REF] Granovetter | The Strength of Weak Ties[END_REF][START_REF] Glasser | Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness[END_REF] on the strength on weak ties and [START_REF] Burt | Structural Holes: The Structure of Competition[END_REF] on network embeddeness have studied. They demonstrate that too much social and cognitive proximity can be detrimental to innovation. When too much social cohesion exists, knowledge variety and access to sources elsewhere in the network are hindered, thus limiting one's ability to generate novelty. This phenomenon, described as the "paradox-of-embededdness" [START_REF] Uzzi | Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness[END_REF], shows that knowledge homogeneity can be an obstacle to collaboration, especially when it is geared towards innovation. Noteboom (2000) further explains this paradox by talking about "cognitive distance", where following an invertedu curve, too little or too much proximity results in sub-optimal innovation outcomes. Being further away, cognition and social wise, is also said to help avoid creativity hurdles such as "group-think" [START_REF] Janis | Victims of groupthink[END_REF] and fear of the outside world [START_REF] Coleman | Community conflict[END_REF]. While the jury is still out of whether weak or strong ties are best for innovation, authors have suggested that network configuration and density should be adapted to the nature of the task (i.e weak for exploration vs.

strong for exploitation, Noteboom, 2000) or external conditions [START_REF] Rowley | Redundant Governance Structures: An Analysis of Structural ad Relational Embeddedness in the Steel and Semiconductor Industries[END_REF]. In other words, this literature argues that despite facing challenges in getting heterogeneous groups to collaborate, those who do can expect a proper innovation pay-off. Then again, going back to workshops witnessed over the past two years, we are still confronted with the same problem:

even with weak ties, it still does not yield novelty. If no one configuration results in innovation, could it be that we are looking at it the wrong way? More importantly, could it be that co-design is geared to generate more than just new objects?

And so we ask: what drives, as in one of our cases, elders, students, caregivers and representatives from an insurance company to design together? Or toddlers, teachers, architects and school board officials to get together to re-invent the classroom? In other words, why does co-design always seem to emerge in settings where basic conditions for collaboration and innovation are lacking [START_REF] Huxham | Creating collaborative advantage[END_REF]. Are such weak ties really generative? This, we argue, calls for a broader investigation of co-design; one that does not separate new object design (outputs) from effects on the design collective (outcomes). Hence, this paper addresses the following questions: what defines co-design contexts and what do workshops really yield?

Research Method and Empirical Base

Following a multiple case study methodology [START_REF] Eisenhardt | Building theories from case study research[END_REF][START_REF] Yin | Case study research. Design and methods[END_REF], of both retrospective and current cases, we investigate different contexts (i.e. organizational, pedagogical, industrial, etc.) in which co-design is used and the relationship between participants. Through semi-structured or sometimes informal interviews, as well observation of both planning and execution phases of workshops, we investigate the background setting, prior relationships between participants and actual outputs of 21 different co-design workshops in 4 countries (France, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium). In total, we interviewed 20 participants (lasting anywhere from 15 to 60 minutes at a time) and witnessed 10 live workshops (lasting 5 to 8 hours each time). Since co-design is still an emerging phenomenon theory-wise, the methodology was designed in a way that was coherent with our research object (Edmonson & McManus, 2007;[START_REF] Von Krogh | Phenomenon-based Research in Management and Organisation Science: When is it Rigorous and Does it Matter?[END_REF]). As such, our desire to contribute to the development of a co-design theory invited a broad study of different contexts and workshops. Adopting a "grounded theorist" posture (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), we opted for a qualitative study of multiple dimensions of a same phenomenon [START_REF] Shah | Building Better Theory by Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide[END_REF]. Moreover, we used different collection tools to better apprehend it in all of its complexity (Eisenhardt & Grabner, 2007).

Cases for this study were selected based on an opportunity sampling, meaning we studied both past workshops and attended live experiments as they became available to us. For retrospective cases, we made sure that were less than a year old and that access to both participants and documentation was readily available to prevent any time bias. Only case was older (C1), yet was thoroughly documented in a book shortly after, thus preventing distortion. Our questions touched on relationships dimensions amongst participants; their thoughts on the workshop and on they personally and collectively took away from their experience. To ensure the coherence of our data, we only studied co-design workshops that had a similar format, in terms of length (1 day), protocol (divergent-convergent sequence), tools and number of participants (15-25 at a time).

Furthermore, as we still lack co-design theory to guide us in the identification of cases, we simply made sure that they 1) involved a wide array of participants and stakeholders (the "co")

and 2) focused on the creation of a new object (the "design", as opposed to testing of existing concepts). Interviews were conducted during and after the workshops, recorded when possible and transcribed by the lead author. Key excerpts were later shared to the respondents during two group interviews, to ensure the validity of the interview content. Data collected for this article was made anonymous, in order to prevent any sensitive innovation material, design issues or interpersonal conflicts from leaking out in the open.

Once transcribed, we then looked into our interview material, as well as secondary sources, for any information that could help us assess prior relationship (or lack thereof) between participants. Quotes pertaining to working or personal relationships, apprehensions towards collaboration and potential conflicts were highlighted, and in turn codified into first-level categories. We also asked (for retrospective cases) or observed the tangible design outputs of each workshop in order to see if the initial design goals were met. The lead author first conducted this task, followed by a discussion of the results with the co-authors, all reaching agreement on the coded data, the different categories and the subsequent interpretation of the results. Functionalities emerge, but no working concept or prototype designed.

GT1

Designing "agro-sourced" furniture using recycled fabrics.

R&D employees, researchers, engineers, students.

Little to none. Employees have internally designed together, but never with outsiders and students.

No working concept or prototype designed, but participants agree on common design criteria.

GT2

Designing "agro-sourced" furniture using recycled fabrics.

R&D employees, researchers, engineers, students

Most participants returning from GT1 workshop New concepts emerge and new combinations of existing resources.

Results

Our data reveals co-design often emerge out of little prior relationships or out of weak ties, with some cases even supporting claims about the presence of underlying malfunctions and poor collaboration climate. It should be mentioned that some of the cases are still underway, and that accordingly our attention is on the initial context and relationships between the stakeholders involved. Participants were usually sitting around the same table for the first time, and very few of them have any prior design or collaboration experience to account for. According to one of the project leaders in the H1 case: "this is an opportunity to really get to meet the colleagues and get out of this isolated environment". This case, just like the W1 workshop, where stakeholders have not had to work together before, but are now forced to do so is common across most of our data.

On this point, the respondent in charge of the W1 case stated that before " there was enough funding for every project, but now they have to come up with an integrated and coherent plan, instead of all pulling in different directions". A claim echoed by one participant (E1), pointing out to the fact "doctoral students come different schools and never really talk to each other".

Lack of personal interactions was also raised by one of the dean in the F1 workshop: " we must find ways to get back in touch with both students and local businesses, something we've lost lately". Prior relationships are not assessed by face time, for many stakeholders have met in the past without engaging in anything more than shallow conversations, let alone design activities.

As the L1 facilitator explains: " participants had never really exchanged in the past. It's sad because they all work together, but don't interact very much in the end". As a result, cases such as W1 or GT1 show that relationships are improved or created during workshops. In the former, one participant was satisfied about having met "new people around her with whom to work again in the near future", while in the latter, the facilitator believed that the real outcome of the day was "creating mutual interest amongst participants".

Some participants also touched on the lack of trust and collaboration with their colleagues, or similar negative state-of-minds towards the group. The host of the C1 case used these words to sum up prior relationships amongst the stakeholders: "designers and architects see the parents, professors and students as hurdles, they feel as if involving them in the process will only slow things down and bring new problems". Along the same lines, another participant identified the challenges of dealing with "everyone (who) arrive initially with their own pet project or personal needs" and in finding ways to bring everything together. Finally, the host of the N1 case said that they used "co-design because of the economical and trust crises", adding that it was the only good way to go in order to "connect the top-down system with the bottom-up movement". These two cases, while working on projects that vary by scale and nature, were also both targeting stakeholders or neighborhood facing harsher conditions; "the poor schools, not just the wealthy ones". Workshops, once again, aiming for the most difficult conditions possible.

Other cases raised even more dramatic or sensitive issues amongst stakeholders, with some of them confessing about the absence of meaning or coherence in their day-to-day activities.

Workshops such as F1 or P1 had participants expressing feelings of uselessness in their job. The host of the latter case explained: "what we are going through here is a meaning crisis, for whom and why are we working in this organization?" Hence, improvements and regard for the "usefulness" feeling of participants were discussed in many cases. One elder in the MUT1 workshop discussed about spending "a fantastic day" in which she "felt really useful", a feeling echoed by a student in the A3 workshop: "we feel as if they really need us. It's not just cheap outsourcing of their (i.e. the client) innovation projects". Access to material and notes used in the planning of some cases also support our hypothesis by pointing out to sometimes conflictual or tensed settings. For instance, the ED1 animation protocol states that "the client should quickly go over the workshop introduction, to briefly set the stage and avoid raising the sensitive issues".

The animation protocol also reads like this: "the facilitator will need to refocus the discussions and remind participants of what is sought after and allowed during the workshop". Protocol analysis further reveals that facilitation is equally, if not more, geared towards maintaining peace than designing new objects. Cases H1 and F1 for instance has the facilitator reminding participants early to resist from "falling pray to anger and pride", while the A2 protocol prompts everyone taking part in the workshop " to listen, avoid criticism (…) and respect the dignity of others". Such interesting guidelines and choice of words go far beyond the simple "withhold judgment" put forth in classic creativity approaches such as brainstorm [START_REF] Osborn | Applied Imagination, principles and procedures of creative problem-solving[END_REF].

Respondents pointed out to different kind of gaps between what they wished to achieve (often expressed by the title of the workshop) and the current reality. Whether it was for an organizational structure ill suited for innovation "in which management usually does all the innovation and simply explains it to others after" as in the P1 case or a lack of relevant knowledge that leads the university (F1) dean " unsure of what to do to help students cope with today's changing environment". It can also just be that some participants have no or little design resources to spare, and as one facilitator puts it, "they come with their issue hoping one co-design workshop will solve it". In other cases, such as GT1 or CS1, what is missing are common language, criteria or working methods. "They had no idea on how to work together" said the facilitator of the former, adding that "what they ended up creating where filters and criteria to assess the quality of concepts to come". For all A and O cases, organizations turn to co-design when they lack the proper knowledge or skills to conduct the activities internally. In the A3 case, participants from the sponsoring firm confessed that they not only needed outsiders and experts to weigh in on the technological dimensions of the product-to-be, but also extended interactions with users to help them sort out real needs from all the needs identified through market research.

Finally, for cases such as H1 and E1, stakeholders do not lack knowledge or skills on the content of the workshop, but rather on the means to go about organizing collaboration in design.

According to the E1 facilitator, "it seemed as if the participants were as much, if not more, interested in our animation protocol than we tried to achieve with it". While some stakeholders leave with the protocol, other leave with participants by recruiting them out of the workshop.

Firms involved in A and O cases are systematically on the lookout for participants who could help them fill internal knowledge gaps beyond the one-day workshops. As the facilitator of the O2 case confessed, the firm is convinced that "if they identify one good talent to recruit, then their investment is worth every penny. At that point, reaching a working prototype just becomes a bonus". One participant from the A2 case even adds that organizations are "not even hiding the fact that they also use co-design as a recruiting-in-action tool".

Secondary data such as planning documents or animation protocols also provide another interesting element: the name of the workshop, or in other words, what brings the stakeholders together. Hence, most cases seem to display both a small level of ambition and a low novelty target. Workshops focusing on concepts such as "classroom of the future", "energy-efficient buildings" or "facilitating care for elders" are fields that have been thoroughly explored for some time already. The fact that stakeholders get to it only now could be interpreted as a symptom of their inability to get it before, when such considerations were still emerging. In other words, workshop "titles" are often an open window into the collective's "common problem", rather than their "common purpose". But while they do not suggest any real innovative outputs, the way the design work is being distributed amongst active stakeholder is in itself quite original. Other significant secondary data can be found in the design output, or lack there of as in most of our cases. While many of them allowed for knowledge to be externalized, new functionalities to be identified and innovative fields (rather than precise innovation) to be suggested for later work, only 1 of our 21 cases (A3) yielded an artifact that could reach the market in the near future.

Hence, the results show that initial contexts and their underlying malfunctions vary. At the most simple level, our cases reveal that the problems may be of knowledge, skills or relational nature.

These dimensions serve as first-level constructs, in which four different levels can be used to further define the tensions faced by the collectives. They may be affect individuals, organizations, institutions (value networks) or society at large (i.e. cities, territories). These problems are not mutually exclusive and can be embedded or interlocked with one another.

Complex and deep-level tensions are not only signs that collaboration is unlikely, but that the need for facilitation amongst the stakeholder is essential to achieve any real design outputs.

Table 2 presented below sums up these dimensions and levels built from our cases.

Discussion

Based on our results, we argue that co-design should not be considered as a best practice, but as a crisis symptom. If was indeed used to foster innovation and surpass classic methods to design new products or services, both the aim of the workshops and its results would support such claims. More importantly, if co-design was only used as a way to facilitate dialogue and build better teams, we would not still find real design tasks and expectations that bring stakeholders together. Rather, our results suggest that groups resort to co-design only when crises undermine their ability to collectively create using conventional approaches. Workshops, it seems, are used as Trojan horses: getting design collectives operational (again) by working on the design of products or services. As Godet (1977:21) argues: "action accelerates change". In our cases, designing together fosters change amongst stakeholders. And as such, co-design rises in a field that tends to respond to crises by inventing new methods, modes of organizing and management principles [START_REF] Midler | Compétion par l'innovation et dynamique des systèmes de conception dans les entreprises françaises-Une comparaison de trois secteurs[END_REF].

Resorting to the word "crises" is certainly not neutral: it holds a meaning often seen as dramatic and negative. This choice of words stems from both interviews excerpts, where some participants raised "meaning" (case P1) or "trust" (case C1) crises, and from existing innovation literature (e.g. [START_REF] Godet | Crise de la prévision, essor de la prospective: exemples et méthodes[END_REF][START_REF] Midler | Compétion par l'innovation et dynamique des systèmes de conception dans les entreprises françaises-Une comparaison de trois secteurs[END_REF][START_REF] Spina | Factors influencing co-design adoption: drivers and internal consistency[END_REF]. Scharmer (2009:2) argues that «the crisis of our time reveals the dying of an old social structure and way of thinking, an old way of institutionalizing and enacting collective social forms». The difference here is that we highlight crises not just to describe the initial setting in which the innovation or design efforts unfold, but actually as the sine qua non condition in which it can take place. By crisis, we simply point out to, as Godet (1977:20) said, "a gap between reality and aspirations".

In a collaborative design setting that aspires to innovate, the gap lies in the lack of prior relationships between the participants and the absence of experts or innovation credentials around the table. Contrary to the literature on proper innovation settings, co-design occurs where there is little potential for collaboration. Yet, while tensed context are known to hinder innovation [START_REF] Clauß | The Influence of the Type of Relationship on the Generation of Innovations in Buyer-Supplier Collaborations[END_REF], our cases show that stakeholders push through and keep on codesigning. It seems outcomes such as stronger ties, learning and change trump design outputs.

The change management literature can help us better understand co-design if it is indeed an intervention to a crisis, although it remains different on many levels. For one, co-design does not always target pre-existing and stable collectives (such as a team or an organization), but rather disgruntled individuals often coming together for the first time. Not does change management seek to regroup individuals: its purpose is to capitalize on "common purpose" and "shared values" as accelerators of organizational progress (Roy, 2010: 48). And while change management is about «moving from strategic orientation to action» (Rondeau et al. 2005:7) and helping individuals cope with disruption [START_REF] Rondeau | Transformer l'organisation : Vers un modèle de mise en oeuvre[END_REF], co-design appears to be moving from action to strategic orientation, by not focusing on the change itself but rather on what needs to be designed by the collective. Such interventions are not seeking to bring change according to precise plans, to a level where higher-level activities such as design and innovation can be better executed. As change-management guru Kotter (1995:12) advocates, research has demonstrated that only "one or two years into transformation (can we) witness the introduction of new products". What co-design seems to do, on the contrary, is operating change for and by design, meaning innovation activities precede the existence of a proper collaboration setting. As such, our results do not expand on existing change management approaches; they suggest an entirely new one. While "much of the literature on organizational change is concerned with how managers can intervene to pre-empt these crises before they occur" (Bilton, 2007:34), we put forth the idea that they should not only occur, but be used for innovation purposes and solve to collaboration engagement in design activities.

If this holds true, collectives -and especially their underlying malfunctions -should no longer been considered as mere inputs in the design of new objects, but on the contrary, as an important result of the design activity. Rather than treating collectives as in an input of design, our cases suggest a reversed outlook where design becomes an input of collectives. Hence, controlled disruption through co-design is not only possible, but desirable in order to fulfill both design

Implications

This discussion raises in turn an important question: why then do we co-design if not to design?

Solving crises, (re) creating design collectives, exchanging knowledge, building foundations for later work: these are all legitimate, yet unsung co-design outcomes. Knowing that innovation and its subversive nature can disrupts collectives [START_REF] Hatchuel | Services publics: la Subversion par les nouveaux produits[END_REF], co-design can be used a "controlled disruption" that bonds people together through design activities. Again, if this holds true, then we must also revisit criteria used to assess its performance by including dimensions not only on the new objects, but also on the new collectives. As one workshop organizer told us: " the real success lies in knowing which citizens to mobilize for future projects (…) this came a bit as a surprise, but it represents an enormous potential". Creation of a design collective does not mean that the exact same individuals will be involved the next time around, only that the workshop participants benefit from increased awareness, mutual consideration and minimal knowledge that can be used in future projects in which they all hold stakes. For the innovation manager of the "A" cases, co-designing has translated into new design automatisms, where such workshops are now to be held "systematically in any project that are heavily client-centered".

While prior work has addressed the links between innovation and change (e.g Hendersen & [START_REF] Henderson | Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms[END_REF][START_REF] Kim | Strategy, value innovation, and the knowledge economy[END_REF], the latter is often described as the primary and intended target of interventions on the former. What we put forth here is the idea that change is the indirect, yet most important, outcome of co-design. What's more, it's specificity and strength is that this change in mediated by the new objects, which should still be pursued. Rather than treating it as a handicap, the lack of prior relationship can be turned into an asset.

Organizations should not give up or delay innovation efforts, as poor contexts may turn out to be quite conductive for new collectives and ideas to emerge. According to [START_REF] Morin | Pour une crisologie[END_REF], crisis highlight flaws and opportunities, but more importantly trigger actions that lead to new solutions.

The author adds, as Shumpeter (1939) before him, that "within the destruction of crisis lies creation". For the existing literature on co-design fails to account for relationships and focuses on the new objects, we argue that the complexity of current innovation issues call for more of such design interventions that create both tangible outputs and relationship outcomes. In terms of practical implications, our results offer a reversed outlook on the organizational change or configuration for innovation reasoning. While we have known for some time now that innovation and design can trigger change [START_REF] Schott | Process innovations and improvements as a determinant of the competitive position in the international plastic market[END_REF][START_REF] March | Footnotes to organizational change[END_REF], our understanding of codesign takes it one step further, making the case that such disruption can be purposefully introduced and managed as a mean to bring about desired changes in disgruntled groups or dissembled collectives. Starting from the proposition that design can help cope with collaboration issues, organizations can envision new means to bring about change through such activities. Moreover, knowing co-design activities need some sort of crisis to emerge, practitioners may want to hold back on hosting workshops in positive settings in which they are unlikely to bring about changes on collectives, that is if they don't result in negative outcomes.

As Noteboom (2000:76) explains, «people can collaborate without agreeing, (but) it is more difficult to collaborate without understanding, and it is impossible to collaborate if they don't make sense to each other». Hence, starting from a difficult context where collaboration is unlikely, it appears as if engaging in design activities allows not for complete agreement, but at least in the construction of a common repertoire of practices and references. Most cases studied here fail to produce significant design outputs, however most hold the promise of subsequent tangible results. Hence, based on classic transaction-cost economics, this "two-time" collaboration dynamic depicts the first co-design workshop as the investment phase, whereas subsequent workshops allow for tangible return (design outputs) to emerge. In that sense, participants or organizations disappointed about co-design could be compared to risk-averse or impatient investors pulling out too soon of the market. This mean that organization should not have to simply resort to hybrid weak-and-strong ties configurations [START_REF] Uzzi | Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness[END_REF], but rather adopt a sequential approach to strengthening weak ties through design activities and then mobilizing this more cohesive collective towards solving innovation issues. Briefly put, it may be the answer to the paradox of embeddeness: strong ties can indeed lead to innovation, but only when the ties have first been built or mediated through the co-construction of a common object.

Limits and Future Research

Lastly, our research design holds two methodological limits that ought to be discussed. First, the use of retrospective cases holds the risk of historical distortions and maturation. Second, discussing crises, albeit not in such terms, with participants may at times have raised sensitive issues. To minimize the impact of both time and emotions, we interviewed a wide array of participants and centered our questions on specific instances of the workshop [START_REF] Hubert | Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy[END_REF]. More importantly, we relied on secondary sources used in the planning or the facilitation of the workshop in order to assess contexts without falling into data maturation traps.

Future research on collaborative design activities should pursue the ongoing theorization of codesign and extend on this paper by conducting a larger-scale quantitative paper on relationships before and after workshops. It ought to further define the nature of the ties between stakeholders, and its evolution as they go through collaborative design. More importantly, future research should seek longitudinal cases in which repeated workshops would allow to further validate our claims on the "design-co-design" sequence required to reach innovative design. Finally, other dimensions of the workshop that may influence both design outputs and collective outcomes such as animation protocols, formats or goals (what products, services or processes should collectives with poor relationships attempt to design?) should also be further studied.

Conclusion

Puzzled by both theoretical and empirical inconsistencies about what is to be expected from codesign, we conducted this multiple case study hoping to better understand the contextual elements and different results of collaborative design workshops. Our data has shown that codesign's natural environment was one of crisis, whether of knowledge, skill or relational nature.

Rather than seeing this situation as a hurdle for collaboration or an impossible setting for innovation, we have argued that it could on the contrary be overcome through the engagement of stakeholders in design activities and used as a leverage to change management. Results also point out to a sequence in which initial weak ties are strengthened by design, which in turns can lead to new objects to be designed by strong collectives. As a consequence, we have advised organizations to tackle internal or network malfunctions through innovation first, rather than addressing innovation issues only once the collective has reached collaboration maturity.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. What co-design should look like based on innovation and collaboration theory

  targets and renewed collectives. It thus becomes a new managerial tool for bringing about change, not just new objects. According to[START_REF] Hatchuel | The two pillars of new management research[END_REF], advances in management are precisely responses to difficulties of collective actions. Such outcomes on the collective are not taken into account by the existing design literature. For instance,[START_REF] Hatchuel | Teaching innovative design reasoning: How concept-knowledge theory can help overcome fixation effects[END_REF] identify five potential design outputs: research questions, products, emerging concepts, skills and knowledge. While it could be said that the two last dimensions are improved along the way, a new design collective should be seen as a desirable outcome of its own.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. What co-design looks like based on empirical evidence.

Table 1 . Summary of the contextual elements for 21 co-design workshops studied.

 1 Table 1 below sums up the contextual elements of the 21 cases studied in this article.

	CASE	PURPOSE	PARTICIPANTS	PRIOR RELATIONSHIPS	DESIGN OUTPUTS
		Designing an application to	Sale clerks, IT and	Little to none. Employees	Early concepts from IT staff
	L1	improve sales and customer	marketing employees	have internally designed	are not well received. No
		in-store experience	customers, students	together, but never with	consensual concept emerges.
				other stakeholders.
	A1	Using RFID technology to	Store employees and	Little to none. Employees	Functionalities emerge, but no
		locate items in the store in	management, IT	have internally designed	working concept or prototype
		real-time.	experts, customers,	together, but never with	designed.
			students.	other stakeholders.
	A2	Designing the in-store	Store employees and	Little to none. Employees	Client intends to recommend
		offices of the future for sales	management,	have internally designed	testing some of new office
		associates and managers.	ergonomist students.	together, but never with	concepts.
				other stakeholders. Some
				returning participants (A1)
	A3	Using no-contact technology	Store employees and	Little to none. Employees	Successful design of a
		to locate to improve in-store	management, IT	have internally designed	smartphone application
		customer experience	experts, customers,	together, but never with	working prototype. In store
			students.	other stakeholders. Some	real testing is planned.
				returning participants (A2)
	O1	Designing new sensors to	Store employees and	Little to none. Employees	Functionalities emerge, but no
		better measure athletes'	management, IT	have internally designed	working concept or prototype
		performance	experts, customers,	together, but never with	designed.
			students.	other stakeholders.
	O2	Using kinect-like technology	Store employees and	Little to none. Employees	Functionalities emerge, but no
		to create new in-store	management, IT	have internally designed	working concept or prototype
		interactions with customers.	experts, customers,	together, but never with	designed.
			students.	other stakeholders. No
				returning participants (O1)
	O3	Facilitating shoe selection	Store employees and	Little to none. Employees
		and shoe fitting with new	management, IT	have internally designed
		technologies	experts, customers,	together, but never with
			students.	other stakeholders. No
				returning participants (O2)

Table 2 . Design collectives' initial malfunctions

 2

	Nature	Level	Manifestations (examples)
		Individual	Loss of meaning
	Knowledge		Low motivation on the job
			Evolving roles
		Organizational	No common criteria / methods
	Skills		Poor innovation structure
			Lack of specific skills
		Institutional	Unsure of who to work with
	Relational		Mistrust
			Poor links with local partners
		Social	Wealth inequalities

concepts emerge, describing ideal worlds and narratives in which all stakeholders' needs are well attended to.