User involvement competence for radical innovation
Section snippets
Introduction, literature review, and research objectives
In today's environment of rapid technological change firms cannot rely on incremental innovations alone. To sustain long-term competitiveness firms need to generate radical innovations as well. Such innovations typically incorporate completely new and highly complex technologies, shift market structures, and require user learning as they often induce significant behavior changes on side of the users (e.g. Urban et al., 1996). To develop radical innovations, firms depend on technological and
Conceptual framework of user involvement competence
To systematically involve users into the innovation process, firms need a special competence on the organizational level. Based on former literature a conceptual framework for such a competence is developed in this section. This framework serves as an analysis grid for the empirical study.
Conceptually, two dimensions of a user involvement competence can be distinguished. First, firms need to know which users are capable to provide valuable inputs in innovation projects (Gruner and Homburg, 2000
Methodology
To study the addressed research questions, I conducted an explorative case study analysis in the field of medical technology. The approach of case study research was used due to the nature of the research questions as well as the relatively little knowledge available in the addressed research field (Yin, 1994, Gillham, 2000, Stake, 2000). The industry of medical technology was selected for two reasons. First, former empirical studies show that users play an important role for new product
Importance of user involvement competence
The case study analysis reveals that manufacturing firms that involved capable users in distinct phases of the innovation process benefited significantly from the users’ contributions. This result highlights the importance of a user involvement competence on firm-level for radical innovation projects. Table 2 summarizes the effects of users’ contributions for the innovating firms.
In those cases in which users played the roles as inventors and (co)-developers, manufacturing firms who took over
Discussion and conclusions
The findings have implications for the capability of a firm to more systematically leverage the potential of users in the radical innovation process. With regard to the subject dimension of user involvement competence, the case study analysis provides first insights about the profile of users that are in the position to generate ideas, (co)-develop and successfully test prototypes for radical innovations. These users differ significantly from those user types that are typically involved in
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Eric Von Hippel, Christian Luethje and Cornelius Herstatt for directing my research effort and three anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions that helped improve the article.
References (80)
User and third-party in developing medical equipment innovations
Technovation
(1991)- et al.
Lead time in automobile product development: explaining the Japanese advantage
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management
(1989) Motivation and creativity: toward a synthesis of structural and energistic approaches to cognition
New Ideas in Psychology
(1988)- et al.
Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption
Research Policy
(2001) - et al.
How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users
Research policy
(2003) - et al.
Does customer interaction enhance new product success?
Journal of Business Research
(2000) - et al.
From experience: developing new product concepts via the lead user method: a case study in a ‘low tech’ field
The Journal of Product Innovation Management
(1992) From experience: harnessing tacit knowledge to achieve breakthrough innovation
The Journal of Product Innovation Management
(2000)Managing radical product development in large manufacturing firms: a longitudinal study
Journal of Operations Management
(1999)Market learning and radical innovation: a cross-case comparison of eight radical innovation projects
Journal of Product Innovation Management
(1998)