Finding Commercially Attractive User Innovations: A Test of Lead User Theory

Abstract

Firms and governments are increasingly interested in learning to exploit the value of lead user innovations for commercial advantage. Improvements to lead user theory are needed to inform and guide these efforts. In this paper we empirically test and confirm the basic tenants of lead user theory. We also discover some new refinements and related practical applications.Using a sample of users and user-innovators drawn from the extreme sport of kite surfing, we analyze the relationship between the commercial attractiveness of innovations developed by users and the intensity of the lead user characteristics those users display. We provide a first empirical analysis of the independent effects of its two key component variables. In our empirical study of user modifications to kite surfing equipment, we find that both components independently contribute to identifying commercially attractive user innovations. Component 1 (the "high expected benefits" dimension) predicts innovation likelihood, and component 2 (the "ahead of the trend" dimension) predicts both the commercial attractiveness of a given set of user-developed innovations and innovation likelihood due to a newly-proposed innovation supply side effect. We conclude that the component variables in the lead user definition are indeed independent dimensions and so neither can be dropped without loss of information -an important matter for lead user theory. We also find that adding measures of users' local resources can improve the ability of the lead user construct to identify commercially-attractive innovations under some conditions. The findings we report have practical as well as theoretical import. Product modification and development has been found to be a relatively common user behavior in many fields. Thus, from 10% to nearly 40% of users report having modified or developed a product for in-house use in the case of industrial products, or for personal use in the case of consumer products, in fields sampled to date. As a practical matter, therefore, it is important to find ways to selectively identify the user innovations that manufacturers will find to be the basis for commercially attractive products in the collectivity of user-developed innovations. We discuss the implications of these findings for theory and also for practical applications of the lead user construct, i.e. how variables used in lead user studies can profitably be adapted to fit specific study contexts and purposes. 3 Introduction and overview

How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study

“…Shah (2000) found that the most commercially important equipment innovations in four sporting fields tended to be developed by individual users. It has also been found that commercially attractive products tend to be developed by "lead users" -users that are at the leading edge of important marketplace trends and expect significant benefit from innovating (Urban and von Hippel 1988, Morrison et al 2002, Franke, von Hippel and Schreier 2005, Olson and Bakke 2001.…”

Comparing Business and Household Sector Innovation in Consumer Products: Findings from a Representative Study in the United Kingdom

“…Consumer good producers that systematically search for consumer-developed innovations can learn to more effectively mine this stock of new product concepts and prototypes as a free input to their own product development efforts. Tested methods exist to find and benefit from 'lead user' innovators (Lilien et al 2002, Franke et al 2006.…”

Social innovation in question: The theoretical and practical implications of a contested concept

“…This means that while it is possible for profit-seeking organisations to implement SI (for example social enterprises), profit will not be their primary goal, since addressing human need will necessarily involve reaching out to people with limited economic resources. In this sense, there is some crossover with the concept of user-led innovation (Franke et al, 2006), though with the caveat that the market might not be an appropriate mechanism to disseminate SI outputs, in cases where the target population does not have the necessary resources to engage with it. Thirdly, though this is not necessary, SI is often aimed at specific domains such as education, health or migration.…”