The Dominant Role of "Local" Information in the User Innovation The Case of Mountain Biking

Abstract

1.0: Introduction and overviewFirms that manufacture products and services have an incentive to develop innovations that appeal as strongly as possible to as wide a customer base as possible in order to enhance their innovation-related profits. Research into the incentives operating on user-innovators, however, leads us to hypothesize that this category of innovators will display a very different pattern.Prior research has shown that users that develop new products and services typically profit only from their own, in-house use of their innovations. This is because users that seek to benefit financially from diffusion of an innovation to other users in a marketplace must obtain some form of intellectual property protection followed by licensing. Both are typically costly to attempt, and have very uncertain outcomes (Harhoff et al 2002). If users do derive their innovation-related benefit only from inhouse use of their innovations, they should find it rational to ignore the general needs of the marketplace in favor of developing innovations that are very precisely tailored to serve their own specific needs. The innovations they develop to serve their own needs may, of course, also prove to serve a more general demand by happenstance.In this paper we examine the specificity with which innovations developed by user-innovators address their in-house needs. To do this, we compare the characteristics of a sample of user-developed innovations in mountain biking equipment with the direct need experience of the users developing them. We find a close relationship: userinnovators do tend to develop innovations to serve precisely their own needs. They do not do this out of ignorance of the market: user-innovators in our sample have an accurate understanding of the breadth of potential marketplace demand for the innovations that they have developed.In addition to finding that user-innovators do not stray significantly from attempting to solve their own in-house needs, we also find that user-innovators tend to use only their own pre-existing stocks of solution-related knowledge to develop their innovations. In other words, we find that innovators largely rely upon both need and 3 solution information that is "local" to them to generate their innovations. (We define local information as that an innovator already has "on site" prior to innovating, or generates on site during the course of innovation development.)Reliance on local need and solution information has the effect of sharply reducing innovators' innovation-related costs. With respect to need information, consider that users encountering a need for an innovation during activities that they engage in "anyway," in effect discover that need at no incremental cost. If they also can test solutions that they may develop to that need during the course of activities engaged in and rewarded for non innovation-related reasons, they also have a "free" test laboratory for solution development. A similar argument holds with respect to solution-related information. If a user employs...

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

“…Some studies have explored the effectiveness of the theory with regard to identifying any user innovations. Thus, Franke and Shah (2003), Lüthje (2004), Lüthje et al (2002) and Morrison et al (2000) divided their samples into innovators and non-innovators as a dependent variable, and showed that lead user characteristics are systematically different in these two groups via t-tests and logit analyses. The effect sizes found in these studies tend to be very large.…”

“…Lüthje (2003) found that 48% of surgical innovations developed by surgeons in university clinics in Germany had been or would be produced as commercial products. Evaluators of the commercial potential of innovations developed by a sample of mountain bikers judged that 31% of the innovations would be "adopted by many users if produced" (Lüthje et al 2002).…”

“…Morrison et al (2000) found in-house resource variables did have a strong impact on the likelihood of innovation. Lüthje and von Hippel (2002) found that user-innovators tended to rely on in-house resources with respect to information employed in their innovation-related activities. Franke and Shah (2003) found that users did get significant help with their innovation development efforts from members of their user communities for free.…”

“…"Technical expertise" -the ability of a user to actually accomplish modifications/changes to existing kite surfing equipment (e.g. Lüthje et al 2002), is measured by ten items, "community-based resources" -the potential contacts a user can draw on at low or no cost when facing a problem with existing kite surfing equipment (e.g. Franke and Shah 2003), is measured by eight items.…”

Influence of Shadow IT on Innovation in Organizations

“…Sometimes, this user innovation can be source of a successful commercial product. Sports equipment such as the rodeo kayak [1], mountain bike [2], snowboard [3], and surfboard [4], medical equipment [5], juvenile products such as the baby jogger [6], services such as computerized commercial banking services [7], computer games [8], and films in the animation genre [9] are few examples where user innovations was a success.…”