Content uploaded by Alexander Brem
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alexander Brem
Content may be subject to copyright.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
International Journal of Innovation Management
Vol. 12, No. 3 (Sept. 2008) pp. 419–458
© Imperial College Press
USER-CENTRIC INNOVATIONS IN NEW PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT — SYSTEMATIC IDENTIFICATION
OF LEAD USERS HARNESSING INTERACTIVE
AND COLLABORATIVE ONLINE-TOOLS
VOLKER BILGRAM∗, ALEXANDER BREM†
and KAI-INGO VOIGT‡
Friedrich-Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg
Lange Gasse 20, 90403 Nuremberg, Germany
∗
bilgram@industriebetriebslehre.de
†
brem@industriebetriebslehre.de
‡
voigt@industriebetriebslehre.de
Corporate innovation management geared to long-term success calls for a strategy to grow
innovations into a substantial competitive advantage. This, however, coincides with an
enormous failure-rate at the market, especially in the field of breakthrough innovations.
Hence, in recent times, companies are trying to alleviate the risk of lacking user-acceptance
through opening their innovation processes to external actors, particularly customers. The
method of integrating lead users is determined by the effective and systematic identification
of leading-edge customers, which is considered to be a critical phase within this approach.
With the arrival of Web 2.0 applications, there is a huge potential to improve these selection
processes. Our research into online communities and weblogs scrutinised the search criteria
in an online environment and revealed the following characteristics as crucial factors for the
online identification of lead users: being ahead of a market trend, high expected benefits,
user expertise and motivation, extreme user needs as well as opinion leadership and an
online commitment.
Keywords: New product development; lead user; web 2.0; online communities; user-centric
innovation.
Introduction
Innovations have long been considered to have a profound effect on the prosperity of
businesses (Albach, 1989; Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; Cooper, 2002). However,
their potential of growing into a competitive advantage coincides with an enor-
mous failure-rate at the market especially in the field of breakthrough innovations
419
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
420 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
(Crawford, 1997; Lüthje, 2007). Therefore, companies are trying to alleviate the lack
of user-acceptance through opening their innovation processes to external actors,
particularly customers (Brem, 2008). Such customer-centric innovations not only
harness the voice-of-the-customer but also take a further step beyond the traditional
market research by integrating users as problem solvers in various phases of the
individual innovation process. In this context, the lead-user method is applied to
capitalise on users with certain attributes, i.e., leading-edge customers, who are
to benefit tremendously from innovative solutions. Hence, efficient processes and
methods for a sustainable identification and integration of customers into the cor-
porate innovation process are crucial to the success of new product development
(NPD) (Herstatt, 1991; Olson and Bakke, 2001; Prügl, 2006; Brem and Voigt, 2007).
Another mega-trend of our time, trying to make use of the democratic powers of
the Internet users, is epitomised by the buzzword web 2.0. After the “new economy”
crash, the prevalent static Internet appearances of many dotcom businesses were
gradually re-vitalised incorporating mechanisms that make use of the wisdom of
crowds (O’Reilly, 2005). These web 2.0 applications such as online communities
and weblogs are constantly getting more and more integrated in people’s everyday
lives — and meanwhile in companies‘ daily business as well.
The Internet and search engines in particular serve as a panecea for all kinds of
search requests today. Yet, there is only a very limited body of research addressing
the opportunities these new and highly personalised tools like communities and
weblogs bear with respect to the efficient identification of lead users.
The primary aim of this paper is hence to elaborate the potential web 2.0 appli-
cations hold to support the systematic identification of lead users. This appears to
be necessary in the light of the huge deficiencies the lead-user method that shows
in the pivotal phase of the lead-user identification. Our approach was stimulated by
a striking extensive networking of users and their willingness to reveal the personal
as well as innovation-related information in online applications.
Literature Review
The way towards user-centric innovation was paved by the shift from the
manufacturer-active to customer-active paradigm in the late 1970s (von Hippel,
1978a,b; Foxall and Tierney 1984). Since then, the development of user-centric
innovation has constantly gained momentum and experienced a tremendous boost,
in interest, in the wake of the widespread use of the Internet. The term, “lead user”,
was coined and conceptionally developed by von Hippel (1986, 1988) more than 20
years ago. According to this concept, lead users are originally characterised by two
fundamental criteria: first, they experience certain needs significantly earlier than
the bulk of the market and thus serve as a “need-forecasting laboratory”. Second,
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 421
they are positioned to benefit notably from innovative solutions. For the purpose
of practical applications of the method, a process consisting of four phases was
devised (von Hippel, 1986; Lüthje and Herstatt, 2004): an initial preparatory phase
and a phase of trend identification, i.e., trends the lead users are to be ahead of,
are followed by the lead-user identification per se. In the frame of a workshop
(phase 4), the identified lead users participate in the generation of new ideas and
product concepts.
Since then, projects implementing the lead-user method were carried out in a
variety of industries. This method proved to be a systematic approach for generat-
ing breakthrough innovations and was able to outperform comparable innovative
approaches (Urban and von Hippel, 1988; Herstatt, 1991; von Hippel et al., 1999;
Lilien et al., 2002; Morrison et al., 2004). Based on the original lead-user concept,
additional criteria and antecedents depicting lead users were explored, particularly
facilitating the search for lead users in consumer goods markets with a substantially
greater number of anonymous users as opposed to industrial markets (Lüthje, 2000;
Lettl, 2004; Franke et al., 2006).
Research also centred around search methods that are best suited to ensure an
efficient identification of users characterised by the relevant search criteria (Urban
and von Hippel, 1988; Prügl, 2006). Three distinct search methods have been con-
ceived and applied: the screening method tests any person within a sample of all
users for the presence of the criteria found relevant for the specific search purpose.
The pyramiding or networking procedure takes a different approach starting out
from a small number of persons and iteratively working its way up in the pyra-
mid of expertise via recommendations. The pyramiding search distinguishes itself
by increasing the chances of identifying leading-edge users in analogous markets
following references of users in the target market. The broadcasting method has
recently been applied in lead-user projects. Therein, the formulation of a problem is
broadcasted to a group of potential problem solvers outside the company (Lakhani,
2006; Hienerth et al., 2007). However, research in this area indicates that companies
are still facing considerable problems in efficiently identifying suitable users (Olson
and Bakke, 2001; Lilien et al., 2002; Prügl, 2006; Brem and Voigt, 2007).
Surprisingly, the role of the Internet for the identification of lead users has
scarcely been examined yet (Herstatt, 2003; Henkel and Sander, 2007). Different
approaches were taken to integrate users in the various stages of the value chain, for
instance, mass customisation or toolkits for user innovation (von Hippel, 2001; von
Hippel and Katz, 2002; Thomke and von Hippel, 2002; Franke and von Hippel , 2003;
Jeppesen, 2002; Prügl and Schreier, 2006), community-based innovation (Füller
et al., 2006) or netnography (Kozinets, 1998, 2002; Füller et al., 2007). Whereas
thecoreofnetnography is to observe users’ computer-mediated interaction, for
instance, in communities, most other user-oriented innovation approaches aim at
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
422 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
directly integrating users in the stage of idea generation and conceptualisation by
shifting the individual trial-and-error process into an online realm by means of a
user interface.
The principles of an open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003) and the co-operative
innovative activities of users in communities have gained widespread notice along-
side the evolvement of the Internet towards a platform connecting people and allow-
ing for participation known under the notion Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005). An extensive
research on open source software (Raymond, 2001; von Hippel, 2001; Lerner and
Tirole, 2002; Lakhani and von Hippel, 2003; von Hippel and von Krogh, 2003)
and on innovative communities predominantly in the domain of extreme sports has
been carried out. The probability of innovations to be generated, users’ motives and
willingness to share information are the aspects that have been examined as well as
the characteristics of innovating users, their collaborative behaviour and the trans-
formation of the character of the community (Shah, 2000; Franke and Shah, 2003;
Lüthje, 2004; Hemetsberger and Reinhardt, 2004; Lüthje et al., 2005; Hienerth,
2006; Jeppesen and Frederiksen, 2006; Füller et al., 2006; Prügl and Schreier,
2006; Füller et al., 2007).
The following considerations will shed light on the lead-user method trying to
conceptually link the recruitment of lead users to the online environment.
Conceptual Framework
The focus of this paper is the lead-user method, which can be delineated in the
field of user-centred innovation concepts along multiple dimensions. In terms of
a processual classification, the lead-user method is situated in the fuzzy front end
(Khurana and Rosenthal, 1997; Kim and Wilemon, 2002) as a tool for system-
atic idea-generation and conceptualisation in the early phases of an innovation
project. In contrast to the customer-specific configuration in later phases of the
NPD, i.e., mass customisation using toolkits, the lead-user method does not limit
the solution space within which users can generate ideas and is designed to inte-
grate users in a face-to-face workshop rather than in an online setting. The non-
representative nature is characteristic of the lead-user method that explicitly tries
to explore the leading-edge customers’ solutions to problems. Whereas traditional
customer-oriented approaches concentrate on eliciting customers’ representative
needs in order to tailor their products to them, the lead-user method aims at users
with exceptional qualities (Fig. 1).
In order to identify innovative user ideas with an outstanding commercial poten-
tial, the first criterion of a lead-user is that at the leading edge of significant trends in
the market. Perceiving certain demands earlier than the bulk of the market — virtu-
ally living in the future as to a certain trend — enables lead users to gain “real-world
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 423
Customer orientation
Traditional
market research
Mass customization
Lead user m ethod
1 2 3 4
Representativeness of customer
input
Customer activity
Solution input by
customers Pure expression
of customer needs
Fuzzy Front End
Phase 4 Phase 5
Prototy pe
Phase 3
Develop-
ment
Phase 2
Phase 1
Concept
Idea Product ion
Fig. 1. The lead user method in the field of user-centred innovation.
Source: Wecht (2005); Verworn and Herstatt (2007).
experience” that is still further forward in time for the average consumer. Conse-
quently, lead users are capable of overcoming an effect called functional fixedness,
which explains the phenomenon that users’ innovative potential is bound to the pre-
vious related experiences (Duncker, 1945; Birch and Rabinowitz, 1951; Adamson
and Taylor, 1954; von Hippel, 1986). Although lead users are subject to the same
cognitive restrictions, they are well set-up to create breakthrough innovations by
virtue of their “living in the future”. However, leading-edge needs do not necessar-
ily entail the customer’s motivation to innovate thus requiring a second component:
users were found to be more inclined to innovate when they expect a high bene-
fit from a solution to their needs (Mansfield, 1968; Urban and von Hippel, 1988;
Franke et al., 2006).
Within the lead-user method, the identification of lead users according to the
aforementioned criteria is of supreme importance, however, still showing room for
improvements (Olson and Bakke, 2001; Lilien et al., 2002; Prügl, 2006). The process
of identification can be divided into two main parts: 1. gathering appropriate criteria
for the purpose of the innovation project and 2. screening users and identifying
lead users who meet the set of criteria. The emphasis of this paper is laid on the
compilation of the criteria used in t he “offline world”, which are to be accommodated
to the online environment. Nevertheless, the following approach does not intend to
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
424 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
draw a clear dividing line between the two parts of the identification process, but
to integrate the pertinent aspects of the subsequent screening process in an effort to
extend the application of criteria to the “online world”.
Before we will commence the extension of the criteria, recent developments of
the Internet are to be briefly outlined. The buzzword web 2.0 has been the sub-
ject of a plethora of discussions on the Internet that predominantly revolve around
O’Reilly’s deliberations (O’Reilly, 2005). Many attempts of making the notion web
2.0 understandable have certain fundamental principles and axioms in common
among which is the participation of users in networked structures (O’Reilly, 2005;
Kolbitsch and Maurer, 2006; Bienert, 2007; Maaß and Pietsch, 2007). This high
degree of user interaction can be observed in an abundance of popular web 2.0 appli-
cations, e.g., MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Last.fm, YouTube, Flickr,
Del.icio.us, Digg, Ning etc. Due to the collaborative and interactive essence of the
Web 2.0 applications, the demarcation line between the producer and consumer has
been notably blurred (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000; Krempl, 2006; Bunz, 2006).
Most prominent among the web 2.0 applications are the online communities, also
known as social networking sites (Rheingold, 1993; Hagel and Armstrong, 1997;
Whittaker et al., 1997; Preece, 2000; Prügl and Schreier, 2006; Füller et al., 2007;
Henkel and Sander, 2007) and weblogs (Blood, 2000, 2004; Schmidt, 2006; Wright,
2006).
For the purpose of this paper, communities are defined as “social aggregations
that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on public discussions long
enough, with sufficient human feelings, to form webs of personal relationships in
cyberspace” (Rheingold, 1993, S.5). Weblogs have generally been accepted to be
frequently updated websites consisting of dated entries arranged in reverse chrono-
logical order (Blood, 2004; Efimova et al., 2005; Schmidt et al., 2005; Wright,
2006). The total number of weblogs called blogosphere is, sometimes, also consid-
ered a community (Efimova and de Moor, 2005; Efimova et al., 2005). Likewise,
the majority of the social networking sites (e.g., MySpace, Facebook, etc.) offer
integrated weblogs as a core communication feature. Consequently, strict differen-
tiation between the two applications is not practical.
As prior research made evident, users prefer innovating in groups rather than as
isolated individuals (Franke and Shah, 2003; Lettl, 2004; Lüthje et al., 2005; Füller
et al., 2007). Both online communities and weblogs enjoy increasing popularity and
amount to a significant share of total media consumption (van Eimeren and Frees,
2006; Madden and Fox, 2006; Madden, 2006). Hence, Web 2.0 applications appear
to be a key supplement to social “offline life” and consumption behaviour covering
a huge variety of fields in terms of the content such as interests, hobbies or brands
(Hagel and Armstrong, 1997; Kozinets, 1999; McWilliam, 2000; McAlexander
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 425
et al., 2002; Kozinets, 2002). The recent development of the online communities into
platforms conducive to co-operative innovation activities asks for are-consideration
of the lead-user identification process.
Choosing the identification criteria as a starting point seems to be sound for two
reasons. First, the criteria developed to identify lead users or innovative users have
been devised in front of an offline background, thus lacking a conceptualisation
tailored to the online environment. Second, the democratic nature of the web 2.0
may have the potential to overcome the anonymity prevalent in consumer markets
that impedes a thorough identification of qualified users (Meffert, 1993; Wikström,
1996).
In an attempt to harness the innovative potential of users in communities and
weblogs, two radically different methods can be adopted. Creating and establishing
an individual online application solely designed to identify lead users (Spann and
Skiera, 2003; Ernst et al., 2004) can be juxtaposed with the usage of applications
that already exist (Kozinets, 2002; Füller et al., 2006). Within the framework of
this paper, existing outside applications are to be concentrated on by virtue of the
dominance and the enormous popularity they have already gained in the market.
Leading-edge users are likely to be already committed to communities as active
members. Thus, it appears to be difficult to induce them to join another network due
to lock-in effects that communities have, once they have reached the critical mass
of members.
A comprehensive analysis of the literature on user-centric innovation was accom-
plished for this paper and numerous search criteria from offline settings were com-
piled (Table 1). In addition to the original lead-user characteristics (von Hippel,
1988), criteria positively correlated to the lead-user construct and those describ-
ing innovative users have been taken into consideration as well. The collection of
search criteria is meant to furnish a pool of criteria from which search criteria can be
selected for one specific innovation project in order to correspond to a certain inno-
vation purpose in the best possible way (Lüthje and Herstatt, 2004; Füller et al.,
2006; Hienerth et al., 2007; Lüthje, 2007). In an effort to reveal the full poten-
tial of the web 2.0 applications for lead-user search, the set of offline criteria is
“extrapolated” to the online environment of communities and weblogs. To accom-
plish this, the paper refers to the concepts in the science of social psychology and
inter-personal relationships in computer-mediated networked environments. More-
over, specific features and structural characteristics of communities and weblogs are
taken into consideration, as well as conspicuous new technologies in the field of web
2.0 applications. Three main paths of extrapolation are scrutinised, each revealing
advantages in terms of an effective and efficient identification of lead users (Fig. 2):
1. certain criteria may be better tested in an online environment, i.e., usually rather
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
426 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
Table 1. Compilation of search criteria.
Criteria/Indicator Sources
Lead user criteria
Being ahead of a market trend •von Hippel (1986)
•Urban and von Hippel (1988)
•von Hippel et al. (1999)
•Herstatt (1991)
•Lüthje (2000, 2004)
•Franke et al. (2006)
•Franke and Shah (2003)
•Morrison et al. (2000)
•Gruner (1997)
High expected benefit •von Hippel (1986)
•Urban and von Hippel (1988)
•Herstatt (1991)
•Franke and Shah (2003)
•Franke et al. (2006)
•Lettl (2004)
•Lüthje (2004)
•von Hippel and Riggs (1996)
•Gruner (1997)
User investment •von Hippel (1986)
•Urban and von Hippel (1988)
•Herstatt (1991)
•Olson and Bakke (2001)
•Nortel Networks (2000)
•Stockmeyer (2001)
User dissatisfaction •Urban and von Hippel (1988)
•Herstatt (1991)
•Lüthje (2000, 2004)
•Olson and Bakke (2001)
•Franke and Shah (2003)
•Stockmeyer (2001)
Speed of adoption •Urban and von Hippel (1988)
•Herstatt (1991)
•Olson and Bakke (2001)
•Lüthje (2000, 2004)
•Franke and Shah (2003)
•Schreier and Prügl (2008)
•Schreier et al. (2006)
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 427
Tab l e 1 . (C ontinued )
Criteria/Indicator Sources
User Expertise
Use experience •Lüthje (2000, 2004)
•Schreier and Prügl (2008)
•Lüthje et al. (2005)
•Franke and Shah (2003)
•Hienerth et al. (2007)
Frequency of use •Lüthje (2000)
•Lettl et al. (2004)
•Franke and Shah (2003)
•Shah (2000)
•Jeppesen and Frederiksen (2006)
•Schreier and Prügl (2008)
•Lettl (2004)
•Franke et al. (2006)
Total period of use •Lüthje (2000, 2004)
•Franke and Shah (2003)
•Schreier and Prügl (2008)
•Lüthje et al. (2005)
Number of different disciplines •Lüthje (2000, 2004)
•Lettl (2004)
•Lettl et al. (2004)
•Lüthje et al. (2005)
Product related knowledge •Lüthje (2000, 2004)
•Jeppesen and Molin (2003)
•Füller et al. (2006)
•Gruner and Homburg (1998)
•Schreier and Prügl (2008)
•Lettl (2004)
•Lüthje et al. (2005)
•Hienerth et al. (2007)
Frequency of use of information sources •Lüthje (2000, 2004)
•Franke and Shah (2003)
•Schreier and Prügl (2008)
Professional background or hobby •Lüthje (2000, 2004)
•Lüthje et al. (2005)
•Herstatt (2003)
•Jeppesen and Frederiksen (2006)
•Hienerth et al. (2007)
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
428 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
Tab l e 1 . (C ontinued )
Criteria/Indicator Sources
Motivation
Extrinsic motivation •Lüthje (2000, 2004)
•Franke et al. (2006)
•Lettl (2004)
Intrinsic motivation •Lettl (2004)
•Jeppesen and Frederiksen (2006)
•Franke and Shah (2003)
•Jeppesen and Molin (2003)
Extreme needs and circumstances of product use •von Hippel et al. (1999)
•von Hippel and Sonnack (1999)
•Lettl (2004)
•Herstatt et al. (2007)
•Olson and Bakke (2004)
•Lilien et al. (2002)
•Lüthje et al. (2005)
•Schild et al. (2004)
•Herstatt (2001, 2003)
•Nortel Networks (2000)
Opinion leadership and word-of-mouth •Franke and Shah (2003)
•Schreier and Prügl (2008)
•Urban and von Hippel (1988)
•Morrison et al. (2002)
•Gatignon and Roberts (1985)
•Sawhney an Prandelli (2000)
•Lang (2006)
•Lettl (2004)
•Schreier et al. (2006)
•Herstatt (2004)
anonymous consumers become more visible through an active participation in web
2.0 applications; 2. certain criteria might only be able to be assessed in the online
setting, i.e., users feel inhibited to reveal certain characteristics in the real-world
and 3. online users may show a higher degree of lead userness, i.e., users, who are
active in web 2.0 applications, fulfill certain search criteria to a higher extent.
Conceptual Linkage–Lead-User Criteria and Web 2.0
In the following section, the potential of web 2.0 applications will be analysed with
respect to each single criterion as structured in Table 1. For each criterion, we will
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 429
Company
ONLINE
OFFLINE
cri t.1*
cri t.1
cri t.3*
cri t.2*
cri t.3cri t.2
User
test
test
p r o j e c t i o n
Fig. 2. Projection of user criteria.
provide theoretical background, elucidate its role in traditional lead-user identifi-
cation and render arguments for an intensive integration of online applications into
lead-user search.
Being ahead of a market trend
The first criterion to start our conceptual linkage is one of the two original lead-user
criteria, being ahead of a market trend. Identifying users, who sense a certain need,
before the majority of the market requires to investigate trends in an innovation
field and identify the most critical ones. In a second step, users are screened for
those leading these key trends (Herstatt and von Hippel, 1992; von Hippel et al.,
1999). When projecting this criterion onto the online setting, we will concentrate
on weblogs in particular, be they stand-alone applications or integrated features of
communities.
Weblogs can be considered as the main communication tool in the web 2.0 con-
text. For the identification of critical trends, a firm may benefit from technologies
and structures of weblogs, which are conducive to trend identification in multiple
ways: the strongly inter-linked nature of the blogosphere initially helps to single
out weblogs with relevant content in a topical cluster by applying search engines
that are specifically tailored to weblog search (Schmidt, 2006; Java, 2006; Mishne,
2006; Zerfaß and Bogosyan, 2007). Once a relevant set of weblogs is identified,
the RSS technology allows for an easy and efficient surveillance by enabling users
to subscribe to weblogs or sections of them and receive any updates immediately
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
430 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
without having to navigate to a certain website (Hippner and Wilde, 2005; Bienert,
2007). Links from the observed set of weblogs to peripheral websites can serve as
a relevance filter for a wide range of websites. This is facilitated by special features
of the so-called permalinks, which unlike conventional hyperlinks, are bidirectional
and offer more specified referral. Thereby, the reader can follow conversations that
are spread out on several weblogs, as the blog entries refer to other entries (parts
of a website), instead of just linking two websites (Glance et al., 2004; Hippner
and Wilde, 2005; Schmidt, 2006; see also the conversation tracker by blogpulse).
Discussions in weblogs are also encouraged by a technology called trackback that
indicates at the end of a blog entry whether another weblog has referred to it. Fur-
thermore, the spatial and temporal asynchronous weblog communication through
the inherent comment feature at the end of each entry or the aforementioned track-
back technology enables the leading-edge users to have an ongoing dialogue on
trends without having to arrange a meeting. All of these communication features
weblogs provide can help to ensure that a sufficient number of experts from anal-
ogous search fields, or those closely related, are taken into consideration for a
comprehensive trend analysis (Lüthje, 2000; Pötz et al., 2005; Herstatt et al., 2007;
Bienert, 2007).
Besides these weblog functions that are favourable to trend detection, the char-
acteristic structure of weblogs shows potential to actually identify the users at the
head of a market trend. Due to the reverse chronological order of the weblog entries
and their allocation to categories within one weblog, a detected trend can easily be
traced manually to its initiator. First approaches to automate the identification of
certain types of bloggers have also been taken (Nakajima et al., 2005; Java, 2006).
Being an active participant in weblogs or communities might, as well, indicate
a higher lead userness. The open nature and an easy usability of these web 2.0
applications turn them into assembly places of dynamic interdisciplinary and topical
exchange of information and trends (Glance et al., 2004; Java, 2006; Kozinets, 2006;
Maurice, 2007). Additionally, the structure of weblogs is search-engine friendly,
which entails high ranks in keyword search results, thus providing a breeding ground
for analogous approaches to a problem beyond national boundaries or limitations
to expert opinions of a certain branch of industry (Herstatt, 2003; Schmidt et al.,
2005; Java, 2006; Schmidt, 2006).
High expected benefits
The second component of the original lead-user theory is the high benefit users
expect from finding innovative solutions to a problem (Urban and von Hippel, 1988;
Herstatt, 1991; Lüthje, 2000; Franke and Shah, 2003; Franke et al., 2006). Three
indicators have been developed to allow for a better assessment of this criterion.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 431
Along these, the following projection of the second lead-user characteristic onto
the online setting is structured.
User investment
In the absence of an adequate solution provided by a manufacturer, lead users will
try to devise their own products or modify the existing products in order to satisfy
their leading edge needs. These investments in obtaining a solution were found
to be positively correlated with the benefit the user expects (Schmookler, 1966;
Mansfield, 1968; von Hippel, 1988). However, user investments used to be percep-
tible only to a certain community, the user innovator belonged to. Therefore, this
indicator could hardly be detected without conducting a survey (Ernst et al., 2004;
Lüthje and Herstatt, 2004; Hienerth, 2006). Online communities have developed
into platforms enabling users to reveal their ideas or innovations, for instance, by
uploading drawings, virtual prototypes, CAD files or simply in discussions among
the members. As a result, the indicator user investment can be more accurately and
easily evaluated in an online setting.
By assessing specific visualisations of the user concepts and innovations as
opposed to mere questioning of users, firms might be able to even reproduce and
test user innovations (in contrast to Urban and von Hippel, 1988; Shah, 2004; Piller,
2006; Füller et al., 2007). Apart from the information on the user innovation, i.e.,
the user investment, the firm trying to evaluate the lead userness may also consider
the opinion of other community members on the innovation, as it may be uttered in
their comments. Hence, the firm’s assessment might already be supplemented by a
market perspective at this early stage of the NPD.
Not only lead users might be identified online in a more reliable and less com-
plicated way, they might as well outdo innovative users in terms of the degree of
expected benefit, which directly corresponds to a higher lead userness. On account
of the collective effort of innovating within an online community, users may find
favourable conditions for their innovative activities and as a result, the quality of
user investments may tend to be superior (Amabile, 1997; Shah and Tripsas, 2004;
Tietz et al., 2005; Hienerth, 2006; see also the discussion in the section “Use expe-
rience”).
Füller et al. (2007) showed that there is often only a small number of innovative
members in a community who play a key role in the collective generation of inno-
vations. At the same time, these users proved to be widely known in the community
and thus could easily be identified (Franke and Shah, 2003). Towards an automated
process of identifying leading edge users, distinct user types could be recognised
with respect to length, frequency and the level of postings they contribute within a
thread (Henkel and Sander, 2007).
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
432 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
User dissatisfaction
The investment in finding a solution is cognitively preceded by a state of dissat-
isfaction with the existing products on the part of the user, which is the result of
a negative discrepancy between the expected and the perceived performance of a
product (Bruhn, 1982; Urban and von Hippel, 1988; Lüthje, 2000; Franke et al.,
2006).
With regard to the indicator user dissatisfaction, potential of the web 2.0 can
be found in the presumption that users would preferably express their discontent
to a person in their peer group, e.g., another member of an online community
which they are part of. The information ensuing from monitoring that kind of peer
communication is said to be more reliable, unadulterated and unfiltered (Assael,
1998; Kozinets, 2002; Pitta and Fowler, 2005a). Online communities may also help
to filter out postings from dissatisfied users that are not caused by mere ignorance
or by a mistake of application, but rather reflect unfulfilled needs of leading-edge
users. Utilising the self-organising effect of the communities’ bottom-up structure
is important, in order to be able to efficiently cope with the sheer multitude of user
contributions in web 2.0 applications at all. It is plausible that by definition, lead
users should only express dissatisfaction that originates in needs experienced way
ahead of the bulk of the market rather than in a lack of user experience.Again,an
automation based on the length of threads and the number of users involved in a
discussion could be promising (Henkel and Sander, 2007).
The indicator user dissatisfaction is also supposed to ensure that users’ general
needs are transformed into specific product specifications (Lüthje, 2000). In dis-
cussions revolving around problem-solving, the community can assist specifying
requirements and sustain user dissatisfaction.
Speed of adoption
Finally, the third indicator for the lead-user characteristic of high expected benefit is
the speed of adoption regarding the new products. Research showed the higher the
rate of adoption, the higher the benefit users expect from a new solution (Robertson,
1971; Urban and von Hippel, 1988; Rogers, 1995; Lüthje, 2004).
Again, monitoring communities or weblogs could replace the collecting of infor-
mation by means of surveys. However, supposedly, the manually conducted surveil-
lance of the web 2.0 applications is time-consuming in comparison to standardised
questionnaires despite the focus on few communities and weblogs relevant to the
innovation project, i.e., the search field. Users’ reports of experience with products
that were recently introduced to a market may signify their speed of adoption in
the same way as announcements of a future intention to purchase or verbalised
impatient expectations of new products.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 433
It appears plausible that innovative users participating in web 2.0 applications
show a tendency towards adopting new products faster, i.e., they fulfill the criterion
to a larger extent. A possible reason can be seen in an earlier impetus for the decision-
making process leading up to the adoption, i.e., purchase of a new product (Assael,
1998; Blackwell et al., 2006). This, for instance, could happen when users gain
awareness of a latent need due to the global communication and networking in online
applications, e.g., when a product has already been introduced to a foreign market
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Füller et al., 2007). The fast diffusion of information
through weblogs and community communication and their trend-leading grassroots
nature may accelerate the adoption (Gruhl et al., 2005; Java, 2006). Subsequent
phases of decision-making, such as the acquisition of product information and the
evaluation of alternatives (Assael, 1998; Blackwell, 2006) can also gain momentum
as a result of permanent involvement in online discussions and up-to-date reports
of users’ experiences (Gatignon and Robertson, 1985).
User expertise
Strikingly, both original lead-user characteristics rather concentrate on motiva-
tional qualities. The actual product-related abilities and the knowledge of users
are not explicitly included in the original lead-user criteria. For this reason, several
approaches have been taken to make users’ expertise an integral part of lead-user
theory. In doing so, a distinction is made in most researches between user expe-
rience and product-related knowledge. Both criteria have been found positively
correlated with the lead-user construct and users’ innovative activity (Lüthje, 2004;
Lettl, 2004; Lüthje et al., 2005).
In order to provide a theoretical framework for the extension of the lead-user
criterion user expertise in an online environment, the section is preceded by a brief
survey of theories. We are going to utilise the core statements of the three theories
in the field of social psychology, which substantiate the processes of perception
and learning (Lettl, 2004): the notion of bounded rationality, the theory of social
perception and the conception of absorptive capacity will be outlined in the follow-
ing with a focus on the elements that have relevance for our line of reasoning.
According to the notion of bounded rationality, individuals are not able to cope
with all the information in a complex environment as a consequence of the restricted
capacity and resources of the human memory. In order to obtain and assimilate
information from the environment, individuals will reduce the complexity of the
environment by concentrating on selective domains (Simon, 1957; Lipman, 1995;
Selten, 2001; Dequech, 2001; Gigerenzer, 2001).
The theory of social perception postulates that the perception is determined
by a set of hypotheses, which an individual has developed through experience,
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
434 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
i.e., former perceptions and cognitions. If the hypotheses are confirmed by user
experience, users will corroborate the set of hyphotheses. Otherwise, the perceptual
set might be modified, i.e., the robustness of the hypotheses might be diminished.
The set of hypotheses that is constantly re-considered and adapted also dominates
the part of the environment that is perceived by the individual (Bruner and Postman,
1948; 1949; Lilli and Frey, 1993; Lettl, 2004).
The conception of absorptive capacity claims that the level of prior related
knowledge, which an individual has accumulated, largely influences his/her ability
to absorb information, evaluate it and utilise the knowledge for new solutions to a
problem. As memory development is suggested to be self-reinforcing, an expanded
knowledge base and the breadth of inter-linked categories are conducive to the
assimilation and use of related knowledge (Bower and Hilgard, 1981; Cohen and
Levinthal, 1990).
Apart from the theories in social psychology, another notion is used to explain
the potential of web 2.0 applications in terms of the identification of lead users. The
conception of weak and strong ties explores the social ties among the individuals
in a network, e.g., an innovative online community. This conception may bear sig-
nificance as far as the transfer of user experience and product-related knowledge
between individual users is concerned. It may also affect the communication of rel-
evant information in the buying decision of an individual user. The strength of social
ties between individuals is gauged on the basis of several measures: the time invested
to maintain social relationships, the emotional intensity and the degree of intimacy
in relationships and on the basis of the level of mutual services. The conception
therefore differentiates between weak and strong ties, which both have an effect on
the behaviour of the individuals. Ties of different strength have also been argued to
assume contrasting tasks regarding the functioning and structure of a network. For
this reason, weak and strong ties are considered to be channels for the transfer of
resources (Granovetter, 1973; Wasserman and Faust, 1994; Wegner, 1995). Infor-
mation or resources that have been transferred via strong ties are acquired more
easily and tend to be more detailed and reliable. This is particularly favourable in
the context of complex pieces of information (Granovetter, 1983, 1985; Uzzi, 1997;
Hansen, 1999). Weak ties, on the other hand, give an access to information beyond
an individual’s social structure, e.g., the individual is not member of a community
(Granovetter, 1973, 1983; Johnson Brown and Reingen, 1987; Dodds et al., 2003;
Jack, 2005; Kavanaugh et al., 2005).
Use experience
Use experience, as one component of user expertise, is developed by way of expe-
riences from the repeated use of a product and therefore is primarily a matter of
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 435
a user’s time resources. It enables users to translate their dissatisfaction with solu-
tions currently available on the market into specified requirements for the NPD by
analysing problems and trialling new solutions (Weisberg, 1986; Alba and Hutchin-
son, 1987; Lüthje, 2000; 2004). The criterion use experience proved to be able to
distinguish between innovating and non-innovating users and was found to posi-
tively correspond with lead userness (Franke and Shah, 2003; Lüthje, 2004; 2005).
In view of the extension of the criteria in the context of web 2.0 applications, the
collective use experience should play a pivotal role. The individual in a community
or weblog contributes to this experience based on a certain extent and is granted
access in return by means of the interaction and communication within the net-
work (Sawhney and Prandelli, 2000; Nambisan, 2002; Hienerth, 2006; Kolbitsch
and Maurer, 2006). In the following, we will alter the angle from an individual to
community-based when scrutinising the potential of the web 2.0. Particular atten-
tion will be directed toward any intensifying effects on the extent to which users
fulfill the criteria of expertise.
Individuals have been found to preferably avail themselves of personal contacts
as a source of information (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955; Allen, 1977; Kozinets,
1999; Cross et al., 2001; Godes et al., 2005). The chance to acquire tacit knowledge
resulting from other users’ time-consuming accumulation of use experience via
trial-and-error may account for this behaviour (Shah, 2000; Lüthje et al., 2005;
Tietz et al., 2005). Research on offline user communities, for instance, revealed that
in 68% of all innovation projects at least three more members were involved besides
the innovator. In 21% of all the cases, at least six other members were part of the
team (Shah, 2000; Franke and Shah, 2003; Kozinets, 2006; similar Hienerth, 2006).
In order to cover their need for information in various domains, users may take
advantage of the resources of the community. Hence, users are required to activate
social ties and divisions of their network according to their information endowment
(Wellman and Gulia, 1999; von Hippel, 2005).
Making use of the collective experiences of a community may provide the means
to overcome the cognitive limits, a single individual is subject to (Sawhney and
Prandelli, 2000; Butler et al., 2002). In online communities, individuals share essen-
tial resources, be they of cognitive, emotional or material nature (McAlexander et al.,
2002). This, for instance, occurs when questions and experiences are posted and
discussed online, which may be regarded as a “meta“ trial-and-error process on
the level of a community. Members of a community may not only test and opti-
mise products that they have created themselves, but also innovations generated and
revealed by other members (Shah and Tripsas, 2004; Hienerth, 2006; Piller, 2006;
Füller et al., 2007). These considerations can be substantiated by the theories in
social psychology described beforehand.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
436 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
The significance that might be ascribed to the collective assimilation, evaluation
and utilisation of use experience can be underpinned by the conception of absorp-
tive capacity. Owing to a deeper and more widely diversified knowledge base, i.e.,
a base of experiences, communities’ absorptive capacity may by far surpass that
of an individual (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Wegner, 1995; Harhoff et al., 2003;
Lüthje et al., 2005). A community’s focal interest can be assumed to provide a
common knowledge base its members have and thus make it easier for the members
to comprehend and exploit new and more specific knowledge, which other users
contribute (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Due to the more intense interaction among
the members of communities, which is facilitated by the community features such
as the member profiles, electronic communication and structured forums, a system
develops in which individuals increasingly develop the so-called transactive mem-
ory. This is knowledge members gain of other members’ fields of expertise. The
more extensive users’ transactive memory is, the better their access to the commu-
nity’s knowledge pool will be (Wegner, 1987; Wegner et al., 1991; Thompson and
Fine, 1999; Brandon and Hollingshead, 2004). The knowledge resulting from use
experience may, for instance, be transferred via an open source software and CAD-
files, as could be observed in a kitesurfing community. Based on the information
and expertise accumulated and revealed as CAD-files by the community members,
other users are able to resume and further the tests and developments (Piller, 2006).
This collective innovating effort allows users to substantially capitalise on other
users’ expertise that would not have been available to them otherwise, i.e., in an
offline context (Preece and Maloney-Krichmar, 2003; de Valck, 2005).
The theory of social perception gives rise to the assumption that in contrast
to an isolated individual, a radical re-orientation is more likely to take place in a
community as a result of its larger set of hypotheses. Even though a single member’s
set of hypotheses may be exceptionally robust and thus control the individual’s
cognitive processing, another member characterised by a less robust perceptual set
might just reject the hypothesis, once the experience is shared with the community.
Any favourable outcome ensuing from that change of perspective can be expected
to be disseminated within the community on account of the interaction among the
community members. Consequently, the entire community’s set of hypotheses will
be re-adjusted and the innovative activities re-aligned with the latest findings. This
characteristic may significantly increase the likelihood of breakthrough innovations
to prevail and thereby make communities the preferred environment for lead users
all the more.
If users focus on specific domains in a field of application by reason of reducing
complexity — as claimed in the notion of bounded rationality — they are able to
selectively obtain and assimilate information. At the same time, their decisions are
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 437
pre-disposed to be sub-optimal. For the processing of information inside commu-
nities, an idealised scenario could be delineated that may, to some extent, resolve
the cognitive dilemma: users may supplement the innovative approaches of other
members with complementary information from their respective domains in a pro-
cessed and aggregated form and make it accessible to the community again (Franke
and Shah, 2003; Lettl, 2004; Lüthje et al., 2005; Piller, 2006). The technological
possibility to permanently link single contributions (cp. Being ahead of a market
trend) and archive them as connected units of knowledge appears to be conducive to
this scenario. Besides, the information could be easily retrieved harnessing commu-
nity search engines screening the archives (Hagel and Armstrong, 1997; de Valck,
2005; Dellarocas and Narayan, 2005; Tietz et al., 2005). This scenario would entail
a higher level of information and thus higher lead userness among the community
members.
On the whole, the interaction of users inside communities seems to have consid-
erable potential to overcome the cognitive shortcomings as depicted in the theories
of social psychology. Powerful communities, as a whole, can draw on significantly
larger human resources of their members, which is particularly valuable in the con-
text of use experience resulting from of laborious trial-and-error (Franke and Shah,
2003; Lüthje et al., 2005; Hienerth, 2006; Baldwin et al., 2006; Füller et al., 2007).
Hence, it is not surprising that community-based internal resources could be found
to have a positive effect on the likelihood that users innovate as well as on the
commercial attractiveness of user innovations (Franke et al., 2006).
Means of communication are required in order to access a community’s knowl-
edge base comprising each member’s expertise. (Wegner, 1987; Wegner et al., 1991;
Thompson and Fine, 1999). We will now take a closer look at the channels of com-
munication and try to identify those users in a community, who profit most from
collective use experience. The following considerations are based on the conception
of weak and strong ties.
The number of strong ties plays a pivotal role as far as a member’s access
to the collective knowledge is concerned (Wegner, 1987; Franke and Shah, 2003;
Cross and Sproull, 2004; Jack, 2005; Schulz, 2006). Use experience is characterised
by its high complexity as a result of the tacit knowledge that constitutes it and the
related product knowledge required to underpin these experiences (Polanyi, 1958;
von Hippel, 1994; Nightingale, 1998). This complexity demands a strong social
relationship among the parties of knowledge transfer (Hansen, 1999). Strong ties
have further relevance regarding them as links into more distant social spheres
of a user’s network, i.e., second-degree relationships (“friends-of-friends”) (Jack,
2005). The more strong ties members can draw on, the more use experience they
will be able to acquire, which positively correlates with the user’s lead userness
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
438 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
(Franke et al., 2006). The inter-relation between the strength of social ties and users’
innovativeness is also supported by research in offline communities that showed that
innovating users spend 32% more time with other members than non-innovating
users (Franke and Shah, 2003).
In many cases, social relationships in online communities may be categorised as
weak ties owing to the virtual way the relationship is initiated and cultivated (Kraut
et al., 1998; Wellman and Gulia, 1999; Andersson et al., 2007). However, one has
to bear in mind that some of the virtual relationships are the online counterparts
to solid real-life relationships and, thus, are to be considered strong ties. Weak ties
may also serve as bridges into socially distant clusters. However, in contrast to
the strong ties, they provide direct relationships instead of forming a connection
through a strong tie. Thereby, weak ties are more likely to produce non-redundant
information as opposed to rather identical information obtainable from a usually
very homogeneous group of strong ties (Burt, 1992; Cross and Sproull, 2004).
One way to assess a user’s network in terms of weak and strong ties could be the
list of contacts, which is featured by most online communities. Nonetheless, these
lists usually do not differentiate between the strengths of ties, which remain to be
evaluated based on the degree of interaction between two members.
Studies on users’ expertise sometimes refer to the frequency of use, the total
period of use and the number of different disciplines as measures indicating use
experience (Lüthje, 2004; Tietz et al., 2005; Jeppesen and Frederiksen, 2006). These
indicators may offer further perspectives to elaborate the potential of online lead-
user identification.
Product-related knowledge
The second criterion constituting a user’s expertise is the product-related knowledge
that comprises a product’s way of functioning as well as knowledge of material,
processes and technology. It empowers the user to convert product requirements
into preliminary solutions (Lüthje, 2000). Between the product-related knowledge
and users’ innovative activities as well as lead userness, a positive relationship has
been detected (Lüthje, 2004).
Instead of relying on users’ self-appraisal (cp. User investment) or easily acces-
sible information, e.g., the academic degree of a user in surveys (Herstatt and von
Hippel, 1992; Lettl, 2004; Hienerth et al., 2007), firms can derive information from
users’ online activities. With the projection of this criterion into the online setting,
the assessment of users’ product-related knowledge is supposed to be notably facili-
tated. Users rendering assistance to other members of a community can be logically
assumed to have greater product-related knowledge than those members who enlist
advice. This assumption has been validated by research showing that 50% of the
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 439
innovating users compared to only 10% of non-innovating users offered support
to other members, while 40% of the supporting users were considered to have an
expert knowledge (Franke and Shah, 2003). Users issuing newsletters or moderat-
ing discussion forums may be another sign of extensive inherent product-related
knowledge (Seufert et al., 2002).
The frequency of use of information sources and the professional background or
hobby could be identified as indicators of the extent of product-related knowledge,
which are to be briefly discussed in the following. As far as the first indicator is con-
cerned, similar collective effects and consequences should be present for product-
related knowledge as have been discussed for the criterion use experience (cp. Use
experience). In NPD, product-related knowledge in several domains is often a pre-
requisite for the innovative combination of a product’s various components (Tietz
et al., 2005; Piller, 2006). However, having profound expertise in several domains is
rather unusual due to the long durations of the academic programmes. This is why
research has predominantly focused on a user’s professional background or hobby
(Lüthje et al., 2002; Lüthje, 2004; Lüthje et al., 2005; Jeppesen and Frederiksen,
2006). Knowledge that is acquired within the bounds of one’s profession or hobby
is not involved in this dilemma as the local information ensuing from the pursuance
of a profession or hobby is available to them at hardly any cost, i.e., the information
is not “sticky”. The low-cost procurement of information is owed to the fact that it is
a by-product of the necessary pursuance of a profession or the enjoyable practice of
a hobby (von Hippel, 1994; Morrison et al., 2000; Lüthje et al., 2005; Füller et al.,
2007). This phenomenon is also consistent with the theory of bounded rationality
stating that users focus on one or very few domains, particularly on one they are
already proficient in, as a means to reduce the complexity (Simon, 1957; Selten,
2001; Dequech, 2001).
Research revealed that more than 70% of the innovating users had a profession
they could transfer knowledge from for their innovative activities as opposed to 34%
of non-innovating users (Lüthje, 2004). The example of a scientist working in the
field of ergonomics and biomechanics, who used his/her professional knowledge to
design a mountainbike frame in his/her spare time perfectly illustrates the effect of
background knowledge on innovative activities (Lüthje et al., 2005).
In online communities “sticky” information can be easily transferred, i.e., made
available to other members by way of visualisations that are uploaded (Ogawa,
1998; von Hippel, 1998). For this reason, online communities may have an edge
over their offline equivalents that might reveal “sticky” information via face-to-
face communication, however, only to a very limited number of members. A firm’s
online search for lead users with a background conducive to the innovation project
may also be eased as a result of the extensive availability of innovation related
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
440 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
information, i.e., in user profiles or forums, as well as advanced search capabilities
in online communities (O’Murchu et al., 2004; Kolbitsch and Maurer, 2006; Kho,
2007; Lampe et al., 2007). The enormous revelation of information in online com-
munities may further allow firms to select lead users by cumulatively combining
users’ expected benefits and backgrounds according to the respective search field.
Provided that the search field of a lead-user project is described as “safe moun-
tainbikes”, the firm might search for users, who pursue exceptionally dangerous
mountainbiking disciplines and at the same time are medical doctors (Lüthje et al.,
2002; 2005).
User motivation
User motivation can be generally divided into extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.
Extrinsic motivation
Extrinsic motivation arises from the consequences of a user’s activity and its atten-
dant circumstances, i.e., monetary incentives or the benefit of using an innovation.
These work as an impetus for innovative activities from the outside (Amabile, 1997;
Frey, 1997; Lettl, 2004; Reichwald et al., 2004). The motivating power of benefits
resulting from the utilisation of innovative products is already taken into account in
the form of the second lead-user criterion high expected benefit (cp. High expected
benefit). The effect of monetary incentives on users’ motivation could not be con-
firmed in several studies. A possible explanation for this finding might be the sup-
pression of intrinsic by extrinsic motivation (Herstatt and von Hippel, 1992; Lüthje,
2000; Jeppesen and Frederiksen, 2006; Pötz et al., 2005). For this reason, this kind
of extrinsic motivation will not be further analysed.
In the context of communities, users’ commitment to innovative activities of
other members is evident. This being the case, social motives should be taken into
consideration as the causes of extrinsic motivation. Users’ behaviour is assumed to
be under the influence of other members, so that the community develops a dynamic
that may give a boost to users’ motivation to innovate. Reasons for this could be the
expectation of recognition or altruistic motives (Lerner and Tirole, 2002; Lakhani
and von Hippel, 2003; Reichwald et al., 2004; Jeppesen and Frederiksen, 2006).
As can be seen from the example of an open-source development, user interac-
tion and participation may have a strong motivational effect on users (Lerner and
Tirole, 2002). This, however, is a phenomenon of the community as a whole, which
cannot be transformed into a criterion on the level of a single user. Consequently, a
user’s membership of and commitment to a community can only serve as indicators
of higher motivation per se, instead of allowing for differentiation between users’
degree of motivation. Relevant communities may be assessed as to their effect on
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 441
users’ extrinsic social motivation in a first step. Then, users of favourable commu-
nities may only be further considered. (cp. Online commitment and participation as
a pre-requisite of lead userness).
Intrinsic motivation
Intrinsic motivation results from the activitiy itself conveying a feeling of enjoy-
ment, exploration and creativity to the users and enabling them to make full use of
their potential (Zimbardo, 1992; Ryan and Deci, 2000; Reichwald et al., 2004). The
assumption that high intrinsic motivation has a positive influence on a user’s inno-
vative activities could only be partially confirmed in studies (Lüthje, 2000; Lettl,
2004; Lakhani, 2006; Jeppesen and Frederiksen, 2006). In the light of the analytical
approach of this study, we will still extend this criterion to the online context. In
contrast to the extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation can be examined on the
individual level of a single user. In the context of web 2.0 applications, users’ com-
mitment could be assessed according to their participation to the community, i.e.,
revealing information on innovation projects or assisting other members (Franke
and Shah, 2003; Füller et al., 2007). It may help to segment a community population
based on their commitment to the community and involvement in the topic of the
community (Kozinets, 1999; 2002; Hemetsberger, 2001).
Moreover, individuals who, on the whole, firmly believe that certain outcomes
are for the most part a result of their ownactions, i.e., individuals with a high internal
locus of control, tend to show high intrinsic motivation and creativity (Rotter, 1966;
Leone and Burns, 2000). The construct of the locus of control is assumed to expe-
rience further reinforcement in the context of web 2.0 applications. These often
have bottom-up organisational structures instead of being organised by a higher
entity. Thus, users may increasingly embrace the role of a “producer” determining
their own activities, i.e., the frequency and type of contributions (Hemetsberger,
2001; Bunz, 2006; Krempl, 2006; Kolbitsch and Maurer, 2006). This experience of
far-reaching control might positively influence both a users’ motivation and lead
userness (Pitta and Fowler, 2005b).
Extreme needs and circumstances of product use
Extreme needs and conditions, a certain type of user may be confronted with, are
rather a recommendation for a promising field to search in than search criteria
themselves (von Hippel et al., 1999; Nortel Networks, 2000; Herstatt, 2003; Lüthje
and Herstatt, 2004; Schild et al., 2004; Lettl, 2004; Lüthje et al., 2005). Nevertheless,
this recommendation will be extended to the online environment and examined in
this context.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
442 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
Expecting users to display a more intense and strongly motivated search
behaviour under extreme conditions seems to be cogent. A higher pressure to find a
solution to a problem due to the possible fatal consequences of product use may sup-
port this assumption as well as the users’ open-mindedness towards new approaches.
The latter is attributed to users in extreme situations, as they typically have a more
open set of hypotheses and are therefore less impeded to innovate (Lettl, 2004).
Extreme users’ intense search behaviour is likely to increase the probability
of them tapping the resources and information offered by web 2.0 applications and
searching for the few like-minded users that are also confronted with similar extreme
conditions (Kolbitsch and Maurer, 2006; Schmidt, 2006; cp. Online commitment
and participation as a pre-requisite of lead userness). Since extreme users will try
to make use of a community’s resources as much as possible, a higher actor degree
centrality (Wasserman and Faust, 1994) and stronger commitment of users to a
community might be further effects of the onerous external conditions that the
extreme users face. Hence, frequent and informed contributions as well as a high
number of social ties in a community should be the characteristic of extreme users.
Users with extreme needs may also be more easily or even solely identifiable in
web 2.0 applications, since the problem they face might be extremely sensitive or
stigmatising. In this case, users will rather prefer not to disclose any information
despite their desperate search for a solution. Examples can be found in the field of
diseases, disabilities and other sensitive subjects that require to recruit lead users
from stigmatised segments of the society (Prügl, 2006). Under these conditions,
communities as well as the weblogs enable users to interact and reveal information
and at the same time remain anonymous. Still, it is feasible for a firm to gain valuable
insights or even contact to extreme users via their online alias. This potential of an
online lead-user search is crucial, as invaluable information can be obtained that
otherwise would remain inaccessible.
Opinion leadership and word-of-mouth
Word-of-mouth is the informal communication of ideas, comments, opinions and
information between two people, none of whom is a firm marketing its products
(Godes et al., 2005; Blackwell et al., 2006). In the context of web 2.0, information
is transmitted electronically by making it accessible online (Hennig-Thurau et al.,
2004). Opinion leaders are senders of information in a word-of-mouth process and
are positioned to influence other individuals (de Valck, 2005; Anderrson et al.,
2007).
According to the conceptual framework, we focus on the identification and inte-
gration of lead users for the purpose of ideation and conceptualisation in the fuzzy
front end of the innovation process (cp. Conceptual Framework). Despite this focus,
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 443
we will briefly examine lead-users’ ability to support corporate marketing of new
products in the diffusion phase.
There are a variety of reasons why we attach importance to lead-users’ opinion
leadership. The marketing of breakthrough innovations that tend to be initially
perceived as complex by customers, needs to offer assistance and guidance for
customers in order to break with old habits of product usage (Atuahene-Gima,
1995; Veryzer, 1998). By virtue of their excellent product-related knowledge and
use experience, lead users seem to be pre-destined for the role of opinion leaders
(Urban and von Hippel, 1988; Schreier et al., 2006). Furthermore, the lead-user
characteristics being ahead of a market trend and speed of adoption constitute the
essence of opinion leadership (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971; de Valck, 2005). By
the time the majority of consumers sense a certain need, lead users will already have
gained extensive experience and may accelerate the diffusion of a new product (von
Hippel, 1986; Herstatt, 2004).
It becomes obvious that opinion leadership is already contained in the original
lead-user criteria. This is also confirmed by the studies showing that lead userness
and users’ innovative activities are positively correlated to a user’s opinion lead-
ership (Franke and Shah, 2003; Morrison et al., 2004; Schreier et al., 2006). As a
result, opinion leadership can be regarded as a by-product of lead userness.
Yet, we will point out a few additional criteria that might help to identify lead
users or relevant communities (cp. Online commitment and participation as a pre-
requisite of lead userness) in the light of web 2.0 applications. First and foremost,
we will concentrate on those criteria that derive from a user’s membership of an
online network and are generalisable rather than those that are tailored to a specific
innovation project.
A large number of social contacts appear to be indispensable and essential to
opinion leadership (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955). Communities can be considered
networks that allow the informal transmission of information and consist of multiple
relationships between their members (de Valck, 2005). The size of a user’s network
is decisive with respect to both dimensions, the total number of members and a user’s
direct contacts. Determining the size of offline networks is susceptible to mistakes
as it is usually not publicly manifest and based on surveys (Katz and Lazarsfeld,
1955; Milgram, 1967). The size can be easily and more reliably determined in online
networks based on the available media data that also include further details, such as
page views, unique visitors or growth rates. On the level of individual users, direct
contacts are often visible in each user’s profile.
Additionally, online users might tend to have greater opinion leadership on
account of the the common ground community members have and the larger num-
ber of contacts that can be reached at low cost (Moon and Sproull, 2001; Kozinets,
2002; de Valck, 2005).
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
444 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
In terms of the strength of social relationships among the members of a network,
both weak and strong ties have different positive effects on the diffusion of infor-
mation in the word-of-mouth process (Milgram, 1967; Granovetter, 1983; Constant
et al., 1996; Bickart and Schindler, 2001; Jack, 2005). Consequently, differentiation
according to tie strength generally may not help to identify lead users.
Online commitment and participation as a pre-requisite of lead userness
The projection of search criteria into the web 2.0 as discussed in the previous sections
showed that the identification of lead users yields advantages when the criteria are
tested in the environment of a community or in the blogosphere. Thus, it might even
be reasonable to go so far as to obligate a user to be a member of a community or to
participate in a weblog as a pre-requisite of true lead userness. A less drastic course
of action would be to set the starting point of lead-user search in the conducive
environment of a community or the blogosphere. After all, the key question has to
be posed: can there be true (high) lead userness without a user’s commitment to or
participation in an online application or should it become a constituent precondition
for lead userness?
A possible line of reasoning in favour of the suggested incorporation of users’
online-presence as a pre-condition of lead userness could be as follows: the users’
high motivation is an essential part of lead-user theory and found expression in the
component high expected benefit (cp. High expected benefit). It is claimed that a
lead user, who is substantially dissatisfied with available products in the market, will
tremendously invest in obtaining solutions to his/her strong needs (Urban and von
Hippel, 1988; Franke et al., 2006). If a user limits these search efforts to the offline
environment, not drawing on the enormous resources, i.e., the support or collective
knowledge of a community available online, it may be questioned whether true lead
userness can be ascribed to that user.
Even though critical voices may claim that this pre-requisite entails a pre-
selection of users that is too rigorous and restrictive, this concern is more and more
resolved in view of the great and constantly increasing popularity of the online
communities and weblogs among the innovative users. Nevertheless, choosing the
online context as a starting point for lead-user search considerably restricts the
search area. This is particularly true for the screening search method that does not
allow references beyond the sample of users inspected, as opposed to the pyramiding
search process (Prügl, 2006).
Acting on the suggestion to make online activity an integral part of lead-user
theory, a two-fold process is necessary in which relevant communities or weblogs
are selected first in order to identify lead users from these applications in a second
step (Kozinets, 2002; Franke and Shah, 2003; Füller et al., 2006). In recent projects
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 445
applying the lead-user method, a similar approach was taken. A search procedure
called broadcasting was employed, selecting communities, forums or threads to
“broadcast”, i.e., formulate and reveal a problem to its users (Hienerth and Pötz,
2006; Hienerth et al., 2007). Depending on what level of the website structure (i.e.,
how deeply rooted), the problem is “broadcasted” (e.g., homepage, sub-categories,
single threads), the sample of users to start with the search is wider or narrower.
As regards to the identification of relevant communities and weblogs, firms
may either investigate the online landscape (cp. Being ahead of a market trend) or
enquire relevant applications of experts and already identified lead users, harnessing
the same networking technique used for the lead-user search (Prügl, 2006).
Most important of all to the selection of relevant online applications seems to be
the specific search field of an innovation project (von Hippel et al., 1999; Herstatt
et al., 2007). The topic or main interest of a community or weblog (e.g., a certain
product or hobby) could serve as an aid to orientation and be an indicator of users’
expertise. However, this topical selection of web 2.0 applications can only be carried
out for each individual innovation project. Hence, in the following section, we will
only take a brief look at criteria that are generalisable and may be considered for
any lead-user project.
Research in communities showed that those in a less competitive environment
tend to consist of users, who are more likely to assist other members and freely reveal
information (Franke and Shah, 2003; von Hippel, 2002). With mutual assistance
and free revealing mainly accounting for the superiority of online communities in
comparison to single users or offline communities, it appears to be promising to
opt for communities characterised by the limited competition or merely friendly
rivalry (Jeppesen and Molin, 2003; Schulz, 2006; Hienerth, 2006; Jeppesen and
Frederiksen, 2006; Füller et al., 2007).
Generally, there is a positive relationship between the size of a community and the
efficiency of information search within the network (Baldwin et al., 2006; Hienerth
and Pötz, 2006). This correlation can be explained by the powerful collective effects
and the higher probability of identifying users with an exceptionally high lead
userness in large communities.
User postings to a bulleting board with a minimum level of quality as well as
a certain degree of interaction among members also seem to be valid demands
ensuring that a community is frequently visited and intensely used by its members
(Füller et al., 2007).
In a second step, lead users are identified in the selected online applications via
search methods (Prügl, 2006). Pyramiding search might, for instance, be modified
as to deliberately choosing a community member as the person to commence the
search with. With respect to the screening search approach, it may help to select
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
446 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
a group of people inside a community or sub-community for the initial sample of
users that is to be screened.
Conclusion and Future Research
This analysis aimed to conceptionally elucidate the potential of web 2.0 applications
for the identification of lead users and demonstrated varied starting points towards
a utilisation of this potential. As a result, certain cases and scenarios could be
identified in which online-situated search efforts might be superior to the offline
equivalent.
With regard to the first path of extrapolation (cp. Conceptual framework; Fig. 2),
potential has been discovered allowing for the better testing of criteria. Firstly, sce-
narios became obvious in which criteria could be tested more comprehensively.
For instance, it was demonstrated how the criterion user investment could be sup-
plemented by a qualitative component. Secondly, the assessment of the extent to
which a user would fulfill a criterion can be assumed to be more reliable when
tested in online applications. The users’ expressions of dissatisfaction with existing
products, for instance, were found to be rather unfiltered and genuine in online com-
munication with their peers (Kozinets, 2002). Besides, instead of relying on users’
self-appraisals, their product-related knowledge and investments in obtaining solu-
tions can be evaluated based on the extent to which they offer assistance to other
members (Franke and Shah, 2003) or reveal visualizations and data online (Shah,
2004; Piller, 2006; Füller et al., 2007). Thirdly, criteria may also be more patent
when put to test. Extensive information on hobbies and professional background
in users’ profiles makes their product-related knowledge very obvious to a firm
(Kolbitsch and Maurer, 2006; Kho, 2007; Lampe et al., 2007). Users publishing
online newsletters or moderating relevant discussion forums might also indicate
the product-related knowledge that they have accumulated (Seufert et al., 2002). It
stands to reason that all these advantages would enable firms to profile lead users
in more detail and thus choose lead users that are particularly suited to a specific
innovation project (Lüthje et al., 2002; 2005; Hienerth et al., 2007). The analysis
also offered explanations why the search for lead users in web 2.0 applications
might be able to significantly reduce the anonymity common in consumer markets.
However, the analysis also implied that the qualitative gains are often accompanied
by additional expenditure.
The theoretical evidence that certain criteria may solely be ascertainable in web
2.0 applications turned out to be of secondary importance. This scenario is likely to
be found only in certain industries that meet very sensitive and extreme consumer
needs, for instance, in the health-care sector. Users often feel more comfortable
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 447
revealing sensitive information as anonymous members of a community (Prügl,
2006).
Due to the massive resources and collective knowledge of communities, sce-
narios could be delineated in which online users have a higher lead userness than
the individuals using a product solely offline. This scenario appeared to be the
most striking when testing users’ expertise, i.e., use experience and product-related
knowledge (Franke and Shah, 2003; Shah and Tripsas, 2004; Hienerth, 2006; Piller,
2006; Füller et al., 2007).
On account of the aforementioned advantages of lead-user search in an online
environment, firms may be encouraged to further extend search locations to web
2.0 applications. This may help the lead-user method to become established as a
standard tool for the NPD.
A crucial limitation of this analysis is its entirely theoretical approach. The
study is based on a scrutiny of search criteria used in the literature on user-centric
innovation in order to identify and integrate innovative users. The potential of lead-
user identification in the context of web 2.0 applications is inferred from the existing
criteria that are projected into the online environment referring to various concepts.
Future research will have to validate the potential in lead-user projects and examine
the efficiency of online lead-user search. This is especially necessary considering the
way of proceeding, which mosaicked individualities that were observed in specific
web 2.0 applications, but may not be generalisable. The potential might thus vary
depending on the industry or product category in which a firm’s innovation project is
situated in as well as on the number of relevant online applications in the respective
search field (Lüthje, 2004). Furthermore, the users’ willingness to freely reveal
information and assist one another may differ depending on the life cycle phase
of the community at the time of observation (Shah, 2000; Franke and Shah, 2003;
Hienerth, 2006).
Additionally, the analysis came to the conclusion that future lead-user projects
will have to seriously consider whether it might be necessary to integrate a user’s
online commitment and participation into the lead-user construct by making it a
pre-requisite for true lead userness. This step would give rise to further questions
revolving around the identification of the relevant web 2.0 applications. Hence,
future research might start with a systematic analysis of lead-user projects that have
used broadcast search, since this method has basically established users’ online
commitment as a pre-condition of lead userness.
References
Adamson, RE and DW Taylor (1954). Functional fixedness as related to elapsed time and
to set. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(2), 122–126.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
448 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
Alba, JW and WJ Hutchinson (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 13(4), 411–454.
Albach, H (1989). Innovationsstrategien zur Verbesserung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit.
Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 59(12), 1338–1352.
Allen, TJ (1977). Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissem-
ination of Technological Information within the R&D Organization. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
Amabile, TM (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and
loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58.
Andersson, J, M Blomkvist and M Holmberg (2007). Blog marketing: a consumer per-
spective. In http://www.diva-portal.org/diva/getDocument?urn_nbn_se_hj_diva-891-
1__fulltext.pdf, [28 March 2008].
Assael, H (1998). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action. Cincinnati: South Western
College Publishing.
Atuahene-Gima, K (1995). An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation
on new product performance: a contingency approach. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 12(4), 275–293.
Baldwin, C, C Hienerth and E von Hippel (2006). How user innovations become commercial
products: a theoretical investigation and case study. Research Policy, 35(9), 1291–1313.
Bickart, B and RM Schindler (2001). Internet forums as influential sources of consumer
information. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 31–40.
Bienert, J (2007). Web 2.0: Die demokratisierung des Internet. Information Management &
Consulting, 22(1), 6–14.
Birch, HG and HJ Rabinowitz (1951). The negative effect of previous experience on pro-
ductive thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(2), 121–125.
Blackwell, RD, P Miniard and J Engel (2006). Consumer Behavior. Mason: South Western.
Blood, R (2000). Weblogs: A history and perspective. In: http://www.rebeccablood.net/
essays/weblog_history.html [28 March 2008].
Blood, R (2004). How blogging software reshapes the online community. Communications
of the ACM, 47(12), 53–55.
Bower,GH and ER Hilgard (1981). Theories of Learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Brandon, DP and AB Hollingshead (2004). Transactive memory systems in organizations:
matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organization Science, 15(6), 633–644.
Brem, A (2008). The Boundaries of Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Conceptual Back-
ground and Essayson Selected Theoretical and Empirical Aspects. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Brem, A and K-I Voigt (2007). Innovation management in emerging technology ventures:
the concept of an integrated idea management. International Journal of Technology,
Policy and Management,Special Issue on Technology Based Entrepreneurship and the
Management of Knowledge Bases, 7(3), 304–321.
Bruhn, M (1982). Konsumentenzufriedenheit und Beschwerden: Erklärungsansätze und
Ergebnisse einer Empirischen Untersuchung in Ausgewählten Konsumbereichen.
Frankfurt a.M: Lang.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 449
Bruner, JS and L Postman (1948). Symbolic value as an organizing factor in perception.
The Journal of Social Psychology, 27(2), 203–208.
Bruner, JS and L Postman (1949). Perception, cognition, and behavior. Journal of Person-
ality, 18(1), 14–31.
Bunz, M (2006). Wenn der Kunde handelt. Brand Eins, 8(4), 96–102.
Burt, R (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Butler, B, L Sproull, S Kiesler and R Kraut (2002). Community effort in online groups:
who does the work and why. In Leadership at a Distance: Research in Technologically
Supported Work, SP Weisband (ed.), pp. 171–194. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chesbrough, H (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting
from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cohen, WM and DA Levinthal (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning
and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Constant, D, L Sproull and S Kiesler (1996). The kindness of strangers: the usefulness of
electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7(2), 119–135.
Cooper, RG (2002). Winning at New Products: accelerating the Process from Idea to
Launch. Cambridge: Perseus Books.
Crawford, CM (1997). New Products Management. Homewood: Irwin.
Cross, R and L Sproull (2004). More than an answer: information relationships for actionable
knowledge. Organization Science, 15(4), 446–462.
Cross, R, A Parker, L Prusak and SP Borgatti (2001). Knowing what we know: supporting
knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational Dynamics, 30(2),
100–120.
de Valck, K (2005). Virtual Communities of Consumption: Networks of Consumer Knowl-
edge and Companionship. Rotterdam: ERIM.
Dellarocas, C and R Narayan (2005). What motivates people to review a product online?:
a study of the product specific antecedents of online movie ratings. University of
Maryland, Working Paper.
Dequech, D (2001). Bounded rationality, institutions and uncertainty. Journal of Economic
Issues, 35(4), 911–929.
Dodds, PS, R Muhamad and DJ Watts (2003). An experimental study of search in global
social networks. Science, 301(8), 827–829.
Duncker, K (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), Whole No. 270.
Efimova, L and A de Moor (2005). Beyond personal webpublishing: an exploratory study
of conversational blogging practices. In Proc. of the 38th Annual Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences. USA: Big Island.
Efimova, L, S Hendrick and A Anjewierden (2005). Finding “the life between buildings”:
an approach for defining a weblog community. In Internet Research 6.0: Internet
Generations Conference. Chicago: USA.
Ernst, E, JH Soll and M Spann (2004). Möglichkeiten der lead-user-identifikation in online-
medien. In Produktentwicklung mit virtuellen Communities, C Herstatt and JG Sander
(eds.), pp. 121–140. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
450 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
Foxall, GR and J Tierney (1984). From CAP 1 to CAP 2: user-initiated innovation from the
user’s point of view. Management Decision, 22(5), 3–15.
Franke, N and E von Hippel (2003). Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation
toolkits: the case of Apache security software. Research Policy, 32(7), 1199–1215.
Franke, N and S Shah (2003). How communities supportinnovative activities: an exploration
of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy, 32(1), 157–178.
Franke, N, E von Hippel and M Schreier (2006). Finding commercially attractive user
innovations: a test of lead user theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
23(4), 301–315.
Frey, BS (1997). Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Füller, J, G Jawecki and H Mühlbacher (2007). Innovation creation by online basketball
communities. Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 60–71.
Füller, J, M Bartl, H Ernst and H Mühlbacher (2006). Community based innovation: how to
integrate members of virtual communities into new product development. Electronic
Commerce Research, 6(2), 57–73.
Gatignon, H and TS Robertson (1985). A propositional inventory for new diffusion research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 849–867.
Gigerenzer, G (2001). The adaptive toolbox. In Bounded Rationality: the Adaptive Toolbox,
G Gigerenzer and R Selten (eds.), pp. 37–50. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Glance, NS, M Hurst and T Tomokiyo (2004). Blogpulse: automated trend discovery for
weblogs. In Proc. of the WWW 2004 Annual Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem:
Aggregation, Analysis and Dynamics.NewYork:USA.
Godes, D et al. (2005). The firm’s management of social interactions. Marketing Letters,
16(3/4), 415–428.
Granovetter, M (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),
1360–1380.
Granovetter, M (1983). The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociology
Theory, 1(1), 201–233.
Granovetter, M (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness.
American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
Gruhl, D, R Guha, R Kumar, J Novak and A Tomkins (2005). The predictive power of online
chatter. In Proc. of the 11th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge
DiscoveryinDataMining, 78–87. Chicago: USA.
Hagel, J and AG Armstrong (1997). Net Gain: expanding Markets through Virtual Com-
munities. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hansen, MT (1999). The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge
across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.
Harhoff, D, J Henkel and E von Hippel (2003). Profiting from voluntary information
spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Research Policy,
32(10), 1753–1769.
Hemetsberger, A (2001). Fostering cooperation on the internet: social exchange processes
in innovative virtual consumer communities. In Proc. of the Annual ACR Conference.
Texas: USA.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 451
Hemetsberger, A and C Reinhardt (2004). Sharing and creating knowledge in open-source
communities: the case of KDE. In Proc. of the 5th European Conference on Organi-
zational Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities. Innsbruck: Austria.
Henkel, J and JG Sander (2007). Identifikation innovativer Nutzer in virtuellen communities.
In Management der frühen Innovationsphasen: Grundlagen — Methoden — Neue
Ansätze, C Herstatt and B Verworn (eds.), pp. 77–107. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Hennig-Thurau, T, KP Gwinner, G Walsh and DD Gremler (2004). Electronic word-of-
mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate them-
selves on the internet. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(1), 38–52.
Herstatt, C (1991). Anwender als Quellen für die Produktinnovation. Zürich: ADAG Admin-
istration & Druck AG.
Herstatt, C (2003). Onlinegestützte Suche nach innovativen Anwendern in direkten
und analogen Anwendermärkten. Technische Universität Hamburg-Haburg, Working
Paper No. 21.
Herstatt, C (2004). Dialog mit Kunden und lead-user-managementin der innovationspraxis.
In Das innovative Unternehmen: Produkte, Prozesse, Dienstleistungen,HBarske,
A Gerybadze, C Hünninghausen and T Sommerlatte (eds.), Wiesbaden: Symposion
Publishing.
Herstatt, C and E von Hippel (1992). From experience: developing new product concepts via
the lead user method: a case study in a “low tech” field. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 9(3), 213–221.
Herstatt, C, C Lüthje and C Lettl (2007). Fortschrittliche Kunden zu breakthrough-inno-
vationen stimulieren. In Management der frühen Innovationsphasen: Grundlagen —
Methoden — Neue Ansätze, C Herstatt and B Verworn (eds.), pp. 61–75. Wiesbaden:
Gabler.
Hienerth, C (2006). The commercialization of user innovations: the development of the
rodeo kayaking industry. R&D Management, 36(3), 273–294.
Hienerth, C and M Pötz (2006). Making the lead user idea-generation process a standard
tool for new product development. In Proc. of the 4th International Workshop on User
Innovation. Munich: Germany.
Hienerth, C, M Pötz and E von Hippel (2007). Exploring key characteristics of lead user
workshop participants: who contributes best to the generation of truly novel solu-
tions? In Proc. of the DRUID Summer Conference 2007 on Appropriability, Proximity,
Routines and Innovation. Copenhagen: Denmark.
Hippner, H and T Wilde (2005). Social software. Wirtschaftsinformatik, 47(6), 441–444.
Jack, SL (2005). The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: a qualitative
analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1233–1259.
Java, A (2006). Tracking influence and opinions in social media. In http://ebiquity.umbc.
edu/_file_directory_/resources/203.pdf, [28 March 2008].
Jeppesen, LB (2003). The implications of “user toolkits for innovation”.Copenhagen Busi-
ness School, Working Paper 2002-09.
Jeppesen, LB and L Frederiksen (2006). Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user com-
munities? The case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organization Science,
17(1), 45–63.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
452 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
Jeppesen, LB and MJ Molin (2003). Consumers as co-developers: learning and innovation
outside the firm. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(3), 363–383.
Johnson Brown, J and PH Reingen (1987).Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 350–362.
Katz, E and PF Lazarsfeld (1955). Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the
Flow of Mass Communication. New York: Free Press.
Kavanaugh, A, JM Carroll, MB Rosson, TT Zin and DD Reese (2005). Community
networks: where offline communities meet online. In http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/
issue4/kavanaugh.html [28 March 2008].
Kho, ND (2007). Networking opportunities: social networking for business. EContent,
30(4), 24–29.
Khurana, A and SR Rosenthal (1997). Integrating the fuzzy front end of new product
development. MIT Sloan Management Review, 38(2), 103–120.
Kim, J and D Wilemon (2002). Focusing the fuzzy front-end in new product development.
R&D Management, 32(4), 269–279.
Kolbitsch, J and H Maurer (2006). The transformation of the web: how emerging com-
munities shape the information we consume. Journal of Universal Computer Science,
12(2), 187–213.
Kozinets, RV (1998). On netnography: initial reflections on consumer research investiga-
tions of cyberculture. Advances in Consumer Research, 25(1), 366–371.
Kozinets, RV (1999). E-tribalized marketing: the strategic implications of virtual commu-
nities of consumption. European Management Journal, 17(3), 252–264.
Kozinets, RV (2002). The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketingresearch
in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 61–72.
Kozinets, RV (2006). Click to connect: netnography and tribal advertising. Journal of Adver-
tising Research, 46(3), 279–288.
Kraut, R, M Patterson, V Lundmark, S Kiesler, T Mukopadhyay and W Scherlis (1998).
Internet paradox: a social technology that reduces social involvement and psycholog-
ical well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017–1031.
Krempl, S (2006). Soziale software: innovative Bausteine für eine kritische Netzöf-
fentlichkeit. In Die wunderbare Wissensvermehrung: Wie Open Innovation unsere Welt
revolutioniert, O Drossou, S Krempl and A Poltermann (eds.), pp. 168–180. Hannover:
Heise.
Lakhani, K (2006). Broadcast search in problem solving: attracting solutions from the
periphery. MIT Sloan School of Management, Working Paper.
Lakhani, KR and E von Hippel (2003). How open source software works: “free” user-to-user
assistance. Research Policy, 32(6), 923–943.
Lampe, C, N Ellison and C Steinfield (2007). A familiar face (book): Profile elements as
signals in an online social network. In Proc. of the CHI 2007 Online Representation
of Self, 12–14. San Jose: USA.
Leone, C and J Burns (2000). The measurement of locus of control: assessing more than
meets the eyes? Journal of Psychology, 134(1), 63–76.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 453
Lerner, J and J Tirole (2002). Some simple economics of open source. Journal of Industrial
Economics, 50(2), 197–234.
Lettl, C (2004). Die Rolle von Anwendern bei hochgradigen Innovationen: Eine explorative
Fallstudienanalyse in der Medizintechnik. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag
Lilien, GL, PD Morrison, K Searls, M Sonnack and E von Hippel, E (2002). Performance
assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development.
Management Science, 48(8), 1042–1059.
Lilli, W and D Frey (1993). Die Hypothesentheorie der sozialen Wahrnehmung. In Theorien
der Sozialpsychologie, D Frey and M Irle (eds.), pp. 49–78. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.
Lipman, BL (1995). Information processing and bounded rationality: a survey. Canadian
Journal of Economics, 28(1), 42–67.
Lüthje, C (2000). Kundenorientierung im Innovationsprozess: Eine Untersuchung der
Kunden-Hersteller-Interaktion in Konsumgütermärkten. Wiesbaden: Gabler-Verlag.
Lüthje, C (2004). Characteristics of innovating users in a consumergoods field: an empirical
study of sport-related product consumers. Technovation, 24(9), 683–695.
Lüthje, C (2007). Methoden zur Sicherstellung von Kundenorientierung in den frühen
Phasen des Innovationsprozesses. In Management der frühen Innovationsphasen:
Grundlagen — Methoden — NeueAnsätze, C Herstatt and B Verworn (eds.), pp. 39–60.
Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Lüthje, C and C Herstatt (2004). The lead user method: an outline of empirical findings and
issues for future research. R&D Management, 34(5), 553–568.
Lüthje, C, C Herstatt and E von Hippel (2002). The dominant role of “local” information
in user innovation: the case of mountain biking. MIT Sloan School of Management,
Working Paper, 4377–02.
Lüthje, C, C Herstatt and E von Hippel (2005). User-innovators and “local” information:
the case of mountain biking. Research Policy, 34(6), 951–965.
Maaß, C and G Pietsch (2007). Web 2.0 als Mythos, Symbol und Erwartung. In Diskus-
sionsbeitrag der Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaft der FernUniversität in Hagen
408.
Madden, M (2006). Internet penetration and impact. In http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/
PIP_Internet_Impact.pdf, [28 March 2008].
Madden, M and S Fox (2006). Riding the waves of web 2.0. In http://www.pewinternet.
org/pdfs/PIP_Web_2.0.pdf, [28 March 2008].
Mansfield, E (1968). Industrial Research and Technological Innovation: An Econometric
Analysis. New York: W.W. Norton.
Maurice, F (2007). Web 2.0 Praxis: AJAX, Newsfeeds, Blogs, Microformats. München:
Markt +Technik.
McAlexander, JH, JW Schouten and HF Koenig (2002). Building brand community. Journal
of Marketing, 66(1), 38–54.
McWilliam, G (2000). Building stronger brands through online communities. Sloan Man-
agement Review, 41(13), 43–54.
Meffert, H (1993). Konsumgütermarketing. In Handwörterbuch der Betriebswirtschaft:
Teilband 2, W Wittmann, W Kern, R Köhler, HU Küpper and K von Wysocki (eds.),
col. 2241–2255. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
454 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
Milgram, S (1967). The small-world problem. Psychology Today, 1(1), 60–67.
Mishne, G (2006). Predicting movie sales from blogger sentiment. In Proc. of the AAAI
2006 Spring Symposium on Computational Approaches to Analysing Weblogs.Palo
Alto: USA.
Moon, JY and L Sproull (2001). Turning love into money: how some firms may profit
from voluntary electronic customer communities. In http://userinnovation.mit.edu/
papers/Vol-Customers.pdf, [28 March 2008].
Morrison, P, J Roberts and D Midgley (2004). The nature of lead user and measurement of
leading edge status. Research Policy, 33(2), 351–362.
Morrison, PD and JH Roberts (2000). Determinants of user innovation and innovation
sharing in a local market. Management Science, 46(12), 1513–1527.
Nakajima, S, J Tatemura, Y Hino, Y Hara and K Tanaka (2005). Discovering important
bloggers based on analyzing blog threads. In Proc. of the WWW 2005 2nd Annual
Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem: Aggregation, Analysis and Dynamics. Chiba:
Japan.
Nambisan, S (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new product develop-
ment: toward a theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 392–413.
Nightingale, P (1998). A cognitive model of innovation. Research Policy, 27(7), 689–709.
Nortel Networks (2000). Lead users and dynamic informationtransfer. In http://www. open-
caseware.org/documents/nortelleaduser.pdf, [28 March 2008].
O’Murchu, I, JG Breslin and S Decker (2004). Online social and business networking
communities. In Proc. of the 16th ECAI, Workshop on the Application of Semantic
Web Technologies to Web Communities. Valencia: Spain.
O’Reilly, T (2005).What is web 2.0: design patterns and business models for the next gener-
ation of software. In http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-
is-web-20.html, [28 March 2008].
Ogawa, S (1998). Does sticky information affect the locus of innovation? Evidence from
the Japanese convenience-store industry. Research Policy, 26(7/8), 777–790.
Olson, EL and G Bakke (2001). Implementing the lead user method in a high technology
firm: a longitudinal study of intentions versus actions. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 18(6), 388–395.
Piller, FT (2006). User Innovation: Der Kunde kann’sbesser. In Die wunderbare Wissensver-
mehrung: Wie Open Innovation unsere Welt revolutioniert, O Drossou, S Krempl and
A Poltermann (eds.), pp. 85–97. Hannover: Heise.
Pitta, DA and D Fowler (2005a). Internet community forums: an untapped resource for
consumer marketers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(5), 265–274.
Pitta, DA and D Fowler (2005b). Online consumer communities and their value to new
product developers. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(5), 283–291.
Polanyi, M (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Pötz, M, C Steger, I Mayer and J Schrampf (2005). Evaluierung von Case Studies zur Lead
User Methode. In http://www.iluma.at/pdf/Ergebnisse/WP340%20Evaluierung%20
Case%20Studies.PDF, [28 March 2008].
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 455
Prahalad, CK and V Ramaswamy (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 78(1), 79–87.
Preece, J (2000). Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability.Chich-
ester: Wiley.
Preece, J and D Maloney-Krichmar (2003). Online communities: focusing on sociability
and usability. In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, J Jacko and A Sears
(eds.), pp. 596–620. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Prügl, R (2006). Die Identifikation von Personen mit besonderen Merkmalen: Eine
empirische Analyse zur Effizienz der Suchmethode Pyramiding. Doctoral disserta-
tion, Wirtschafsuniversität Wien: Department of Entrepreneurship and Innovation.
Prügl, R and M Schreier (2006). Learning from leading-edge customers at the sims: opening
up the innovation process using toolkits. R&D Management, 36(3), 237–250.
Raymond, E (2001). The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source
by an Accidental Revolutionary. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.
Reichwald, R, C Ihl and S Seifert (2004). Innovation durch Kundenintegration. Lehrstuhls
für Allgemeine und Industrielle Betriebswirtschaftslehre an der Technischen Univer-
sität München, Arbeitsbericht 40.
Rheingold, H (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.
Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Robertson, TS (1971). Innovative Behavior and Communication. New York: Holt Rinehart
and Winston.
Rogers, EM (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rogers, EM and FF Shoemaker (1971). Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural
Approach. New York: Free Press.
Rotter, JB (1966). Internal-external control and reinforcement. Psychological Monographs,
80(1), 609.
Ryan, RM and EL Deci (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Sawhney, M and E Prandelli (2000). Beyond customer knowledge management: customers
as knowledge co-creators. In Knowledge Management and Virtual Organizations,
Y Malhotra (ed.), pp. 258–281. Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.
Schild, K, C Herstatt and C Lüthje (2004). How to use analogies for breakthrough innova-
tions. Technische Universität Hamburg-Haburg, Working Paper 24.
Schmidt, J (2006). Weblogs: Eine kommunikationssoziologische Studie. Konstanz: UVK
Verlagsgesellschaft.
Schmidt, J, K Schönberger and C Stegbauer (2005). Erkundungen von Weblog-Nutzungen:
Anmerkungen zum Stand der Forschung. In Erkundungen des Bloggens: Sozial-
wissenschaftliche Ansätze und Perspektiven der Weblogforschung, J Schmidt, K
Schönberger and C Stegbauer (eds.), pp. 1–19, Special edition of kommunika-
tion@gesellschaft, Vol. 6, Online publication.
Schmookler, J (1966). Invention and Economic Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
456 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
Schreier, M and R Prügl (2008). Extending lead user theory: antecedents and consequences
of consumers’ lead userness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(4), 331–
346.
Schreier, M, S Oberhauser and R Prügl (2006). Lead users and the adoption and diffusion
of new products: insights from two extreme sports communities. Marketing Letters,
18(1/2), 15–30.
Schulz, C (2006). The secret to successful user communities: an analysis of computer
associates’ user groups. Munich School of Management, Working Paper 2006–13.
Selten, R (2001). What is bounded rationality? In Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Tool-
box, G Gigerenzer and R Selten (eds.), pp. 13–36. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Seufert, S, M Moisseeva and R Steinbeck (2002). Virtuelle Communities gestalten. In
Handbuch E-Learning, A Hohenstein and K Wilbers (eds.), pp. 1–20. Köln: Fachverlag
Deutscher Wirtschaftsdienst.
Shah, S (2000). Sources and patterns of innovation in a consumer products field: innovations
in sporting equipment. MIT Sloan School of Management, Working Paper 4105.
Shah, SK (2004). From innovation to firm and industry formation in the windsurfing, skate-
boarding and snowboarding industries. University of Illinois, Working Paper 05-0107.
Shah, SK and M Tripsas (2004). When do user-innovators start firms?: towards a theory of
user entrepreneurship. University of Illinois, Working Paper 04-0106.
Simon, HA (1957). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in
Administrative Organization. New York: Macmillan.
Spann, M and B Skiera (2003). Internet-based virtual stock markets forbusiness forecasting.
Management Science, 49(10), 1310–1326.
Thomke, S and E von Hippel (2002). Customers as innovators: a new way to create value.
Harvard Business Review, 80(4), 74–81.
Thompson, L and GA Fine (1999). Socially shared cognition, affect, and behavior: a review
and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 278–302.
Tietz, R, PD Morrison, C Lüthje and C Herstatt (2005). The process of user-innovation: a
case study in a consumer goods setting. InternationalJournal of Product Development,
2(4), 321–338.
Urban, GL and E von Hippel (1988). Lead user analysis for the development of new indus-
trial products. Management Science, 34(5), 569–582.
Uzzi, B (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of
embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.
van Eimeren, B and B Frees (2006). ARD/ZDF-Online-Studie 2006: Schnelle Zugänge,
neue Anwendungen, neue Nutzer? Media Perspektiven, 8, 402–415.
Verworn, B and C Herstatt (2007). Bedeutung und Charakteristika der frühen Phasen des
Innovationsprozesses. In Management der frühen Innovationsphasen: Grundlagen —
Methoden — Neue Ansätze, C Herstatt and B Verworn (eds.), pp. 3–19. Wiesbaden:
Gabler.
Veryzer, RW (1998). Key factors affecting customer evaluation of discontinuous new prod-
ucts. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 136–150.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development 457
von Hippel, E (1978a). A customer-active paradigm for industrial product idea generation,
Research Policy, 7(3), 240–266.
von Hippel, E (1978b). Successful industrial products from customer ideas. Journal of
Marketing, 42(1), 39–49.
von Hippel, E (1986).Lead users: a source of novel productconcepts. Management Science,
32(7), 791–805.
von Hippel, E (1988). The Sources of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
von Hippel, E (1994). Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: implications
for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–440.
von Hippel, E (1998). Economics of product development by users: impact of sticky local
information. Management Science, 44(5), 629–644.
von Hippel, E (2001). Innovation by user communities: learning from open-source software.
MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 82–86.
von Hippel, E (2002). Horizontal innovation networks: by and for users. MIT Sloan School
of Management, Working Paper 4366–02.
von Hippel, E (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
von Hippel, E and G von Krogh (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective”
innovation model: issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209–
223.
von Hippel, E and R Katz (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management
Science, 48(7), 821–833.
von Hippel, E, S Thomke and M Sonnach (1999). Creating breakthroughs at 3M. Harvard
Business Review, 77(5), 47–57.
Wasserman, S and K Faust (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications.
Cambridge: University Press.
Wecht, CH (2005). Frühe aktive Kundenintegrationin den Innovationsprozess.Wien:Alwa
& Deil.
Wegner, DM (1987). Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind. In
Theories of Group Behavior, B Mullen and GR Goethals (eds.), pp. 185–208. New
York: Springer.
Wegner, DM (1995). A computer network model of human transactive memory. Social
Cognition, 13(3), 319–339.
Wegner, DM, R Erber and P Raymond (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 923–929.
Weisberg, R (1986). Creativity: Genius and Other Myths. New York: Freeman.
Wellman, B and M Gulia (1999). Virtual communities as communities: net surfers don’t ride
alone. In Communities in Cyberspace, MA Smith and P Kollock (eds.), pp. 167–194.
London: Routledge.
Wheelwright, SC and KB Clark (1992). Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum
Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality. New York: Free Press.
Whittaker, S, E Issacs and V O’Day (1997). Widening the net: workshop report on the
theory and practice of physical and network communities. SIGCHI Bulletin, 29(3),
27–30.
September 15, 2008 17:19 WSPC/150-IJIM 00209
458 V. Bilgram, A. Brem & K.-I. Voigt
Wikström, S (1996). The customer as co-producer. European Journal of Marketing, 30(4),
6–19.
Wright, J (2006). Blog Marketing als neuer Weg zum Kunden: Mit Weblogs die Kunden
erreichen, die Marke stärken und den Absatz fördern. Heidelberg: Redline Wirtschaft.
Zerfaß, A and J Bogosyan (2007). Blogstudie 2007: informationssuche im Inter-
net: Blogs als neues Recherchetool. In http://www.lunapark.de/fileadmin/studien/
Uni_Leipzig_blogstudie2007_ergebnisbericht.pdf, [28 March 2008].
Zimbardo, PG (1992). Psychologie. Berlin: Springer.
A preview of this full-text is provided by World Scientific.
Content available from International Journal of Innovation Management
This content is subject to copyright.