January 2024
·
13 Reads
SSRN Electronic Journal
This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.
January 2024
·
13 Reads
SSRN Electronic Journal
September 2023
·
37 Reads
·
3 Citations
Strategy Science
We define data commons as repositories of freely-accessible, “open source” innovation-related data, information and knowledge. Data commons are and can be a significant resource for both innovating and innovation-adopting firms and individuals. First, the availability of free data and information from such commons reduces the innovation-specific private or open investment required to access the data and make the next innovative advance. Second, the fact that the data are freely accessible lowers transactions costs substantially. In this paper, we draw on the theory and empirical evidence regarding innovation commons in general and data commons in particular. Based on these foundations, we consider strategic decisions in the private and public domain: how can individuals, firms and societies profit from data commons? We first discuss the varying nature of and contents of data commons, their functioning, and the value they provide to private innovators and to social welfare. We next explore the several types of data commons extant today, and their mechanisms of action. We find that those who develop innovation-related information at private cost already have, surprisingly often, an economic incentive to freely reveal their information to a data commons. However, we also find and discuss important exceptions. We conclude with suggestions regarding needed innovation research, data commons “engineering”, and innovation policymaking that could together increase private and social welfare via enhancement of data commons. Funding: D. Harhoff was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [CRC TRR 190].
September 2023
·
27 Reads
·
6 Citations
April 2023
·
113 Reads
·
1 Citation
Research-Technology Management
Overview: Eric von Hippel, a leading researcher in the field of user innovation, gave the Annual Knowledge and Innovation Foundational Scholar interview during the Strategic Management Society’s 42nd Annual Conference held in London, Sept 17–20, 2022. This article is an edited transcript of that interview in which von Hippel provides insights into his research journey and perspectives on the importance of user innovation. He defines user innovation as the process by which individuals or firms create new products, services, or behaviors for their own use rather than for sale, and contrasts it with producer innovation. This type of innovation can occur in various contexts and can range from small modifications to existing products to the development of entirely new offerings. von Hippel also discusses the strategy-related implications of this distinction and highlights the growing area of research and practice in user innovation. Finally, he reflects on his own experiences with user innovation and provides thoughts on the intriguing issues future research in this field should address.
January 2023
·
8 Reads
SSRN Electronic Journal
January 2022
·
58 Reads
·
5 Citations
SSRN Electronic Journal
January 2021
·
60 Reads
·
1 Citation
SSRN Electronic Journal
January 2021
·
39 Reads
·
6 Citations
SSRN Electronic Journal
October 2020
·
138 Reads
·
6 Citations
Review of Income and Wealth
Despite recent interest in measuring household activities, investment in household R&D (or household innovation), has not been considered in any of the literatures on national‐accounts‐style measurement. Household R&D is the dedication of household resources to creating a product or process that will generate a service flow in the future; that is a household intangible asset. This paper takes a step toward valuing household innovation in the U.S. by developing time series of nominal and real investment and capital stocks for household R&D. We find that household investment in R&D was more than 11 percent of R&D funded by the private business sector in 2017 and about half of what businesses spent on R&D to develop new products for consumers. If household R&D were judged to be in scope for GDP, GDP would have been 0.2 percent higher in 2017. We conclude that household R&D is important and warrants closer attention.
July 2020
·
197 Reads
·
6 Citations
MIT Sloan Management Review
Health care consumers are contributing their skills, money, and time to develop effective solutions that aren't available on the commercial market. Vol. 60, No. 3 Reprint #60313 https://mitsmr.com/2TAUPdN
... User innovations complement so-called producer innovations, which are new products, services or processes that must be sold or adopted by others, before the innovator benefits (von Hippel, 2005). User innovations are found in any part of the economy, but prevail in the household sector: generally 4 to 6% off all citizens can be considered user innovators (von Hippel, 2017; de Jong and von Hippel, 2023). Their innovations are often also valuable to other people facing similar problems or needs, and in such instances diffusion is merited. ...
September 2023
... This advantage erects barriers to entry and secures a strong position in the market (Farboodi & Veldkamp, 2023). Conversely, at the opposite end, we find data commons-repositories of openly accessible data for innovation (Potts et al., 2023). Here, data serves as a raw material available for all companies to directly fuel the creation of innovative products and services. ...
September 2023
Strategy Science
... This applies to smaller companies that do not have EJMBE 32,5 enough resources to develop this innovation process by themselves (Zhang et al., 2021) and to larger companies that want to remain competitive in highly dynamic environments (Joseph et al., 2021). This has given rise to what we understand as innovation ecosystems, i.e. networks of hierarchically heterogeneous and independent organizations that collaborate for the co-creation of a value proposition (Thomas and Ritala, 2022;Konietzko et al., 2020;Moreau et al., 2018). ...
February 2018
... Some of the limitations include the skewness of the manual for the use in the production industry. More recent researches have shown the need to extend the standard innovation manuals to cover the public sector (Bloch, 2013) and even to households (de Jong and von Hippel, 2013). Also, the third edition was made to measure innovation in firms with numbers of employees above five or nine, thereby edging out the informal sector which is responsible for over 75% of employment in Africa. ...
June 2013
... Also, although a web survey is a reasonable method for identifying user innovations, a telephone survey would provide more opportunities to obtain open-ended descriptions (de Jong and von Hippel, 2022). A handful of recent studies have also collected video and photos (Chen et al., 2020;de Jong et al., 2018) and utilized semantic analyses (von Hippel and Cann, 2021) and machine learning techniques (von Hippel and Kaulartz, 2021) to evaluate the value of user innovations. ...
January 2022
SSRN Electronic Journal
... One important difference between natural resource commons and knowledge commons is that "knowledge commons arrangements usually must create a governance structure within which participants not only share existing resources but also engage in producing those resources and, indeed, in determining their character" (Frischmann et al., 2014, p. 16). The creativity, adaptability, and rule-sensitivity of the user is also emphasized in the adjacent research field of the "innovation commons" which partially overlaps with the Ostromian framework (Allen & Potts, 2016;Potts, 2019;Potts et al., 2021). Coproduction of the knowledge commons is sometimes referred to as "user innovation" (Strandburg, 2008;von Hippel, 2005von Hippel, , 2017. ...
January 2021
SSRN Electronic Journal
... In the literature, we found that professional autonomy and expertise (Adler et al., 2008;Engel, 1970;Mintzberg, 1979) could be key concepts to understanding how healthcare professionals, i.e., doctors, build on their specialised knowledge to choose the most appropriate way to deliver a service to their patients (Adler & Kwon, 2013). Furthermore, literature on the use recombination of digital resources (Henfridsson et al., 2018;von Hippel, 2021) served as a good starting point for understanding how healthcare professionals combine different resources that provide several options for value creation. ...
January 2021
SSRN Electronic Journal
... Since it is very much an economics topic, most articles were published in a purely 'economic' journal, The Review of Income and Wealth, which issued a total of 23 papers on intangibles, the first being "The Treatment of Intangible Resources as Capital" by Kendrick (1972). In 2020, the journal published three papers in the field of intangibles: one focused on R&D capital depreciation (Li & Hall, 2020) (Table A1), the second on the impact of intangibles on productivity in Italy (Di Ubaldo & Siedschlag, 2020), and the third on innovation and R&D in private households co-authored by Sichel and Hippel (2020), with the former article being another dominant reference in the intangibles field. Among more economics-oriented journals "Current Problems in Economics" stands out with a total of 12 papers being published. ...
October 2020
Review of Income and Wealth
... To increase the richness of these two landscapes, firms must often overcome "functional fixedness," which refers to a constrained perception of the application of a familiar solution to a familiar use. A functional understanding of a need or problem can guide firms to overcome such fixedness to perform a boundary-spanning solution search (Stock-Homburg et al., 2021). Stock-Homburg et al. (2021) find that perceived solution novelty promotes need-solution pair identification. ...
July 2020
Research Policy
... This is recognised as hugely valuable, but there is a limit to its effectiveness. A key lesson learnt is that clinicians as a representative user-voice, cannot fully represent the needs of other hospital users like patients and their families (Demonaco, Oliveira and Von Hippel, 2020, Oftedal, Iakovleva and Bessant, 2019, Pereno, 2020. Therefore, as the Hub becomes more established, working with the wider hospital to integrate patient and families support groups as Hub users is necessary. ...
July 2020
MIT Sloan Management Review