共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 203 毫秒
1.
Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
Empirical studies of innovation have found that end users frequently develop important product and process innovations. Defying conventional wisdom on the negative effects of uncompensated spillovers, innovative users also often openly reveal their innovations to competing users and to manufacturers. Rival users are thus in a position to reproduce the innovation in-house and benefit from using it, and manufacturers are in a position to refine the innovation and sell it to all users, including competitors of the user revealing its innovation. In this paper, we explore the incentives that users might have to freely reveal their proprietary innovations. We then develop a game-theoretic model to explore the effect of these incentives on users’ decisions to reveal or hide their proprietary information. We find that, under realistic parameter constellations, free revealing pays. We conclude by discussing some implications of our findings. 相似文献
2.
Innovation researchers have begun to look beyond how users develop tangible objects or product innovations and moved to investigate the existence and impact of intangible user-developed innovations in techniques and services in the household sector . In this paper, to incorporate technique and service innovations and other varieties of intangible innovations not yet described in the literature into an efficient and encompassing typology, we propose the new concept of intangible Behavioral Innovation as an overarching category that stands in contrast to tangible product innovation. Behavioral innovation is defined as consisting of one or a connected sequence of intangible problem-solving activities that provide a functionally novel benefit to its user developer relative to previous practice. We demonstrate in a pilot study using a relatively novel big data-gathering and semantic analysis approach that behavioral innovation exists and can be identified in user-generated content posted openly online in peer-to-peer discussion forums relating to household sector activities such as parenting. The preponderance (N = 138) of the 168 user innovations captured in our samples of discussion comments were intangible behavioral innovations, most of which were developed by women. The majority of behavioral innovations identified were diffused by their user developers in response to specific requests for help or advice from peers in their online community. Thus, incorporating the new concept of intangible behavioral innovation into studies of user innovation's scope and significance in the household sector can serve to clarify which users innovate in our communities of interest, what and how they innovate, why they are triggered to diffuse their innovations peer-to-peer, and how their innovative activities might impact social welfare. 相似文献
3.
在网络虚拟品牌社区（OUIC）前端创新环节,企业是否参与、何时参与、如何参与知识创造管理不仅会影响到企业的产品创新绩效,甚至会影响企业在市场中的核心竞争力。本研究选择具有一定高新技术信息支撑的家电电器行业OUIC为研究背景,引入创意组合管理（IPM）为研究的核心变量,通过构建不同创意主题发布模式（B端创意主题与C端创意主题）与不同前端创新阶段（创意产生阶段与创意发展阶段）的2×2组间设计来验证相关命题。结果表明,针对不同创意主题社区,企业采取的不同决策行为,对产品创新绩效均存在显著差异。（1）证明了不同创意主题发布模式（B端创意主题或C端创意主题）,会对用户的知识创造力产生差异性影响。B端创意主题（企业主导发布）,企业可以引导社区用户重点进行新产品核心子系统相关创意的开发;C端创意主题（用户主导发布）,企业可以引导社区用户重点进行新产品周边子系统相关创意的开发。（2）验证了在用户参与OUIC 前端创新环节知识创造过程中,企业实施创意组合管理（IPM）对用户知识创造力与产品创新绩效产生的正面显著效果。（3）验证了用户参与OUIC前端创新环节知识创造过程中,企业对用户创新行为的最佳干预时机。在B端创意主题（企业主导发布）下,企业在创意产生阶段（第一阶段）实施创意组合管理（IPM）为最佳导入时机;C端创意主题（用户主导发布）下,企业在创意发展阶段（第二阶段）实施创意组合管理（IPM）为最佳导入时机。研究在理论上不仅丰富和完善了虚拟经济营销管理相关理论,而且在应用上有助于企业利用互联网工具为产品创新发掘新的途径,并培育企业市场核心竞争力。 相似文献
4.
众多研究将服务化视为制造企业获取竞争优势的重要途径。然而,伴随着对商业模式过度创新的质疑和对硬科技的持续关注,服务化究竟能否促进产品创新并最终塑造长期竞争优势亟待研究。因此,本研究分析了服务化对制造企业产品创新的影响及环境不确定性的调节作用。基于中国239家制造企业的样本数据,研究表明：1）服务化与产品创新度之间呈U型关系;2）技术动态性和市场不确定性负向调节服务化与产品创新度之间的关系。研究结果有助于制造企业全面认识服务化作用,明确服务化对产品创新的积极作用和不利影响,根据不同的环境条件有效推进服务化实践。 相似文献
5.
Eric von Hippel 《Research Policy》1976,5(3):212-239
A sample of one hundred and eleven scientific instrument innovations was studied to determine the roles of instrument users and instrument manufacturers in the innovation processes which culminated in the successful commercialization of those instruments. Our key finding was that approximately 80% of the innovations judged by users to offer them a significant increment in functional utility were in fact invented, prototyped and first field-tested by users of the instrument rather than by an instrument manufacturer. The role of the first commercial manufacturer of the innovative instrument in all such cases was restricted, we found, to the performance of product engineering work on the user prototype (work which improved the prototype's reliability, ‘manufacturability’, and convenience of operation, while leaving its principles of operation intact) and to the manufacture and sale of the resulting innovative product. Thus, this research provides the interesting picture of an industry widely regarded as innovative in which the firms comprising the industry are not in themselves necessarily innovative, but rather — in 80% of the innovations sampled — only provide the product engineering and manufacturing function for innovative instrument users.We term the innovation pattern observed in scientific instruments a ‘user dominated’ one and suggest that such a pattern may play a major role in numerous industries. 相似文献
6.
7.
How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：1
Carliss Baldwin 《Research Policy》2006,35(9):1291-1313
In this paper we model the pathways commonly traversed as user innovations are transformed into commercial products. First, one or more users recognize a new set of design possibilities and begin to innovate. They then join into communities, motivated by the increased efficiency of collective innovation. User-manufacturers then emerge, using high-variable/low-capital cost production methods. Finally, as user innovation slows, the market stabilizes enough for high-capital, low-variable cost manufacturing to enter. We test the model against the history of the rodeo kayak industry and find it supported. We discuss implications for “dominant design” theory and for innovation practice. 相似文献
8.
产品功能创新战略理论框架 总被引：5，自引：1，他引：5
陈圻 《科学学与科学技术管理》2007,28(12):73-79
对功能、功能创新和功能创新战略概念和基本理论作全面阐述,定义了功能、功能创新概念,通过不同于产业市场的功能市场和战略性功能市场概念的定义,建立了功能创新战略理论,提出了功能创新战略及其基本原则。 相似文献
9.
A detailed survey of 498 high technology small and medium-sized enterprises in the Netherlands shows process innovation by user firms to be common practice. Fifty-four percent of these firms reported developing entirely novel process equipment or software for their own use and/or modifying these, both at significant private expense. Twenty-five percent of the user innovations in our sample were transferred to commercializing producer firms. Many transfers were made without any direct compensation. Very importantly from the perspective of effective diffusion of user innovations, innovations with higher commercial potential - and more general appeal for users - are much more likely to be transferred to producers. The pattern we document of frequent innovation by individual user firms at substantial cost, followed in many cases by voluntary, no-charge information spillovers to producers, suggests that “open source economics” may be a general pattern in the economy. 相似文献
10.
移动应用程序APP是移动互联网时代企业创造价值的重要渠道。尽管APP市场具有巨大的商业价值，但也出现了不少绩效较低的现象：互联网创业夭折、成交转化率低下、APP卸载率较高等等。研究APP的绩效问题有助于发现影响APP绩效的关键因素，帮助企业找到提高APP绩效的新方法。本文从服务主导逻辑出发，识别出了影响APP绩效的两大关键策略--用户赋能和服务创新，论述了这两大策略对APP收入绩效的影响机理。本文使用自然观察法跟踪和分析中国（N=200）和美国（N=206）两个样本中的APP个体，发现两个样本产生出来的结果较为一致：APP若选择赋予用户更多的权力，让用户主导平台的价值创造活动，那么它的收入绩效往往比较好；企业如果较为注重服务创新，持续地为APP开发出新特征或新服务，APP的收入绩效一般较好。本研究也可以给APP企业带来实践上的启示：首先，企业应分析APP的定位和作用；其次，企业应重视用户在价值创造中的重要作用，还要意识到用户不仅仅是APP的接受者和使用者，还是生产者和价值创造者；再次，企业应按照APP的定位，再决定是否将价值创造的主导权赋予广大用户；最后，企业应当重视APP的服务创新，持续地推出新功能和新特征，为用户提供更加便捷、易用的服务。 相似文献
11.
处于后发劣势的本土制造企业,已经很难通过跟随和模仿创新实现赶超。快速变化的技术环境和丰富多样的市场需求,为本土制造企业提供了颠覆赶超的机会。但已有研究对颠覆性创新实现过程与机理的研究较为匮乏。通过对小米公司的探索性案例研究,构建了本土制造企业实现颠覆性创新的理论模型。模型表明：基于非主流的低端市场、利基市场的市场定位颠覆,差异化的服务设计颠覆以及运营模式颠覆是本土制造企业颠覆主流市场在位企业,实现成功赶超的有效模式。知识搜索（同行搜索和跨界搜索）是本土制造企业实施颠覆性创新的知识与信息来源,机会能力是本土制造企业通过知识搜索实现颠覆性创新的核心能力。 相似文献
12.
本文从资源能力视角解释用户驱动制造业企业服务创新的过程逻辑,基于动态资源基础观和价值共创理论分析互动导向、战略柔性对服务创新绩效的影响。使用Amos 240对319家样本企业的调查数据进行实证检验。研究发现：（1）战略柔性在互动响应能力、顾客授权、顾客价值管理与服务创新绩效之间起部分中介作用,在顾客理念与服务创新绩效之间的中介作用不显著。（2）售后服务情景下资源柔性对互动导向与服务创新绩效的中介作用高于协调柔性,相反,增值服务情景下协调柔性的中介作用更显著。研究在还原互动导向多维度构念的基础上,发现制造业企业服务创新需打破组织边界引入用户参与价值共创,依据资源柔性与协调柔性的演化水平为用户提供创新性服务。 相似文献
13.
Patrick Pollok André Amft Kathleen Diener Dirk Lüttgens Frank T. Piller 《Research Policy》2021,50(8):104174
This study adds to the literature on household sector (HHS) innovation by investigating how user and professional designer teams differ in their ability to translate knowledge diversity into collective creative output. We test our hypotheses on a unique data set of more than 5,000 board game design projects conducted by either teams of professional game designers or by hobbyist (user) designers. Our study lends support for the notion that knowledge diversity is a double-edged sword that has opposing effects on the two dimensions of team creativity, novelty and usefulness. We argue and find that teams composed of self-rewarded users in the household sector are better able than teams of professionals to translate the informational benefits of knowledge diversity into novel concepts and game designs. Finally, we find that user teams are in general more likely to create truly creative (i.e. novel and useful) game designs. This particular result emphasizes the relevance of research on HHS innovation and shows that user designers from the HHS are able to conduct collective development work more effectively than teams of professional designers. 相似文献
14.
领先用户在开放式创新社区中发挥着重要作用,成为产品创新的有力推动者。但网络环境下领先用户识别的研究刚刚兴起,相关研究非常缺乏。本文首先对开放式创新社区中领先用户特征进行理论研究,提出需求领先力、活跃表现力、社区影响力三大特征。然后基于改进的网络志方法,将定性的网络志和定量的数据分析结合,构建了识别领先用户的理论步骤。遵循社区选择原则,以知乎社区扫地机器人版块103位用户为研究对象,对用户的提问数、回答数等7个指标进行因子分析和聚类分析,识别出2位领先用户;并采用扎根理论,比较发帖内容和未来市场上扫地机器人新产品功能,发现领先用户提出的大部分建议会体现于未来新产品功能上,证明了领先用户识别方法的有效性。研究有助于完善领先用户识别方法,并为后续领先用户行为研究奠定坚实基础。 相似文献
15.
In the past few decades, much research has documented the importance of users as sources of innovations. Over the last 10 years, Research Policy alone has published 56 research articles investigating this phenomenon. We ask to what degree the findings of users as innovators have been absorbed by decision-makers responsible for new product development (managers) and by those who shape the contextual conditions for innovation (policy makers and public administration). A realistic perception of the sources of innovation is important as it constitutes the basis for a rational allocation of resources and thus indirectly impacts the innovation performance of companies and societies at large.In a large-scale survey of n?=?1500 decision-makers, we found support for a substantial underestimation of users as a source of innovation: While the true proportion of user innovation among the most valuable 1678 innovations in nine industries is 54.4% (as established in existing research articles), decision-makers estimate it to be 21.7%. A content analysis of transfer media (450 academic textbooks, popular innovation books, and business articles) underscores this theory-practice gap: Of 3469 text paragraphs dealing with the sources of innovation, only 2.7% mention users as innovators. We develop six propositions on the reasons for and consequences of this underestimation that may serve as a starting point for future research and practical consequences. 相似文献
16.
In this paper we report upon a first empirical exploration of the relative efficiency of innovation development by product users vs. product producers. In a study of over 50 years of product innovation in the whitewater kayaking field, we find users in aggregate were approximately 3× more efficient at developing important kayaking product innovations than were producers in aggregate. We speculate that this result is driven by what we term “efficiencies of scope” in problem-solving. These can favor an aggregation of many user innovators, each spending a little, over fewer producer innovators benefitting from higher economies of scale in product development. We also note that the present study explores only one initial point on what is likely to be a complex efficiency landscape. 相似文献
17.
Existing economic theories show that continuing innovation, diffusion, and technical and managerial improvement are necessary for economic growth and international competitiveness in the industrially advanced countries. But knowledge of why, where and how governments should intervene in the processes of industrial innovations stems more from trial and error than from systematic empirical information of the nature and extent of the hindrances to economically and socially desirable innovations, and of the effectiveness of alternative government policies to remove them. Nonetheless, past empirical studies do offer some clues.Differences amongst industrial sectors. The sources of new technology vary widely amongst inustrial sectors: in the costs of innovation, in the relative importance of outside suppliers of equipment and materials, of large and small firms, and of full-time R & D departments as compared to part-time innovative activities (sect. 7, 8). Similarly, the conditions for successful innovation vary amongst sectors (sect.6). Thus, government policies designed to influence innovation are likely to act with different intensities in different industries.The management of innovation. Nonetheless, there are some features common to innovation in different industries. Considerable costs beyond R & D are often necessary before the innovations reach commercial use (sect.4). And the following managerial characteristics are in general associated with successful innovation: a deliberate policy of seeking innovations; close and careful attention to customer requirements; good personal communications both within the firm and with outside sources of relevant knowledge; a style of management that is ‘organic’ and ‘participatory’ rather than ‘hierarchical’ and ‘authoritarian’; strong project leadership; and a strong engineering capability (sect. 6).R & D managers are still unable to predict the outcome of R & D projects to a useful degree of accuracy and, in the literature on methods of project selection, very little attention is paid to market uncertainties. Furthermore, a greater use of conventional investment appraisal criteria in deciding on R & D projects may re-inforce the already observed tendency in industry towards short-term, low-risk projects, to the neglect of longer-term, high-risk projects (sect. 5).Governments should therefore examine whether the benefits of policies towards education and management advisory services for innovation might outweigh their costs. They may also have a significant role to play in financing longer-term research that is basic to the development of industrial technology (subsect. 12.5).The nature of market and production demands. The direction of industrial innovation is often very sensitive to market and production demands (sect. 3). This fact, together with the high degree of market uncertainty facing innovating firms (sect. 5), suggest that governments can potentially influence both the pace and the direction of industrial innovation through their influence on the scale of industrial, consumer and public service demands. However, this potential influence will become real only if users of innovations are able to specify the innovations that they need, or to evaluate those that they get. This is generally the case for industrial demand, but not in consumer and public service markets, where fashion, insensitivity to users' needs and lack of technical competence often prevail. Government-funded technological institutes and laboratories are ideally placed to provide such technical competence (sub-sect. 12.3).Economic incentives and rewards for innovation. A whole range of economic factors are said to influence the resources, the incentives and the rewards for innovation: for example, the degree of monopoly or the degree of competition, the patent system, the level of profits, the level of taxation, and the level of demand. The empirical evidence on the effects of most of these factors on industrial innovation is either inconclusive or non-existent. However, in the USA a close relationship has been observed between growth of industry sales and growth of industry-financed R & D activities (sect. 10). The rate of growth of demand is also one of the key factors influencing the rate of diffusion of innovations amongst their potential population of users (sects. 11, 12.2).The government-financed scientific and technological infrastructure. Scientific and technological knowledge from outside of innovating firms is often crucial to the completion of successful innovations, and three UK studies show that a significant proportion of this outside knowledge comes from government-financed technological institutes and laboratories, and from the universities (sect. 3). If the same is true in other countries, it should be an essential feature of any government policy towards industrial innovation to know how effectively government-funded laboratories and universities provide supportive knowledge to industry, and how government laboratories should be organised and financed (subsect. 12.4).Direct government-financing of innovative activities in industry. Governments specifically finance R & D activities in industrial firms, although these expenditures are less than those for general industrial development (sect. 13). These R & D activities in industry are relatively more important in France and UK, than in F.R. Germany and the Netherlands.In the four countries, more than 70% of all civilian government R & D activities related to industry are spent on aircraft, space, nuclear energy and electronics (subsect. 14.4). In all these high technologies, governments attempted in the 1960's to implement ‘policies for innovation’, involving government procurement, industrial mergers and attempts at European co-operation, in addition to the financing of R & D (subsect. 14.5). Government expenditures on civilian R & D related to other industrial sectors are very much smaller in all four countries (subsect 14.4).Where should governments intervene? A, number of attempts have been made to develop a formal framework of criteria to assist governments in deciding where they should intervene in industrial innovation. They all run into the following difficulties: dealing with multiple policy objectives; assessing national costs and benefits; comparing with alternative policies, choosing appropriate policy instruments (sect. 17).How should governments intervene? Very little information is available on the effectiveness of various policy instruments that have been used by governments in order to promote innovation in industry. Although it is often possible to measure the inputs into such policies, the measurement of their outputs (or results) is more difficult. Nonetheless, detailed studies would enable some such measurements to be made, and internationally comparable studies would increase the range of experiences and the number of cases that could be examined (sect. 18).Why should governments intervene? A full appreciation of the nature and scale of hindrances to industrial innovation, on which governments should act to remove, requires direct information on what innovations are (or are not) being introduced by industry, and why they are (or are not) being inyroduced. This information can best be obtained from analyses of the behaviour of industrial firms. They would differ from most existing innovation studies that concentrate on asking how firms must behave in order to make successful innovation, by asking what innovations are attempted, and why firms are stimulated to attempt them (sect. 19). 相似文献
18.
《Research Policy》2023,52(8):104840
User innovations are often valuable to other people, but fail to diffuse because users lack incentives to do a dissemination effort. Past research recognized that users sometimes spur diffusion themselves, and that producers may search for and commercialize user innovations. In this study we identify a third type of actor who fills the void between initial solution and broad dissemination - without being a potential user or commercial diffuser himself. We document a case study at an academic hospital where workers created and institutionalized a system to support and disseminate user innovations developed by nurses. They proactively created a network with makerspace facilities, without being asked or instructed to do so. These workers fulfilled a disseminator role: they continued to develop user innovations to make adoption easy, explored commercial pathways, mobilized peer demand, and created favorable project conditions. Interestingly, the diffusion system was institutionalized by job crafting, securing budgets, embedding diffusion activities in the organization chart, and developing strategic relationships. Disseminators were motivated by self-actualization, enjoyment, reputation advancement, and altruism towards the nursing community; they strived to become ‘heroes of diffusion’. We conclude that a disseminator role in-between user innovators, and peer adopters and commercial producers, represents an alternative mechanism for user innovations to spread widely, and opens opportunities for new research. 相似文献
19.
《Research Policy》2023,52(4):104728
Recent research has demonstrated that employees can develop novel solutions to work-process-related problems that they experience directly, but in order for organizations to benefit from this form of user innovation (“employee-user innovation”), employee-developed innovations need to diffuse within the innovator's organization. This paper challenges the prevalent assumption in studies of employee-user innovation that employee-users readily reveal and diffuse their innovations. Based on a grounded analysis of 117 innovations developed by rank-and-file workers that we identified during 32 months of ethnographic fieldwork in two police units and two military units in Denmark, we show that employee-users frequently invest considerable effort in actively hiding their innovations. We (i) identify four distinct hiding practices that employee-user innovators enact, (ii) demonstrate how decisions about whether and how to hide are based on interpretations of a range of material and organizational conditions, and (iii) show how these decisions negatively impact the employee-user innovation process by impeding not just use and diffusion, but also the development of innovations. Our findings carry implications for user innovation research, as well as for how we understand both covert innovation processes in organization and the relationship between bureaucratic organization and innovation. 相似文献
20.
How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users 总被引：3，自引：0，他引：3
This study contributes to our understanding of the innovation process by bringing attention to and investigating the process by which innovators outside of firms obtain innovation-related resources and assistance. This study is the first to explicitly examine how user-innovators gather the information and assistance they need to develop their ideas and how they share and diffuse the resulting innovations. Specifically, this exploratory study analyzes the context within which individuals who belong to voluntary special-interest communities develop sports-related consumer product innovations. We find that these individuals often prototype novel sports-related products and that they receive assistance in developing their innovations from fellow community members. We find that innovation-related information and assistance, as well as the innovations themselves, are freely shared within these communities. The nature of these voluntary communities, and the “institutional” structure supporting innovation and free sharing of innovations is likely to be of interest to innovation researchers and managers both within and beyond this product arena. 相似文献