IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijimxx/v20y2016i02ns1363919616500237.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diversity And Change Of User Driven Innovation Modes In Companies

Author

Listed:
  • SAMPSA HYYSALO

    (Department of Design, School of ARTS, Design and Architecture, Aalto University, 02150 Espoo, Finland)

  • PETTERI REPO

    (Consumer Society Research Centre, University of Helsinki, Finland)

  • PÄIVI TIMONEN

    (Consumer Society Research Centre, University of Helsinki, Finland)

  • LOUNA HAKKARAINEN

    (Department of Design, School of ARTS, Design and Architecture, Aalto University, 02150 Espoo, Finland)

  • EVA HEISKANEN

    (International Institute for Industrial Environment Economics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden)

Abstract

User driven innovation (UDI) is a popular term in policy and corporate circles. However, it is not clear exactly what UDI means and how such practices are used across the spectrum of companies and over the innovation life cycle. The present study compares 58 UDI showcases in Finnish companies in order to analyse the diversity of UDI practices and their evolution over time. We identify five main modes of UDI and show how the ways of using UDI develop over time in individual companies. In almost half of the examined cases, the dominant mode of UDI changes at least once, and in some cases, up to three changes in dominant mode are observed. We then proceed to identify six qualitatively different ways in which companies’ orientation to UDI evolves over time. The study has implications for innovation management and policy: It calls for greater attention to UDI diversity and particularly to the management and support of the continuity of UDI efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • Sampsa Hyysalo & Petteri Repo & Päivi Timonen & Louna Hakkarainen & Eva Heiskanen, 2016. "Diversity And Change Of User Driven Innovation Modes In Companies," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(02), pages 1-33, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijimxx:v:20:y:2016:i:02:n:s1363919616500237
    DOI: 10.1142/S1363919616500237
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1363919616500237
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S1363919616500237?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karen L. Janssen & Ben Dankbaar, 2010. "Proactive Involvement Of Consumers In Innovation: Selecting Appropriate Techniques," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Stephen Flowers & Flis Henwood (ed.), Perspectives On User Innovation, chapter 6, pages 131-160, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    3. Peine, Alexander & Herrmann, Andrea M., 2012. "The sources of use knowledge: Towards integrating the dynamics of technology use and design in the articulation of societal challenges," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 79(8), pages 1495-1512.
    4. Ellen Enkel & John Bell & Hannah Hogenkamp, 2011. "Open Innovation Maturity Framework," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(06), pages 1161-1189.
    5. Mayer-Haug, Katrin & Read, Stuart & Brinckmann, Jan & Dew, Nicholas & Grichnik, Dietmar, 2013. "Entrepreneurial talent and venture performance: A meta-analytic investigation of SMEs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1251-1273.
    6. James Stewart & Sampsa Hyysalo, 2008. "Intermediaries, Users And Social Learning In Technological Innovation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(03), pages 295-325.
    7. Haefliger, Stefan & Jäger, Peter & von Krogh, Georg, 2010. "Under the radar: Industry entry by user entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 1198-1213, November.
    8. Garud, Raghu & Gehman, Joel, 2012. "Metatheoretical perspectives on sustainability journeys: Evolutionary, relational and durational," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 980-995.
    9. Jacob Buur & Ben Matthews, 2008. "Participatory Innovation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(03), pages 255-273.
    10. Williams, Robin & Edge, David, 1996. "The social shaping of technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 865-899, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pieper, Thorsten & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2018. "User innovation barriers and their impact on user-developed products," Working Papers 106, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    2. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Nätti, Satu & Pikkarainen, Minna, 2021. "Orchestrating for lead user involvement in innovation networks," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    3. Ghasemzadeh, Khatereh & Bortoluzzi, Guido & Yordanova, Zornitsa, 2022. "Collaborating with users to innovate: A systematic literature review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hyysalo, Sampsa & Usenyuk, Svetlana, 2015. "The user dominated technology era: Dynamics of dispersed peer-innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 560-576.
    2. Thomas Pircher & Conny J. M. Almekinders, 2021. "Making sense of farmers’ demand for seed of root, tuber and banana crops: a systematic review of methods," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(5), pages 1285-1301, October.
    3. Oo, Pyayt P. & Allison, Thomas H. & Sahaym, Arvin & Juasrikul, Sakdipon, 2019. "User entrepreneurs' multiple identities and crowdfunding performance: Effects through product innovativeness, perceived passion, and need similarity," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1-1.
    4. Kivimaa, Paula, 2014. "Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1370-1380.
    5. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    6. Maria Roszkowska-Menkes, 2017. "User Innovation: State of the Art and Perspectives for Future Research," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 13(2), pages 127-154.
    7. Block, Jörn H. & Henkel, Joachim & Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Stiegler, Annika, 2016. "Commercializing user innovations by vertical diversification: The user–manufacturer innovator," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 244-259.
    8. Wiarda, Martijn & Sobota, Vladimir C.M. & Janssen, Matthijs J. & van de Kaa, Geerten & Yaghmaei, Emad & Doorn, Neelke, 2023. "Public participation in mission-oriented innovation projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    9. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    10. Meinel, Martin & Eismann, Tobias T. & Baccarella, Christian V. & Fixson, Sebastian K. & Voigt, Kai-Ingo, 2020. "Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 661-671.
    11. Verena Brinks, 2016. "Situated affect and collective meaning: A community perspective on processes of value creation and commercialization in enthusiast-driven fields," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(6), pages 1152-1169, June.
    12. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    13. Roberts, Rhonda, 1998. "Managing innovation: The pursuit of competitive advantage and the design of innovation intense environments," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 159-175, June.
    14. Anna Herzog, 2022. "Imaginaries, directionalities, agency and new path creation [Imaginaries, directionalities, Akteurshandeln und Pfadkreation]," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 42(3), pages 279-307, December.
    15. Isaksson, Olov H.D. & Simeth, Markus & Seifert, Ralf W., 2016. "Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain: Evidence from the high tech sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 699-706.
    16. Carmelina Bevilacqua & Yapeng Ou & Pasquale Pizzimenti & Guglielmo Minervino, 2019. "New Public Institutional Forms and Social Innovation in Urban Governance: Insights from the “Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics” (MONUM) in Boston," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-24, December.
    17. Miozzo, Marcela & Desyllas, Panos & Lee, Hsing-fen & Miles, Ian, 2016. "Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1337-1351.
    18. Benjamin Cole & Preeta Banerjee, 2013. "Morally Contentious Technology-Field Intersections: The Case of Biotechnology in the United States," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 555-574, July.
    19. Habicht, Hagen & Oliveira, Pedro & Shcherbatiuk, Viktoriia, 2012. "User Innovators: When Patients Set Out to Help Themselves and End Up Helping Many," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 66(3), pages 277-295.
    20. Oerlemans, L.A.G. & Meeus, M.T.H. & Boekema, F.W.M., 2001. "Firm clustering and innovation," Other publications TiSEM c4398688-1710-449a-83e7-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wsi:ijimxx:v:20:y:2016:i:02:n:s1363919616500237. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijim/ijim.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.