IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/tuhtim/280409.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The influence of risk classification and community affiliation on the acceptance of user-innovated medical devices

Author

Listed:
  • Fiedler, Jakob
  • Schorn, André
  • Herstatt, Cornelius

Abstract

User innovation contributes significantly to societal advancement, particularly in developing novel products and services, offering substantial financial potential, and fostering the common good. This is particularly evident in medical science, where it addresses diverse needs and is often shared at minimal or no cost. However, the diffusion of user-innovated products remains limited and research on the perception of user-innovated products is rather scarce, reducing their potential contributions to the common good. This paper investigates end-users' perceptions of user innovation, a critical yet underexplored aspect of diffusion. Specifically, using a mixed-methods approach, we examine the influence of product risk classification and community development on the perception of user-innovated medical devices. This study combines qualitative research through semi-structured interviews (n=5) and quantitative research using a 2x3 (User Innovation vs. Producer Innovation; Product risk classification I, II, III) between-subject experiment (n=301). Our findings reveal that end-users evaluate user-innovated and traditionally-innovated products differently based on various criteria. User-innovated products are perceived as more pleasant and attractive, while traditionallyinnovated products are viewed as safer and of higher value. This effect is more pronounced for products with higher risk classifications. However, the perceived lower safety and value of user innovation products result in a reduced willingness to purchase among end-users. Additionally, we find that community-developed user-innovated products consistently outperform in all evaluation categories compared to "pure" user-innovated products.

Suggested Citation

  • Fiedler, Jakob & Schorn, André & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2023. "The influence of risk classification and community affiliation on the acceptance of user-innovated medical devices," Working Papers 115, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:tuhtim:280409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/280409/1/1871830176.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gernot Grabher & Oliver Ibert, 2014. "Distance as asset? Knowledge collaboration in hybrid virtual communities," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(1), pages 97-123, January.
    2. Halbinger, Maria A., 2018. "The role of makerspaces in supporting consumer innovation and diffusion: An empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 2028-2036.
    3. Jennifer Aaker & Kathleen D. Vohs & Cassie Mogilner, 2010. "Nonprofits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(2), pages 224-237, August.
    4. Füller, Johann & Schroll, Roland & von Hippel, Eric, 2013. "User generated brands and their contribution to the diffusion of user innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1197-1209.
    5. Schweisfurth, Tim G., 2017. "Comparing internal and external lead users as sources of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 238-248.
    6. Rogers, Everett M, 1976. "New Product Adoption and Diffusion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 2(4), pages 290-301, March.
    7. Eric von Hippel & Jeroen P. J. de Jong & Stephen Flowers, 2012. "Comparing Business and Household Sector Innovation in Consumer Products: Findings from a Representative Study in the United Kingdom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(9), pages 1669-1681, September.
    8. Eric von Hippel, 1994. ""Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 429-439, April.
    9. Andrew B. Hargadon & Beth A. Bechky, 2006. "When Collections of Creatives Become Creative Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at Work," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 484-500, August.
    10. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & von Hippel, Eric & Gault, Fred & Kuusisto, Jari & Raasch, Christina, 2015. "Market failure in the diffusion of consumer-developed innovations: Patterns in Finland," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1856-1865.
    11. Aaker, Jennifer & Vohs, Kathleen D. & Mogilner, Cassie, 2010. "Non-profits Are Seen as Warm and For-Profits as Competent: Firm Stereotypes Matter," Research Papers 2047, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    12. Stock, Ruth & Hippel, Eric von & Gillert, Nils Lennart, 2016. "Impacts of Personality Traits on Consumer Innovation Success," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 77346, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    13. Svensson, Peter O. & Hartmann, Rasmus Koss, 2018. "Policies to promote user innovation: Makerspaces and clinician innovation in Swedish hospitals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 277-288.
    14. Giordano Koch & Maximilian Rapp & Niclas Kröger, 2013. "Harnessing the Innovation Potential of Citizens: How Open Innovation Can be Used to Co-develop Political Strategies," Springer Books, in: Nicole Pfeffermann & Tim Minshall & Letizia Mortara (ed.), Strategy and Communication for Innovation, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 63-83, Springer.
    15. Darren W. Dahl & Christoph Fuchs & Martin Schreier, 2015. "Why and When Consumers Prefer Products of User-Driven Firms: A Social Identification Account," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(8), pages 1978-1988, August.
    16. Martin Schreier & Stefan Oberhauser & Reinhard Prügl, 2007. "Lead users and the adoption and diffusion of new products: Insights from two extreme sports communities," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 15-30, June.
    17. Franke, Nikolaus & Shah, Sonali, 2003. "How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 157-178, January.
    18. Jeroen de Jong, 2014. "The Emperical Scope of User Innovation," Scales Research Reports H201403, EIM Business and Policy Research.
    19. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Raasch, Christina, 2018. "Absorptive Capacity for Need Knowledge: Antecedents and Effects for Employee Innovativeness," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 47(4), pages 687-699.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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. Globocnik, Dietfried & Faullant, Rita, 2021. "Do lead users cooperate with manufacturers in innovation? Investigating the missing link between lead userness and cooperation initiation with manufacturers," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Bradonjic, Philip & Franke, Nikolaus & Lüthje, Christian, 2019. "Decision-makers’ underestimation of user innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1354-1361.
    4. Wu, Chia-huei & de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Raasch, Christina & Poldervaart, Sabrine, 2020. "Work process-related lead userness as an antecedent of innovative behavior and user innovation in organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    5. Schweisfurth, Tim G., 2017. "Comparing internal and external lead users as sources of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 238-248.
    6. Resch, Christian & Kock, Alexander, 2021. "The influence of information depth and information breadth on brokers’ idea newness in online maker communities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    7. Göldner, Moritz & Herstatt, Cornelius & Canhão, Helena & Oliveira, Pedro, 2019. "User entrepreneurs for social innovation: The case of patients and caregivers as developers of tangible medical devices," Working Papers 108, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    8. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Ben-Menahem, Shiko M. & Franke, Nikolaus & Füller, Johann & von Krogh, Georg, 2021. "Treading new ground in household sector innovation research: Scope, emergence, business implications, and diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    9. von Hippel, Christiana D. & Cann, Andrew B., 2021. "Behavioral innovation: Pilot study and new big data analysis approach in household sector user innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    10. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Gillert, Nils Lennart & Stock, Ruth M., 2018. "First adoption of consumer innovations: Exploring market failure and alleviating factors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 487-497.
    11. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Dharmawan, Magha P., 2019. "Does lead userness foster idea implementation and diffusion? A study of internal shopfloor users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 289-297.
    12. Pollok, Patrick & Amft, André & Diener, Kathleen & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2021. "Knowledge diversity and team creativity: How hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    13. Fursov, Konstantin & Thurner, Thomas & Nefedova, Alena, 2017. "What user-innovators do that others don't: A study of daily practices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 153-160.
    14. Wu, Chia-huei & de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Raasch, Christina & Poldervaart, Sabrine, 2020. "Work process-related lead userness as an antecedent of innovative behavior and user innovation in organizations," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 228657, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    15. Claussen, Jörg & Halbinger, Maria A., 2021. "The role of pre-innovation platform activity for diffusion success: Evidence from consumer innovations on a 3D printing platform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    16. Preißner, Stephanie & Raasch, Christina & Schweisfurth, Tim, 2017. "Is necessity the mother of disruption?," Kiel Working Papers 2097, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    17. Halbinger, Maria A., 2018. "The role of makerspaces in supporting consumer innovation and diffusion: An empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 2028-2036.
    18. Mulhuijzen, Max & de Jong, Jeroen P.J., 2023. "The rich or the poor? Personal resources, do-it-yourself, and innovation in the household sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3).
    19. Lukoschek, Carmen Sabrina & Stock-Homburg, Ruth Maria, 2021. "Integrating Home and Work: How the Work Environment Enhances Household-Sector Innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    20. Brem, Alexander & Bilgram, Volker & Marchuk, Anna, 2019. "How crowdfunding platforms change the nature of user innovation – from problem solving to entrepreneurship," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 348-360.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    User Innovation; Medical Engineering; Diffusion of Innovation; MMR; Consumer Acceptance;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:tuhtim:280409. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ittuhde.html .

    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.