26 results
Now showing1 - 10 of 26
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Access status: without files , 19 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Access status: with files , Idea evaluation by citizens : the Hamburg Fab City Maker Challenge case(Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Bibliothek, 2022-12); ; ; ; Experts play an important role in the evaluation of ideas. Owing to their experience and knowledge, they are believed to be best suited to objectively evaluate ideas. At the same time, expert evaluations sometimes fail to accurately reflect stakeholder preferences. For this reason, more and more organizations have begun to solicit ‘non-expert’ evaluations from the ‘crowd’ (e.g., via community voting). We illustrate how organizations can involve stakeholders in idea evaluation in the context of the Fab City project. Integrating citizens into the innovation process is particularly interesting in a Fab City–a city that produces many of the products it needs locally–since it enables one to develop regional preferences into tailored solutions. Here, citizens evaluate a solution, implement it as a local product, and ultimately share the design (mostly open-source) within the community. In the course of a Fab City initiative in Hamburg–the Maker Challenge–citizens were invited to evaluate almost 100 innovative ideas in pairwise comparisons. We draw on over 20,000 votes from around 400 citizen judges to assess the crowd opinion formation process. Unlike in other studies, our data allow us to measure the time every citizen judge needed to make their decision. Thus, we can conclude how diligent citizen judges are and, conversely, how much attention an idea can attract. Looking at the citizen judges’ evaluation times, it appears that, in most cases, the opinion-formation process is spontaneous. In a few cases, however, a substantial amount of time is spent. All the evaluation times followed a Poisson distribution. Further, we compare expert evaluations with crowd evaluations and relate the results to the literature. We conclude that the crowd evaluation process resembles the expert evaluation process. Also, we show that citizens optimize their cognitive effort over time. For real-world cases, such as the Fab City project, this implies that not only the ideation process and the implementation process can be carried out by local citizens, but also that the evaluation can be done within a community without significant loss of quality, but with much lower effort on the part of organizers.Publicationtype: Book Part73 213 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Access status: without files , CEOs’ search for alignment: the impact of strategic orientations on an extended adoption of Software-as-a-Service in SMEs(Taylor & Francis, 2022); ; ; As a recent technological innovation of great relevance to SMEs, this study focuses on the adoption of Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). We develop an extended SaaS adoption model that includes strategic orientations as antecedents of the key adoption drivers. Drawing on arguments from strategic IT alignment, we propose that CEOs’ extended SaaS adoption intention is determined by how much the perceived beliefs about SaaS fit the implemented strategic orientation. Our rationale is that CEOs play the dominant role in establishing alignment in SMEs as they make decisions about strategy and IT. We provide first evidence on the influence of CEOs’ strategic orientations on extended SaaS adoption.Publicationtype: Journal Article82 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Access status: without files , Pricing decisions of consumer innovatorsIncreasing numbers of consumers who engage in the development of new products are selling their innovations on online marketplaces. We contribute to the scarce research on the commercialization activities of consumer innovators by comparing the consumers’ price decisions with the pricing of firms. Our predictions build on the baseline assumption that the price decisions of consumers are influenced by the same motivations that originally prompt them to innovate. We use a sequential mixed-method approach with a quantitative main study and follow-up qualitative research. The quantitative results draw on a matched-pair analysis of 4,242 computer games released on the online game platform Steam. We find that consumer innovators charge lower prices than firms for comparable games and that consumers and firms show different inclinations in aligning prices with the games’ development costs and perceived quality. The subsequent interview study with 29 hobbyist game developers provides clear support for the motivational explanations of consumers’ pricing decisions. The findings contribute to research on consumer innovation marketing and nascent entrepreneurship. They also improve the understanding of welfare effects resulting from increasing commercial activities of consumers.Publicationtype: Journal Article178 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Access status: without files , Price elasticity of demand for consumer innovationConsumer innovators increasingly engage in commercial distribution of their products. This work investigates how labelling the source of innovation as consumer made affects the price elasticity of demand. Our core results draw from a large-scale matched sample of 2754 pairs of consumer innovation branded and regular product sales data from a video game marketplace. The underlying processes are examined in a factorial survey with quantitative and qualitative parts. In low price areas, customers can relate to the unique motivational set of consumer innovators, who do not primarily innovate out of commercial interest. Knowing about their ulterior motives, customers do infer less non-monetary innovation effort reductions when prices are low. Negative low-price effects on demand are dampened. At high prices, customers are more trusting towards consumer innovators that their prices are justified by higher development effort rather than profit interest. This fosters price acceptance and reduces the perceived sacrifice of high consumer innovation prices compared to regular supply. Customers further notice superior creativity of consumer innovators and the hardships of individual product development. Consequently, compared to regular supply, the demand for consumer innovation labelled products is less sensitive to low or high prices. We render conclusions for consumer innovators’ pricing, marketplaces and policy makers. Attesting customers’ awareness of consumer entrepreneurial backgrounds and that it moderates marketing measures, we suggest further research in the area of consumer innovation marketing.Publicationtype: Conference Paper92 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Access status: without files , Re-examining the price-demand function for consumer innovation(2021); Publicationtype: Conference Paper83 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Access status: without files , User InnovationUsers of products and services, be they user firms or consumers, frequently develop innovations for their own benefit. Such user innovation is a long-existing phenomenon, but it has gained much momentum in the new millennium. The Internet has greatly facilitated connections between creative users, and at the same time cost-effective design and prototyping technologies are making it increasingly feasible for users to develop their own products and services. Users have been found to innovate mainly because they want solutions that best serve their own needs. In general, their innovation activities involve no expectations of monetary profit, being motivated rather by self-rewards (such as fun, positive feelings of altruism, signaling of competence to the community of peers). This explains why users are typically willing to share their innovations without requiring payment. A problem of user innovation is that, since the benefit that others could gain is an externality for users, they lack strong incentives to invest in the active diffusion of their innovations. The consequence of this “diffusion shortfall” is social welfare losses. There are several ways in which producers and service providers can help overcome these problems and benefit from the innovation potential of users at the same time. They can apply the lead user method to actively search for a small group of particularly highly motivated and qualified users, they can outsource product design work to their users via user design toolkits, and they can broadcast innovation challenges to an appropriate crowd of external problem solvers.Publicationtype: Journal Article166 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Access status: without files , 59 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Access status: without files , 57 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Access status: with files , Decision-makers’ underestimation of user innovationIn 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.Publicationtype: Journal ArticleScopus© Citations 48 312 464