92
Morrison, Roberts, and von Hippel (2000) explored user modifi-
by the manufacturers of their systems.
cations made by Australian libraries to computerized information
Table 2.2 OPAC modifications created by users served a wide
94
search systems called Online Public Access systems (“OPACs”).
variety of functions.
Libraries might not seem the most likely spot for technological in-
95
novators to lurk. However, computer technologies and the Inter-
Improved library management
Improved information-search capabilities
net have had a major effect on how libraries are run, and many li-
braries now have in-house programming expertise. Computerized
Add library patron summary statistics
Integrate images in records (2)
search methods for libraries were initially developed by advanced
Add library identifiers
Combined menu/command searches
and technically sophisticated user institutions. Development be-
Add location records for physical audit
Add title sorting and short title listing
gan in the United States in the 1970s with work by major universi-
Add book retrieval instructions for staff and patrons
Add fast access key commands
ties and the Library of Congress, with support provided by grants
Add CD ROM System backup
Add multilingual search formats <:br>Add key word
from the federal government (Tedd 1994). Until roughly 1978, the
searches (2)
only such systems extant were those that had been developed by
Add book access control based on copyright
Add topic linking and subject access
libraries for their own use. In the late 1970s, the first commercial
Patrons can check their status via OPAC
Add prior search recall feature
providers of computerized search systems for libraries appeared in
Patrons can reserve books via OPAC (2)
Add search "navigation aids"
the United States, and by 1985 there were at least 48 OPAC ven-
Remote access to OPAC by different systems
Add different hierarchical searches
dors in the United States alone (Matthews 1985). In Australia (site
Add graduated system access via password
Access to other libraries' catalogs (2)
of the study sample), OPAC adoption began about 8 years later
Add interfaces to other in-house IT systems
Add or customize web interface (9)
than in the United States (Tedd 1994).
Word processing and correspondence (2)
Hot links for topics
Umbrella for local information collection (2)
Extended searches
93
Morrison, Roberts, and I obtained responses from 102 Australian
Local systems adaptation
Hot links for source material
libraries that were users of OPACs. We found that 26 percent of
these had in fact modified their OPAC hardware or software far
beyond the user-adjustment capabilities provided by the system
Source of data: Morrison et al. 2000, table 1. Number of users
96
manufacturers. The types of innovations that the libraries devel-
(if more than one) developing functionally similar innovations is
oped varied widely according to local needs. For example, the li-
shown in parentheses after description of innovation.
brary that modified its OPAC to “add book retrieval instructions for
staff and patrons” (table 2.2) did so because its collection of books
The libraries in the sample were asked to rank themselves on a
97
was distributed in a complex way across a number of buildings---
number of characteristics, including “leading edge status” (LES).
18
Democratizing Innovation
(Leading edge status, a construct developed by Morrison, is re-
lated to and highly correlated with the lead user construct (in this
sample, ρ (LES, CLU) = 0.904, p = 0.000). 1 Self-evaluation
bias was checked for by asking respondents to name other li-
braries they regarded as having the characteristics of lead users.
Self-evaluations and evaluations by others did not differ signifi-
cantly.
98
Libraries that had modified their OPAC systems were found to have
significantly higher LES---that is, to be lead users. They were also
found to have significantly higher incentives to make modifications
than non-innovators, better in-house technical skills, and fewer “ex-
ternal resources” (for example, they found it difficult to find outside
vendors to develop the modifications they wanted for them). Ap-
plication of these four variables in a logit model classified libraries
into innovator and non-innovator categories with an accuracy of 88
percent (table 2.3).
99
Table 2.3
Factors associated with innovating in librararies
(logit model).
χ2/4 = 33.85; ρ2 = 0.40; classification rate =
87.78%.
100
Coefficient
Standard error
Leading-edge status
1.862
0.601
Lack of incentive to modify
--0.845
0.436
Lack of in-house technology skills
--1.069
0.412
Lack of external resources
0.695
0.456
1LES contains four types of measures. Three (“benefits recognized early,”
“high benefits expected,” and “direct elicitation of the construct”) contain the
core components of the lead user construct. The fourth (“applications
generation”) is a measure of a number of innovation-related activities in which
users might engage: they “suggest new applications,” they “pioneer those
applications,” and (because they have needs or problems earlier than their
peers) they may be “used as a test site” (Morrison, Midgely, and Roberts 2004).
19
Democratizing Innovation
Coefficient
Standard error
pelling), and swimming in canyons. Members do things like rap-
Constant
--2.593
0.556
pel down the middle of an active waterfall into a canyon below.
Canyoning requires significant skill and involves physical risk. It is
also a sport in rapid evolution as participants try new challenges
101
Source: Morrison et al. 2000, table 6.
and explore the edges of what is both achievable and fun.
102
The commercial value of user-developed innovations in the library
The second community studied was devoted to sailplaning.
106
OPAC sample was assessed in a relatively informal way. Two de-
Sailplaning or gliding, a more mature sport than canyoning,
velopment mangers employed by the Australian branches of two
involves flying in a closed, engineless glider carrying one or two
large OPAC manufacturers were asked to evaluate the commer-
people. A powered plane tows the glider to a desired altitude by
cial value of each user innovation in the sample. They were asked
means of a rope; then the rope is dropped and the engineless
two questions about each: (1) “How important commercially to your
glider flies on its own, using thermal updrafts in the atmosphere
firm is the functionality added to OPACs by this user-developed
to gain altitude as possible. The sailplaning community studied by
modification?” (2) “How novel was the information contained in the
Franke and Shah consisted of students of technical universities
user innovation to your firm at the time that innovation was devel-
in Germany who shared an interest in sailplaning and in building
oped?” Responses from both managers indicated that about 70
their own sailplanes.
percent (25 out of 39) of the user modifications provided function-
ality improvements of at least “medium” commercial importance to
Boardercross was the focus of the third community. In this sport,
107
OPACs---and in fact many of the functions were eventually incor-
six snowboarders compete simultaneously in a downhill race.
porated in the OPACs the manufacturers sold. However, the man-
Racetracks vary, but each is likely to incorporate tunnels, steep
agers also felt that their firms generally already knew about the
curves, water holes, and jumps. The informal community studied
lead users' needs when the users developed their solutions, and
consisted of semi-professional athletes from all over the world
that the innovations the users developed provided novel informa-
who met in as many as ten competitions a year in Europe, in North
tion to their company only in 10--20 percent of the cases. (Even
America, and in Japan.
when manufacturers learn about lead users' needs early, they may
The fourth community studied was a group of semi-professional
108
not think it profitable to develop their own solution for an “emerging”
cyclists with various significant handicaps, such as cerebral palsy
need until years later. I will develop this point in chapter 4.)
or an amputated limb. Such individuals must often design or make
improvements to their equipment to accommodate their particular
103
“Consumer” Innovation in Sports Communities
disabilities. These athletes knew each other well from national and
104
Franke and Shah (2003) studied user innovation in four commu-
international competitions, training sessions, and seminars spon-
nities of sports enthusiasts. The communities, all located in Ger-
sored by the Deutscher Sportbund (German National Sports Coun-
many, were focused on four very different sports.
cil).
105
One community was devoted to canyoning, a new sport popular in
A total of 197 respondents (a response rate of 37.8 percent) an-
109
the Alps. Canyoning combines mountain climbing, abseiling (rap-
swered a questionnaire about innovation activities in their commu-
20
Democratizing Innovation
nities. Thirty-two percent reported that they had developed or mod-
ified equipment they used for their sport. The rate of innovation
varied among the sports, the high being 41 percent of the sailplane
enthusiasts reporting innovating and the low being 18 percent of
the boardercross snowboarders reporting. (The complexity of the
equipment used in the various sports probably had something to do
with this variation: a sailplane has many more components than a
snowboard.)
110
The innovations developed varied a great deal. In the sailplane
community, users developed innovations ranging from a rocket-
assisted emergency ejection system to improvements in cockpit
ventilation. Snowboarders invented such things as improved boots
and bindings. Canyoners' inventions included very specialized so-
lutions, such as a way to cut loose a trapped rope by using a chem-
ical etchant. With respect to commercial potential,
111
Franke and Shah found that 23 percent of the user-developed in-
novations reported were or soon would be produced for sale by
a manufacturer. Franke and Shah found that users who inno-
vated were significantly higher on measures of the two lead user
characteristics than users who did not innovate (table 2.4). They
also found that the innovators spent more time in sporting and
community-related activities and felt they had a more central role
in the community.
112
Table 2.4 Factors associated with innovation in sports communi-
ties.
113
Innovatorsa
Non-
Significance
innovatorsb
of differencec
Time in community
Years as a community member
4.46
3.17
p < 0.01
Days per year spent with community members
43.07
32.73
p < 0.05
Days per year spent participating in the sport
72.48
68.71
not significant
21
Democratizing Innovation
Innovatorsa
Non-
Significance
medical equipment for use in their own practices. Using a logit
innovatorsb
of differencec
model to determine the influence of user characteristics on inno-
Role in communityd
vation activity, Lüthje found that innovating surgeons tended to be
"I am a very active member of the community."
2.85
3.82
p < 0.01
lead users (p < 0.01). He also found that solutions to problems en-
"I get together with members of the community for ac-
3.39
4.14
p < 0.05
tivities that are not related to the sport (movies, dinner
countered in their own surgical practices were the primary benefit
parties, etc.)."
that the innovating surgeons expected to obtain from the solutions
"The community takes my opinion into account when
2.89
3.61
p < 0.05
making decisions"
they developed (p < 0.01). In addition, he found that the level of
technical knowledge the surgeon held was significantly correlated
Lead user characteristic 1: being ahead of the trendd
with innovation (p < 0.05). Also, perhaps as one might expect in
"I usually find out about new products and solutions ear-
2.71
4.03
p < 0.001
lier than others."
the field of medicine, the “contextual barrier” of concerns about le-
"I have benefited significantly by the early adoption and
3.58
4.34
p < 0.01
gal problems and liability risks was found to have a strongly sig-
use of new products."
nificant negative correlation with the likelihood of user invention by
"I have tested prototype versions of new products for
4.94
5.65
p < 0.05
manufacturers."
surgeons (p < 0.01).
"In my sport I am regarded as being on the "cutting edge."
4.56
5.38
p < 0.01
With respect to the commercial value of the innovations the lead
117
"I improved and developed new techniques in boarder-
4.29
5.84
p < 0.001
crossing."
user surgeons had developed, Lüthje reported that 48 percent
Lead user characteristic 2: high benefit from innovationd
of the innovations developed by his lead user respondents
"I have new needs which are not satisfied by existing
3.27
4.38
p < 0.001
were or soon would be marketed by manufacturers of medical
products."
equipment.
"I am dissatisfied with the existing equipment."
3.90
5.13
p < 0.001
Discussion
118
The studies reviewed in this chapter all found that user innovations
119
114
Source: Franke and Shah 2003, table 3.
a. All values are means; n = 60.
in general and commercially attractive ones in particular tended to
b. All values are means; n = 129.
be developed by lead users. These studies were set in a range
c. Two-tailed t-tests for independent samples.
of fields, but all were focused on hardware innovations or on in-
d. Rated on seven-point scale, with 1 = very accurate and 7 = not
formation innovations such as new software. It is therefore impor-
accurate at all. Two-tailed t-tests for independent samples.
tant to point out that, in many fields, innovation in techniques is at
least as important as equipment innovation. For example, many
115
Innovation among Hospital Surgeons
novel surgical operations are performed with standard equipment
116
Lüthje (2003) explored innovations developed by surgeons working
(such as scalpels), and many novel innovations in snowboarding
at university clinics in Germany. Ten such clinics were chosen ran-
are based on existing, unmodified equipment. Technique-only in-
domly, and 262 surgeons responded to Lüthje's questionnaire---a
novations are also likely to be the work of lead users, and indeed
response rate of 32.6 percent. Of the university surgeons respond-
many of the equipment innovations documented in the studies re-
ing, 22 percent reported developing or improving some item(s) of
viewed here involved innovations in technique as well as innova-
22
Democratizing Innovation
tions in equipment.
3 Why Many Users Want Custom Products
121
120
Despite the strength of the findings, many interesting puzzles re-
The high rates of user innovation documented in chapter 2 suggest
main that can be addressed by the further development of lead
122
that many users may want custom products. Why should this be
user theory. For example, empirical studies of innovation by lead
so? I will argue that it is because many users have needs that
users are unlikely to have sampled the world's foremost lead users.
differ in detail, and many also have both sufficient willingness to
Thus, in effect, the studies reviewed here determined lead users
pay and sufficient resources to obtain a custom product that is just
to be those highest on lead user characteristics that were within
right for their individual needs. In this chapter, I first present the
their samples. Perhaps other samples could have been obtained
case for heterogeneity of user needs. I then review a study that
in each of the fields studied containing users that were even more
explores users' heterogeneity of need and willingness to pay for
“leading edge” with respect to relevant market trends. If so, why
product customization.
were the samples of moderately leading-edge users showing user
innovation if user innovation is concentrated among “extreme” lead
Heterogeneity of User Needs
123
users? There are at least three possible explanations. First, most
of the studies of user innovation probably included users reason-
If many individual users or user firms want something different in
124
ably close to the global leading edge in their samples. Had the “top”
a product type, it is said that heterogeneity of user need for that
users been included, perhaps the result would have been that still
product type is high. If users' needs are highly heterogeneous, only
more attractive user innovations would have been found. Second,
small numbers of users will tend to want exactly the same thing. In
it may be that the needs of local user communities differ, and so
such a case it is unlikely that mass-produced products will precisely
local lead users really may be the world's lead users with respect to
suit the needs of many users. Mass manufacturers tend to want to
their particular needs. Third, even if a sample contains lead users
build products that will appeal to more users rather than fewer, so
that are not near the global top with respect to lead users' char-
as to spread their fixed costs of development and production. If
acteristics, local lead users might still have reasons to (re)develop
many users want something different, and if they have adequate
innovations locally. For example, it might be cheaper, faster, more
interest and resources to get exactly the product they need, they
interesting, or more enjoyable to innovate than to search for a sim-
will be driven either to develop it for themselves or to pay a custom
ilar innovation that a “global top” lead user might already have de-
manufacturer to develop it for them.
veloped.
Are users' needs for new products (and services) often highly het-
125
erogeneous? A test of reason suggests that they are. An indi-
vidual's or a firm's need for a many products depends on detailed
considerations regarding the user's initial state and resources, on
the pathway the user must traverse to get from the initial state to
the preferred state, and on detailed considerations regarding their
preferred end state as well. These are likely to be different for each
individual user and for each user firm at some level of detail. This,
23
Democratizing Innovation
in turn, suggests that needs for many new products and services
Inspection of these descriptions shows a great deal of variation
that are precisely right for each user will differ: that needs for those
and few near-duplicates. Different functionality, of course, implies
products will be highly heterogeneous.
that the developers of the products had different needs. In the
2000 study of user modifications of library IT systems by Morri-
126
Suppose, for example, that you decide you need a new item of
son, Roberts, and von Hippel, discussed earlier, only 14 of 39 in-
household furnishing. Your house is already furnished with hun-
novations are functionally similar to any other innovations in the
dreds of items, big and small, and the new item must “fit in” prop-
sample. If one type of functionality that was repeatedly developed
erly. In addition, your precise needs for the new item are likely to
(“web interface”) is excluded, the overlap is even lower (see table
be affected by your living situation, your resources, and your pref-
2.2). Other responses by study participants add to this impression
erences. For example: “We need a new couch that Uncle Bill will
of high heterogeneity of need among users. Thirty percent of the
like, that the kids can jump on, that matches the wallpaper I adore,
respondents reported that their library IT system had been highly
that reflects my love of coral reefs and overall good taste, and that
customized by the manufacturer during installation to meet their
we can afford.” Many of these specific constraints are not results of
specific needs. In addition, 54 percent of study respondents agreed
current whim and are not easy to change. Perhaps you can change
with the statement “We would like to make additional improvements
the wallpaper, but you are less likely to change Uncle Bill, your kids,
to our IT syst