Advertisement

To share or not to share – Exploring how sharing behaviour impacts user innovation

  • Frank TietzeEmail author
  • Thorsten Pieper
  • Carsten Schultz
Chapter

Abstract

This paper conceptually and empirically explores the impact of users’ product sharing behaviour on user innovation. This study contributes (i) a new concept labelled “sharing experience” and its operationalization based on the well-established use experience construct, (ii) a typology that categorizes four user groups based on their sharing activity, (iii) an empirical analysis exploring the impact of sharing experience on user innovativeness and (iv) five case studies that provide insights into how sharing impacts the user innovation process. Qualitative and quantitative primary data was collected from a large German farmer sharing community established since 50+ years. Following a pre-study based on 26 interviews with key stakeholders to understand the empirical setting, in a first study we analyzed survey data from 563 respondents. The results indicate that users’ sharing experience is positively associated with user innovativeness in certain situations and that users’ technical expertise appears to positively moderate this relationship. In a second qualitative study we conducted five case studies based on 14 in-depth interviews with user innovators that we identified from the survey finding that users employ two distinct strategies when innovating in sharing settings, namely permanent modifications and reversible add-ons.

Keywords

sharing experience construct sharing types ownership 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Cornelius Herstatt who supported the development of this article and contributed as co-author in an earlier version of this paper. We further thank Kirsten Samson for supporting the pre-study data collection, Tom Oberquelle for collecting survey data and Kristian Lennart Knuth for conducting case study interviews. Gerhard Röhrl has kindly supported the survey on behalf of the German Maschinenring association. We also like to thank all survey and interview participants.

References

  1. Balka, K., Raasch, C., Herstatt, C., 2010. How Open is Open Source? - Software and Beyond. Creativity and Innovation Management 19 (3), 248–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balka, K., Raasch, C., Herstatt, C., 2014. The Effect of Selective Openness on Value Creation in User Innovation Communities. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31 (2), 392–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardhi, Fleura, Eckharft, Giana M., 2012. Access-based consumption: The case of car sharing. Journal of Consumer Research 39 (4), 881–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6), 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belk, R., 2007. Why Not Share Rather Than Own? The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 611 (1), 126–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belk, R., 2010. Sharing. Journal of Consumer Research 36 (5), 715–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belk, R., 2014. You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal of Business Research 67 (8), 1595–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonaccorsi, A., Rossi, C., 2006. Comparing motivations of individual programmers and firms to take part in the open source movement: From community to business. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 18 (4), 40–64.Google Scholar
  9. Botsman, R., Rogers, R., 2011. What’s mine is yours: how collaborative consumption is changing the way we live. London, Collins.Google Scholar
  10. Braun, V., Herstatt, C., 2008. The freedom-fighters: how incumbent corporations are attempting to control user-innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management 12 (3), 543–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheng, M., 2016. Sharing economy: A review and agenda for future research. International Journal of Hospitality Management 57, 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesbrough, H., Crowther, A.K., 2006. Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R & D Management 36 (3), 229–236.Google Scholar
  13. Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S., Majchrzak, A., 2011. Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities. Organization Science 22 (5), 1224–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franke, N., Schirg, F., Reinsberger, K., 2016. The frequency of end-user innovation: A re-estimation of extant findings. Research Policy 45 (8), 1684–1689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Franke, N., Shah, S.K., 2003. How communities support innovative activities. Research Policy 32 (1), 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Franke, N., von Hippel, E., Schreier, M., 2006. Finding commercially attractive user innovations: A test of lead user theory. The Journal of Product Innovation Management (23), 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frazier, P.A., Barron, K.E., Tix, A.P., 2004. Testing Moderator and Mediator Effects in Counseling Psychology Research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 51 (1), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hellwig, K., Morhart, F., Girardin, F., Hauser, M., 2015. Exploring Different Types of Sharing: A Proposed Segmentation of the Market for “Sharing” Businesses. Psychology & Marketing 32 (9), 891–906.Google Scholar
  19. Hienerth, C., Hippel, E. von, Berg Jensen, M., 2014. User community vs. producer innovation development efficiency: A first empirical study. Research Policy 43 (1), 190–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hienerth, C., Lettl, C., 2017. Perspective: Understanding the Nature and Measurement of the Lead User Construct. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 34 (1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hinterberger, F., Jasch, C., Hammerl, B., Wimmer, W., 2006. Leuchttürme für industrielle Produkt-Dienstleistungssysteme. Potenzialerhebung in Europa und Anwendbarkeit in Österreich, BMVIT, Wien.Google Scholar
  22. Huizingh, E.K., 2011. Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation 31 (1), 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hyysalo, S., Usenyuk, S., 2015. The user dominated technology era: Dynamics of dispersed peer-innovation. Research Policy 44 (3), 560–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Janzik, L., Raasch, C., 2011. Online Communities in mature Markets: Why join? Why innovate? Why share? International Journal of Innovation Management 15 (04), 797–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jeppesen, L.B., Laursen, K., 2009. The role of lead users in knowledge sharing. Research Policy 38 (10), 1582–1589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krogh, G. von, Haefliger, S, Spaeth, S., and Wallin, M. W., 2012. Carrots and Rainbows: Motivation and Social Practice in Open Source Software Development. MIS Quarterly 36 (2), 649–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lamberton, C.P., Rose, R.L., 2012. When Is Ours Better Than Mine?: A Framework for Understanding and Altering Participation in Commercial Sharing Systems. Journal of Marketing 76 (4), 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lüthje, C., 2004. Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods field: an empirical study of sport-related product consumers. Technovation 24 (9), 683–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C., 2004. The Lead User method: An outline of empirical findings and issues for future research. R & D Management 34 (5), 553–568.Google Scholar
  30. Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C., von Hippel, E., 2005. User-innovators and “local” information: The case of mountain biking. Research Policy 34 (6), 951–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Magnusson, P.R., 2009. Exploring the Contributions of Involving Ordinary Users in Ideation of Technology-Based Services. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 26 (5), 578–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maschinenring 2017. Abrechnung überbetrieblicher Leistungen. Available online: https://www.maschinenring.de/leistungen/maschinen/abrechnung. Accessed: 28-Aug.2017.
  33. Müller, H., Freytag, J.-C., 2005. Problems, Methods, and Challenges in Comprehensive Data Cleansing. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Informatik, Berlin.Google Scholar
  34. Neely, A., 2007. The Servitization of Manufacturing: An Analysis of Global Trends. Paper presented at the 14th European Operations Management Association Conference, Ankara, Turkey, 10 pp. (downloaded on 8 October 2013).Google Scholar
  35. Neely, A., Benedetinni, O., Visnjic, I., 2011. The servitization of manufacturing: Further evidence. 18th European Operations Management Association Conference, Camebridge, 10 pp. (downloaded on 7 October 2012).Google Scholar
  36. Pieper, T., 2019. User Innovation Barriers, Impact on User-Developed Products. Springer Gabler VerlagGoogle Scholar
  37. Pieper, T., Herstatt, C. (2018). User innovation barriers and their impact on user-developed products.Working Paper No.106, Institut für Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement, TUHHGoogle Scholar
  38. Pöschl, H., 2004. Frauen in der Landwirtschaft - Ein nachrangiges Thema in den Agrarstatistiken. Statistisches Bundesamt: Wiesbaden, 1017–1028.Google Scholar
  39. Schreier, M., Prügl, R., 2008. Extending lead-user theory: antecedents and consequences of consumers’ lead userness. The Journal of Product Innovation Management 25 (4), 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schultz, C., 2009. Collaboration with users of innovative healthcare services – the role of service familiarity. International Journal of Services Technology and Management 12 (3), 338.Google Scholar
  41. Schultz, C., Hölzle, K., 2014. Motoren der Innovation: Zukunftsperspektiven der Innovationsforschung. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  42. Schultz, C., Tietze, F., 2014. Produkt-Service-Systeme als Gegenstand der betriebswirtschaftlichen Innovations-forschung. Motoren der Innovation, Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 57–79.Google Scholar
  43. Schweisfurth, T., Raasch, C., Herstatt, C., 2011. Free revealing in open innovation: A comparison of different models and their benefits for companies. International Journal of Product Development 13 (2), 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schweisfurth, T.G., Raasch, C., 2014. Embedded lead users—The benefits of employing users for corporate innovation. Research Policy.Google Scholar
  45. Tietz, R., Morrison, P.D., Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C., 2005. The process of user-innovation: a case study in a consumer goods setting. International Journal Product Development 2 (4), 321–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tietze, F., Pieper, T., Herstatt, C., 2015. To own or not to own: How ownership impacts user innovation–An empirical study. Technovation 38, 50–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tietze, F., Schiederig, T., Herstatt, C., 2013. Firms’ transition to green product service system innovators: Cases from the mobility sector. International Journal of Technology Management 63 (1/2), 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. von Hippel, E., 1986. Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32 (7), 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. von Hippel, E., 1988. The sources of innovation. McKinsey Quarterly, 72–79.Google Scholar
  50. von Hippel, E., 2005. Democratizing innovation.Google Scholar
  51. West, J., Bogers, M., 2014. Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31 (4), 814–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Tietze
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thorsten Pieper
    • 2
  • Carsten Schultz
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Technology ManagementUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Institut für Technologie- und InnovationsmanagementTechnische Universität HamburgHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Institut für InnovationsforschungChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu KielKielGermany

Personalised recommendations