Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0618

References

  • Aghion P., Howitt P.Endogenous Growth Theory (1998) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
  • Alchian A. A., Demsetz H. Production, information costs, and economic organization. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1972) 62(5):777–795Google Scholar
  • Allen R. C. Collective invention. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (1983) 4(1):1–24CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Aoki M.Information, Incentives, and Bargaining in the Japanese Economy (1988) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Aoki M.Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis (2001) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Arundel A., Sonntag V. Patterns of advanced manufacturing technology (AMT) use in Canadian manufacturing: 1998 AMT survey results. (1999) . Report 88F0017MIE, 12, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  • Baldwin C. Y. Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions and the boundaries of firms. Indust. Corporate Change (2008) 17(1):155–195CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Baldwin C. Y., Clark K. B.Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (2000) 1(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Baldwin C. Y., Clark K. B., Kahin B., Foray D. Between “knowledge” and the “economy”: Notes on the scientific study of designs. Advancing Knowledge and the Knowledge Economy (2006a) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 299–328Google Scholar
  • Baldwin C. Y., Clark K. B. The architecture of participation: Does code architecture mitigate free riding in the open source development model? Management Sci. (2006b) 52(7):1116–1127LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Baldwin C. Y., Woodard C. J., Gawer A. The architecture of platforms: A unified view. Platforms, Markets and Innovation (2009) (Edward Elgar, London) 19–44CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Baldwin C. Y., Hienerth C., von Hippel E. How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study. Res. Policy (2006) 35(9):1291–1313CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Baumol W. J.The Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism (2002) (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Benkler Y. Coase's penguin, or, Linux and The Nature of the Firm. Yale Law J. (2002) 112(3):369–447CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Benkler Y.The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (2006) (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT) Google Scholar
  • Blaxill M., Eckhardt R.The Invisible Edge: Taking Your Strategy to the Next Level Using Intellectual Property (2009) (Portfolio, New York) Google Scholar
  • Boudreau K. J., Lacetera N., Lakhani K. R. Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: An empirical analysis. Management Sci. (2011) 57(5):843–863LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Brusoni S., Prencipe A. Making design rules: A multidomain perspective. Organ. Sci. (2006) 17(2):179–189LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Casadesus-Masanell R., Ghemawat P. Dynamic mixed duopoly: A model motivated by Linux vs. Windows. Management Sci. (2006) 52(7):1072–1084LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Chandler A. D.The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (1977) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
  • Chesbrough H.Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (2003) (Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
  • Colfer L. J., Baldwin C. Y. The mirroring hypothesis: Theory, evidence and exceptions. (2010) . Working Paper 10-058, Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
  • Dasgupta P., David P. A. Toward a new economics of science. Policy Res. (1994) 23(5):487–521CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • de Jong J. P. J., von Hippel E. Transfers of user process innovations to process equipment producers: A study of Dutch high-tech firms. Res. Policy (2009) 38(7):1181–1191CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Demsetz H. The theory of the firm revisited. J. Law, Econom. Organ. (1988) 4(1):141–161Google Scholar
  • Dosi G., Nelson R. R., Hall B. H., Rosenberg N. Technical change and industrial dynamics as evolutionary processes. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (2010) 1(North-Holland, Amsterdam) 51–127CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dreyfuss R. C. Does IP need IP? Accommodating intellectual production outside the intellectual property paradigm. Cardozo Law Rev. (2010) 31(5):1437–1473Google Scholar
  • Enos J. L.Petroleum Progress and Profits: A History of Process Innovation (1962) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
  • Fama E. F., Jensen M. C. Agency problems and residual claims. J. Law Econom. (1983a) 26(2):327–349CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fama E. F., Jensen M. C. Separation of ownership and control. J. Law Econom. (1983b) 26(2):301–325CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ferguson C. H., Morris C. R.Computer Wars: How the West Can Win in a Post-IBM World (1993) (Times Books, New York) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Foray D.The Economics of Knowledge (2004) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ford H.My Life and Work (1922) (Garden City Publishing Company, Garden City, NY) Google Scholar
  • Franke N., Shah S. How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Res. Policy (2003) 32(1):157–178CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Franke N., von Hippel E. Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: The case of Apache security software. Res. Policy (2003) 32(7):1199–1215CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gallini N., Scotchmer S., Jaffe A., Lerner J., Stern S. Intellectual property: What is the best incentive system? Innovation Policy and the Economy (2002) 2(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 51–78Google Scholar
  • Gault F., von Hippel E. The prevalence of user innovation and free innovation transfers: Implications for statistical indicators and innovation policy. (2009) . Working Paper 4722-09, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  • Gawer A., Gawer A. Platform dynamics and strategies: From products to services. Platforms, Markets and Innovation (2009) (Edward Elgar, London) 45–76CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Gawer A., Cusumano M. A.Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation (2002) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Google Scholar
  • Gawer A., Henderson R. Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. J. Econom. Management Strategy (2007) 16(1):1–34CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Ghosh R. A. Cooking pot markets: An economic model for the free trade of goods and services on the Internet. First Monday (1998) 3(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/580/501Google Scholar
  • Greif A.Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade (2006) (Cambridge University Press, New York) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Harhoff D., Henkel J., von Hippel E. Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Res. Policy (2003) 32(10):1753–1769CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hart O.Firms, Contracts and Financial Structure (1995) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Heald P. J. A transaction cost theory of patent law. Ohio State Law J. (2005) 66(3):473–509Google Scholar
  • Henkel J., Uhr W., Esswein W., Schoop E. Software development in embedded Linux—Informal collaboration of competing firms. Proc. 6. Internationalen Tagung Wirtschaftsinformatik (2003) 2(Physica, Heidelberg, Germany) 81–99CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Henkel J., Baldwin C. Y. Modularity for value appropriation: How to draw the boundaries of intellectual property. (2010) . Working Paper 11-054, Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
  • Herstatt C., von Hippel E. From experience: Developing new product concepts via the lead user method: A case study in a “low-tech” field. J. Product Innovation Management (1992) 9(3):213–222CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hienerth C. The commercialization of user innovations: The development of the rodeo kayak industry. R&D Management (2006) 36(3):273–294CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Hounshell D. A.From the American System to Mass Production, 1800–1932 (1985) (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore) Google Scholar
  • Howe J. The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired (2006) 14.06). http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds_pr.htmlGoogle Scholar
  • Jacobides M. G. Industry change through vertical dis-integration: How and why markets emerged in mortgage banking. Acad. Management J. (2005) 48(3):465–498CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. (1976) 3(4):305–360CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jensen M. C., Meckling W. H. The nature of man. J. Appl. Corporate Finance (1994) 7(2):4–19CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Jeppesen L. B. Profiting from innovative user communities: How firms organize the production of user modifications in the computer games industry. (2004) . Working Paper WP-04, Copenhagen Business School, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  • Jeppesen L. B., Lakhani K. R. Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organ. Sci. (2010) 21(5):1016–1033LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Kuhn T. S.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) (University of Chicago Press, Chicago) Google Scholar
  • Lafontaine F., Slade M. Vertical integration and firm boundaries: The evidence. J. Econom. Literature (2007) 45(3):629–685CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lakhani K. R., Wolf R. G., Feller J., Fitzgerald B., Hissam S., Lakhani K. R. Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software (2005) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 3–22CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lamoreaux N. R., Sokoloff K. L., Clarke S. H., Lamoreaux N. R., Usselman S. The rise and decline of the independent inventor: A Schumpeterian story? The Challenge of Remaining Innovative: Lessons from Twentieth-Century American Business (2009) (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA) 43–78Google Scholar
  • Langlois R. N., Langlois R. N. Rationality, institutions and explanation. Economics as a Process: Essays in the New Institutional Economics (1986a) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 225–255Google Scholar
  • Langlois R. N., Langlois R. N. The new institutional economics: An introductory essay. Economics as a Process: Essays in the New Institutional Economics (1986b) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) 1–26Google Scholar
  • Langlois R. N. Modularity in technology and organization. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (2002) 49(1):19–37CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lerner J., Tirole J. Some simple economics of open source. J. Indust. Econom. (2002) 50(2):197–234CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lilien G. L., Morrison P. D., Searls K., Sonnack M., von Hippel E. Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development. Management Sci. (2002) 48(8):1042–1059LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Lim K. The many faces of absorptive capacity: Spillovers of copper interconnect technology for semiconductor chips. Indust. Corporate Change (2009) 18(6):1249–1284CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lüthje C. Customers as co-inventors: An empirical analysis of the antecedents of customer-driven innovations in the field of medical equipment. Proc. 32nd EMAC Conf. (2003) Glasgow, Scotland(European Marketing Academy, Brussels) Google Scholar
  • Lüthje C. Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods field: An empirical study of sport-related product consumers. Technovation (2004) 24(9):683–695CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Lüthje C., Herstatt C., von Hippel E. User-innovators and “local” information: The case of mountain biking. Res. Policy (2005) 34(6):951–965CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Machlup F., Penrose E. The patent controversy in the nineteenth century. J. Econom. Hist. (1950) 10(1):1–29CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • MacLeod C.Heroes of Invention: Technology, Liberalism and British Identity, 1750–1914 (2007) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Google Scholar
  • Mansfield E.Industrial Research and Technological Innovation: An Econometric Analysis (1968) (Norton, New York) Google Scholar
  • Mansfield E. How rapidly does new industrial technology leak out? J. Indust. Econom. (1985) 34(2):217–223CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Marx M., Strumsky D., Fleming L. Mobility, skills, and the Michigan non-compete experiment. Management Sci. (2009) 55(6):875–889LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Mead C., Conway L.Introduction to VLSI Systems (1980) (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA) Google Scholar
  • Morrison P. D., Roberts J. H., von Hippel E. Determinants of user innovation and innovation sharing in a local market. Management Sci. (2000) 46(12):1513–1527LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Nelson R. R., Winter S. G.An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (1982) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
  • Nuvolari A. Collective invention during the British industrial revolution: The case of the Cornish pumping engine. Cambridge J. Econom. (2004) 28(3):347–363CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • O'Mahony S. Guarding the commons: How open source contributors protect their work. Res. Policy (2003) 32(7):1179–1198CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Parnas D. L. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Comm. ACM (1972) 15(12):1053–1058CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pavitt K. Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res. Policy (1984) 13(6):343–373CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Penrose E.The Economics of the International Patent System (1951) (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore) Google Scholar
  • Pine B. J.Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition (1993) (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) Google Scholar
  • Pisano G. P., Verganti R. Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harvard Bus. Rev. (2008) 86(12):78–86Google Scholar
  • Raasch C., Herstatt C., Lock P. The dynamics of user innovation: Drivers and impediments of innovation activities. Internat. J. Innovation Management (2008) 12(3):377–398CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Raymond E. S.The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary (1999) (O'Reilly, Sebastopol, CA) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Romer P. M. Endogenous technological change. J. Political Econom. (1990) 98(5):S71–S102CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Rosenberg N.Perspectives on Technology (1976) (Cambridge University Press, New York) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Schumpeter J. A.The Theory of Economic Development (1934) (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
  • Scott W. R.Institutions and Organizations (2001) (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA) Google Scholar
  • Shah S. Sources and patterns of innovation in a consumer products field: Innovations in sporting equipment. (2000) . Working Paper 4105, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  • Shah S. K., DiBona C., Cooper D., Stone M. Open beyond software. Open Sources 2.0: The Continuing Evolution (2005) (O'Reilly Media, Sebastopol, CA) 339–360CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Shah S. K., Tripsas M. The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship J. (2007) 1(1–2):123–140CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Simon H. A. The architecture of complexity. Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc. (1962) 106(6):467–482Google Scholar
  • Simon H. A.The Sciences of the Artificial (1981) 2nd ed.(MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
  • Smith A., Cannan E.An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1937) (Random House, New York) . [Orig. pub. 1776, Methuen & Co., London.]Google Scholar
  • Stallman R. M., Gay J.Free Software Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard Stallman (2002) (GNU Press, Boston) Google Scholar
  • Strandburg K. J. Users as innovators: Implications for patent doctrine. University Colorado Law Rev. (2008) 79(2):467–542Google Scholar
  • Sturgeon T. J. Modular production networks: A new American model of industrial organization. Indust. Corporate Change (2002) 11(3):451–496CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Suh N. P.The Principles of Design (1990) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) Google Scholar
  • Teece D. J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy (1986) 15(6):285–305CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Teece D. J. Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. (1996) 31(2):193–224CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Teece D. J.Managing Intellectual Capital (2000) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) Google Scholar
  • Tseng M. M., Piller F. T.The Customer Centric Enterprise: Advances in Mass Customization and Personalization (2003) (Springer, New York) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Urban G. L., von Hippel E. Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Management Sci. (1988) 34(5):569–582LinkGoogle Scholar
  • von Hippel E. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Res. Policy (1976) 5(3):212–239CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • von Hippel E. The dominant role of the user in semiconductor and electronic subassembly process innovation. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management (1977) EM-24(2):60–71CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • von Hippel E. Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Sci. (1986) 32(7):791–805LinkGoogle Scholar
  • von Hippel E.Sources of Innovation (1988) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
  • von Hippel E.Democratizing Innovation (2005) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • von Hippel E., Finkelstein S. N. Analysis of innovation in automated clinical chemistry analyzers. Sci. Public Policy (1979) 6(1):24–37CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • von Hippel E., von Krogh G. Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organ. Sci. (2003) 14(2):208–223LinkGoogle Scholar
  • von Hippel E. A., de Jong J., Flowers S. Comparing business and household sector innovation in consumer products: Findings from a representative survey in the UK. (2010) . Working paper, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1683503Google Scholar
  • Williamson O. E.The Economic Institutions of Capitalism (1985) (Free Press, New York) Google Scholar
  • Williamson O. E. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1991) 36(2):269–296CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Williamson O. E. The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. J. Econom. Literature (2000) 38(3):595–613CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Winter S. G., Itami H., Kusunoki K., Numagami T., Takeishi A. The replication perspective on productive knowledge. Dynamics of Knowledge, Corporation Systems and Innovation (2010) (Springer, Berlin) 95–121Part 1CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Woodward J.Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice (1965) (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) Google Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.