How Do Product Users Influence Corporate Invention?

References

• Agarwal R., Gort M. (2002) Firm and product life cycles and firm survival. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(2) 184–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Almeida P., Kogut B. (1999) Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Sci. 45(7) 905–917.Link, Google Scholar
• Anderson P., Tushman M. L. (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(4) 604–633.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin C., Hienerth C., von Hippel E. (2006) How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study. Res. Policy 35(9) 1291–1313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bantel K. A., Jackson S. E. (1989) Top management and innovation in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management J. 10(S1) 107–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown D. E. (2002) Inventing Modern America: From the Microwave to the Mouse. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) . . http://web.mit.edu/invent/www/ima/fogarty_intro.html.Google Scholar
• Chatterji A. K., Fabrizio K. R., Mitchell W., Schulman K. A. (2008) Physician-industry cooperation in the medical device industry. Health Affairs 27(6) 1532–1543.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Christensen C. M., Bower J. L. (1996) Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management J. 17(3) 197–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M. (1995) Empirical studies of innovative activity. , Stoneman P., ed. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK) , 182–264.Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Nelson R. R., Walsh J. P. (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). . NBER Working Paper 7552, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Nelson R. R., Walsh J. P. (2002) Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Sci. 48(1) 1–23.Link, Google Scholar
• Dahlin K., Taylor M., Fichman M. (2004) Today's Edisons or weekend hobbyists: Technical merit and success of inventions by independent inventors. Res. Policy 33(8) 1167–1183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dosi G. (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res. Policy 11(3) 147–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Franke N., Shah S. (2003) How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Res. Policy 32(1) 157–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grant R. M. (1996) Toward a knowledge based theory of the firm. Strategic Management J. 17(Winter special issue) 109–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gupta A. K., Tesluk P. E., Taylor M. S. (2007) Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis. Organ. Sci. 18(6) 885–897.Link, Google Scholar
• Guzzo R. A., Shea G. P. (1992) Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. , Dunnette M. D., Hough L. M., eds. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3. (Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA) , 269–313.Google Scholar
• Hall B. H., Jaffe A., Trajtenberg M. (2001) The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. . NBER Working Paper 8498, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall B. H., Jaffe A., Trajtenberg M. (2005) Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econom. 36(1) 16–38.Google Scholar
• Harhoff D., Narin F., Scherer F. M., Vopel K. (1999) Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Rev. Econom. Statist. 81(3) 511–515.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heiman B., Nickerson J. A. (2002) Toward reconciling transaction cost economics and the knowledge-based view of the firm: The context of interfirm collaborations. Internat. J. Econom. Bus. 9(1) 97–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R., Cockburn I. (1996) Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND J. Econom. 27(1) 32–59.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jeppesen L. B., Frederiksen L. (2006) Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? The case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organ. Sci. 17(1) 45–63.Link, Google Scholar
• Klepper S. (1996) Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. Amer. Econom. Rev. 86(3) 562–583.Google Scholar
• Klepper S. (1997) Industry life cycles. Indust. Corporate Change 6(1) 145–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kline S. J., Rosenberg N. (1986) An overview of innovation. , Landau R., Rosenberg N., eds. The Positive Sum Strategy. (National Academy Press, Washington, DC) , 275–305.Google Scholar
• Kogut B., Zander U. (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 3(3) 383–397.Link, Google Scholar
• Lanjouw J. O., Schankerman M. (2004) Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Econom. J. 114(495) 441–465.Google Scholar
• Lerner J. (1994) The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. RAND J. Econom. 25(2) 319–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lettl C., Rost K., von Wartburg I. (2009) Why are some independent inventors “heroes” and others “hobbyists?” The moderating role of technological diversity and specialization. Res. Policy 38(2) 243–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lilien G. L., Morrison P. D., Searls K., Sonnack M., von Hippel E. (2002) Performance assessment of the lead user idea—Generation process for new product development. Management Sci. 48(8) 1042–1059.Link, Google Scholar
• Luthje C., Herstatt C., von Hippel E. (2005) User-innovators and “local” information: The case of mountain biking. Res. Policy 34(6) 951–965.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Macher J. T. (2006) Technological development and the boundaries of the firm: A knowledge-based examination in semiconductor manufacturing. Management Sci. 52(6) 826–843.Link, Google Scholar
• Malerba F., Orsenigo L. (1996) The dynamics and evolution of industries. Indust. Corporate Change 5(1) 51–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March J. G., Simon H. A. (1958) Organizations. (John Wiley & Sons, New York) .Google Scholar
• Moore K. A. (2003) Xenophobia in American courts. Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 97(4) 1497–1550.Google Scholar
• Moser P., Nicholas T. (2004) Was electricity a general purpose technology? Evidence from historical patent citations. Amer. Econom. Rev. 94(2) 388–394.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mowery D. C., Oxley J. E., Silverman B. S. (1996) Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management J. 17(Winter special issue) 77–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nelson R. R., Winter S. G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA) .Google Scholar
• Nickerson J. A., Zenger T. R. (2004) A knowledge-based theory of the firm-the problem-solving perspective. Organ. Sci. 15(6) 617–632.Link, Google Scholar
• Ogawa S. (1998) Does sticky information affect the locus of innovation? Evidence from the Japanese convenience-store industry. Res. Policy 26(7–8) 777–790.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell W. W., Koput K. W., Smith-Doerr L. (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(1) 116–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Riggs W., von Hippel E. (1994) Incentives to innovate and the sources of innovation: The case of scientific instruments. Res. Policy 23(4) 459–469.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenkopf L., Nerkar A. (2001) Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disc industry. Strategic Management J. 22(4) 287–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saxenian A. (1990) Regional networks and the resurgence of Silicon Valley. Calif. Management Rev. 33(1) 89–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schumpeter J. A. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. (President and Fellows of Harvard College, Cambridge, MA) .Google Scholar
• Shah S. K. (2006) Motivation, governance, and the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development. Management Sci. 52(7) 1000–1014.Link, Google Scholar
• Shah S. K., Tripsas M. (2007) The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship J. 1(1–2) 123–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shane S. (2001) Technological opportunities and new firm creation. Management Sci. 47(2) 205–220.Link, Google Scholar
• Simcoe T. (2007) XTPQML: Stata model to estimate Fixed-effects Poisson (Quasi-ML) regression with robust standard errors. . Statistical Software Component S456821, Boston College Department of Economics, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA.Google Scholar
• Singh J., Fleming L. (2010) Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: Myth or reality? Management Sci. 56(1) 41–56.Link, Google Scholar
• Stuart T. E., Podolny J. M. (1996) Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management J. 17(S1) 21–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trajtenberg M. (1990) A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of inventions. RAND J. Econom. 21(1) 172–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trajtenberg M., Henderson R., Jaffe A. (1997) University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Econom. Innov. New Tech. 5(1) 19–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tripsas M. (2008) Customer preference discontinuities: A trigger for radical technological change. Managerial Decision Econom. 29(2–3) 79–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman M. L., Anderson P. (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(3) 439–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Urban G. L., von Hippel E. (1988) Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Management Sci. 34(5) 569–582.Link, Google Scholar
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2006) The Center for Devices and Radiological Health's medical device innovation initiative. . Report, Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD. Accessed June 5, 2007, http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ocd/mdii.html.Google Scholar
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (2005) Technology profile report for medical devices. . Report, USPTO, Alexandria, VA.Google Scholar
• Utterback J. M. (1996) Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. (Harvard Business School Press, Boston) .Google Scholar
• Utterback J. M., Abernathy W. J. (1975) A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 3(6) 639–656.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Hippel E. (1976) The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Res. Policy 5(3) 212–239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Hippel E. (1986) Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Sci. 32(7) 791–805.Link, Google Scholar
• von Hippel E. (1988) The Sources of Innovation. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) .Google Scholar
• von Hippel E. (1994) “Sticky information” and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Sci. 40(4) 429–439.Link, Google Scholar
• von Hippel E. (1998) Economics of product development by users: The impact of “sticky” local information. Management Sci. 44(5) 629–644.Link, Google Scholar
• von Hippel E. (2005) Democratizing Innovation: Users Take Center Stage. (MIT Press, Boston) .Crossref, Google Scholar
• West M. A., Anderson N. R. (1996) Innovation in top management teams. J. Appl. Psych. 81(6) 680–693.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson O. E. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. (Free Press, New York) .Google Scholar
• Winter S. G. (1984) Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 5(3–4) 287–320.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge J. M. (1997) Quasi-likelihood methods for count data. , Pesaran M. H., Schmidt P., eds. Handbook of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 2. (Blackwell, Oxford, UK) , 352–406.Google Scholar
• Wooldridge J. M. (1999) Distribution-free estimation of some nonlinear panel data models. J. Econometrics 90(1) 77–97.Crossref, Google Scholar