Advertisement

Lead User Identification in Conjoint Analysis Based Product Design

  • Alexander Sänn
  • Daniel Baier
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)

Abstract

Nowadays, the lead user method [von Hippel, Manag Sci 32(7):791–805, 1986; Lüthje et al. (Res Pol 34(6):951–965, 2005)] and conjoint analysis [Green and Rao (J Market Res 8(3):355–363, 1971), Baier and Brusch (Conjointanalyse: Methoden - Anwendungen - Praxisbeispiele, Springer, Heidelberg, 2009)] are widely used methods for (new) product design. Both methods collect and analyze customers’ preferences and use them for (optimal) product design. However, whereas the lead user method primarily creates breakthrough innovations [see von Hippel et al. (Harv Bus Rev 77(5):47–57, 1999)], conjoint analysis is more capable for incremental innovations [Helm et al. (Int J Manag Decis Making 9(3):242–26, 2008), Baier and Brusch (Conjointanalyse: Methoden - Anwendungen - Praxisbeispiele, Springer, Heidelberg, 2009)]. In this paper we extend conjoint analysis by lead user identification for the design of breakthrough innovations. The new procedure is compared to standard conjoint analysis in an empirical setting.

Keywords

Product Design Conjoint Analysis Incremental Innovation Stimulus Card Mountain Bike 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Baier D, Brusch M (eds) (2009) Conjointanalyse: Methoden - Anwendungen - Praxisbeispiele. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  2. Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ (1987) New products: What separates winners from losers? J Prod Innovat Manag 4(3):169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Franke N, Shah S (2003) How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Res Pol 32(1):157–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Green PE, Rao VR (1971) Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. J Market Res 8(3):355–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Helm R, Steiner M, Scholl A, Manthey L (2008) A comparative empirical study on common methods for measuring preferences. Int J Manag Decis Making 9(3):242–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Herstatt C, von Hippel E (1992) : Developing new product concepts via the lead user method: A case study in a ”low tech” field. J Prod Innovat Manag 9(3):213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Herzog U (1991) Fahrradpatente. Erfindungen aus zwei Jahrhunderten, 2nd edn. Moby DickGoogle Scholar
  8. von Hippel E (1986) Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Manag Sci 32(7):791–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. von Hippel E (2001) Perspective: User toolkits for innovation. J Prod Innovat Manag 18:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. von Hippel E, Thomke S, Sonnack M (1999) Creating breakthroughs at 3M. Harv Bus Rev 77(5):47–57Google Scholar
  12. Jeppesen LB (2005) User toolkits for innovation: Consumers support each other. J Prod Innovat Manag 22(4):347–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lilien GL, Morrison PD, Searls K, Sonnack M, von Hippel E (2002) Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development. Manag Sci 48(8):1042–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lüthje C, Herstatt C (2004) The lead user method: An outline of empirical findings and issues for future research. R&D Manag 34(5):553–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lüthje C, Herstatt C, von Hippel E (2005) User-innovators and ”local” information: The case of mountain biking. Res Pol 34(6):951–965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schreier M, Prügl R (2008) Extending lead-user theory: Antecedents and consequences of consumers’ lead userness. J Prod Innovat Manag 25(4):331–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Slater SF, Narver JC (1998) Customer-led and market-oriented: Let’s not confuse the two. Strat Manag J 19(10):1001–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Teichert T, Shehu E (2010) Investigating research streams of conjoint analysis: A bibliometric study. Bus Res 3(1):49–58Google Scholar
  19. Veryzer RW (1998) Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. J Prod Innovat Manag 15(4):304–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wittink DR, Cattin P (1989) Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. J Market 53(3):91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Business Administration and EconomicsBrandenburg University of Technology CottbusCottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations