IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mit/sloanp/1576.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Satisfying Heterogeneous User Needs via Innovation Toolkits: The Case of Apache Security Software

Author

Listed:
  • Franke, Nikolaus
  • von Hippel, Eric

Abstract

User needs for a given product type can be quite heterogeneous. Segmenting the market and providing solutions for average user needs in each segment is a partial answer that will typically leave many dissatisfied ? some seriously so. We hypothesize that providing users with ?toolkits for user innovation? to enable them to more easily design customized products for themselves will increase user satisfaction under these conditions. We test this hypothesis via an empirical study of Apache security software ? ?open source? software that is designed to be modifiable by skilled users. We find that heterogeneity of need is high, and that many Apache users are dissatisfied with standard security functionality on offer. We also find that users creating their own software modifications are significantly more satisfied than are non-innovating users. We conclude by suggesting that the ?toolkits for user innovation? approach to enhancing user satisfaction might be generally applicable to markets characterized by heterogeneous user needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Franke, Nikolaus & von Hippel, Eric, 2002. "Satisfying Heterogeneous User Needs via Innovation Toolkits: The Case of Apache Security Software," Working papers 4341-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:mit:sloanp:1576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/1576
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen R. Neill & Ronald G. Cummings & Philip T. Ganderton & Glenn W. Harrison & Thomas McGuckin, 1994. "Hypothetical Surveys and Real Economic Commitments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 70(2), pages 145-154.
    2. Eric von Hippel, 1998. "Economics of Product Development by Users: The Impact of "Sticky" Local Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(5), pages 629-644, May.
    3. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    4. Pamela D. Morrison & John H. Roberts & Eric von Hippel, 2000. "Determinants of User Innovation and Innovation Sharing in a Local Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(12), pages 1513-1527, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Na Wang & Shuangying Chen & Lei Xiao & Feng Fu, 2021. "The Sustainability of Superior Performance of Platform Complementor: Evidence from the Effects of Iterative Innovation and Visibility of App in iOS Platform in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Jean-Michel Dalle & Paul David, 2005. "The Allocation of Software Development Resources In ‘Open Source’ Production Mode," Industrial Organization 0502011, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Alexandre Gaudeul, 2004. "Competition between open-source and proprietary software: the (La)TeX case study," Industrial Organization 0409007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Tietz, Robert & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2005. "Taking advantage of online communities for generating innovative ideas," Working Papers 32, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    5. Paola Giuri & Gaia Rocchetti & Salvatore Torrisi, 2002. "Open Source Software: From Open Science to New Marketing Models," LEM Papers Series 2002/23, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Franke, Nikolaus & Hippel, Eric von, 2003. "Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: the case of Apache security software," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1199-1215, July.
    2. Franziska Voelckner, 2006. "An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers’ willingness to pay," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 137-149, April.
    3. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    4. Stina Hökby & Tore Söderqvist, 2003. "Elasticities of Demand and Willingness to Pay for Environmental Services in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(3), pages 361-383, November.
    5. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Raasch, Christina, 2015. "Embedded lead users—The benefits of employing users for corporate innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 168-180.
    6. Markus Ernst & Alexander Brem, 2017. "Social Media for Identifying Lead Users? Insights into Lead Users’ Social Media Habits," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(04), pages 1-21, August.
    7. Lettl, Christopher & Rost, Katja & von Wartburg, Iwan, 2009. "Why are some independent inventors 'heroes' and others 'hobbyists'? The moderating role of technological diversity and specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 243-254, March.
    8. Di Stefano, Giada & Gambardella, Alfonso & Verona, Gianmario, 2012. "Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1283-1295.
    9. Douglas Macmillan & Trevor Smart & Andrew Thorburn, 1999. "A Field Experiment Involving Cash and Hypothetical Charitable Donations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(3), pages 399-412, October.
    10. Sánchez-González, Gloria & González-Álvarez, Nuria & Nieto, Mariano, 2009. "Sticky information and heterogeneous needs as determining factors of R&D cooperation with customers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 1590-1603, December.
    11. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    12. Eric von Hippel & Georg von Krogh, 2003. "Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 209-223, April.
    13. Francesco Paolo Appio & Antonella Martini & Silvia Massa & Stefania Testa, 2016. "Unveiling the intellectual origins of Social Media-based innovation: insights from a bibliometric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 355-388, July.
    14. Maria Roszkowska-Menkes, 2017. "User Innovation: State of the Art and Perspectives for Future Research," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 13(2), pages 127-154.
    15. P. Frykblom & Jason Shogren, 2000. "An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July.
    16. Lee, Hyeonsuh, 2023. "Unraveling the effect of pre-entry knowledge of founders on experimentation in nascent industries: A configurational approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    17. Tietz, Robert & Morrison, Pamela D. & Lüthje, Christian & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2004. "The process of user-innovation: A case study on user innovation in a consumer goods setting," Working Papers 29, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    18. Richard O‘Conor & Magnus Johannesson & Per-Olov Johansson, 1999. "Stated Preferences, Real Behaviour and Anchoring: Some Empirical Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 235-248, March.
    19. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    20. David, Paul A. & Shapiro, Joseph S., 2008. "Community-based production of open-source software: What do we know about the developers who participate?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 364-398, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mit:sloanp:1576. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: None (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssmitus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.