IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijbexc/v12y2017i4p508-536.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organisational adoption of the lead user method: a follow-up study on intentions versus actions

Author

Listed:
  • Pia Hannukainen
  • Samuli Mäkinen
  • Sampsa Hyysalo

Abstract

Users have been shown to be a source of new product ideas, and some users also develop their own solutions. This is not a marginal phenomenon and innovating users - so-called lead users - can be found in all fields. The lead user method (LUM) has several documented advantages, but it has gained far less ground as an everyday approach among companies than more traditional user research methods. In this article, we examine the reasons why LUM is not adopted in an organisation after a successful pilot project. We use rich, longitudinal data from two case companies and find that despite stated intentions and enthusiasm, LUM is not applied repeatedly. Staff turnover, the time and effort required to conduct LUM and the difficulties of adjusting LUM to a specific context were found as reasons why LUM use did not continue. Most importantly, LUM adoption requires the transfer of the evaluative and procedural knowledge of how to conduct it, which appears to be difficult and effortful to transfer to and within the organisation.

Suggested Citation

  • Pia Hannukainen & Samuli Mäkinen & Sampsa Hyysalo, 2017. "Organisational adoption of the lead user method: a follow-up study on intentions versus actions," International Journal of Business Excellence, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 12(4), pages 508-536.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijbexc:v:12:y:2017:i:4:p:508-536
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=85016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:ids:ijbexc:v:12:y:2017:i:4:p:508-536. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=291 .

    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.