IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijimxx/v12y2008i03ns1363919608001984.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

User-Producer Interactions In Emerging Pharmaceutical And Food Innovations

Author

Listed:
  • E. H. M. MOORS

    (Department of Innovation Studies, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Faculty of Geo-Sciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, NL-3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • W. P. C. BOON

    (Department of Innovation Studies, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Faculty of Geo-Sciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, NL-3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • R. NAHUIS

    (Department of Innovation Studies, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Faculty of Geo-Sciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, NL-3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands)

  • R. L. J. VANDEBERG

    (Department of Innovation Studies, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Faculty of Geo-Sciences, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, NL-3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract

In order to study user-producer interaction (UPI) in emerging pharmaceutical and food innovation processes, a classification of user involvement has been developed, including a contextualised view on UPIs. Case studies are performed on two types of UPI: demand articulation in intermediary organisations and interactive learning in consortia, in the pharmaceutical and food sector, respectively.Regarding demand articulation processes, articulation of problems, needs, demands and expectations through agenda-setting practices is important. Expression and evaluation of demands with other factors leads to moblization of creative potential of prospective users and facilitation of emerging innovation processes.Regarding interactive learning, geographical, organisational, regulatory and cognitive proximity conditions could facilitate structures for emerging technology development, and codes and networks for frequent interaction between complementary stakeholders. Demands, concerns and opportunities are articulated by shared visions. Organised UPIs via intermediary user organisations or consortia seem to be the important tools for demand articulation and interactive learning involving patient organisations, researchers and private and public organisations.

Suggested Citation

  • E. H. M. Moors & W. P. C. Boon & R. Nahuis & R. L. J. Vandeberg, 2008. "User-Producer Interactions In Emerging Pharmaceutical And Food Innovations," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(03), pages 459-487.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijimxx:v:12:y:2008:i:03:n:s1363919608001984
    DOI: 10.1142/S1363919608001984
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1363919608001984
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S1363919608001984?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rens L.J. Vandeberg & Ellen H.M. Moors, 2008. "A framework for interactive learning in emerging technologies," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-06, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    2. Poole, Marshall Scott & Van de Ven, Andrew H. & Dooley, Kevin & Holmes, Michael E., 2000. "Organizational Change and Innovation Processes: Theory and Methods for Research," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195131987.
    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. Martin G Moehrle & Irina Pfennig & Jan M Gerken, 2017. "Identifying Lead Users In A B2b Environment Based On Patent Analysis — The Case Of The Crane Industry," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06), pages 1-20, August.

    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. Tamer Khraisha & Keren Arthur, 2018. "Can we have a general theory of financial innovation processes? A conceptual review," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 4(1), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Jeffery S. McMullen & Dimo Dimov, 2013. "Time and the Entrepreneurial Journey: The Problems and Promise of Studying Entrepreneurship as a Process," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1481-1512, December.
    3. Gayoung Kim & Woo Jin Lee, 2021. "The Venture Firm’s Ambidexterity: Do Transformational Leaders Boost Organizational Learning for Venture Growth?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-15, July.
    4. Geels, Frank W. & Ayoub, Martina, 2023. "A socio-technical transition perspective on positive tipping points in climate change mitigation: Analysing seven interacting feedback loops in offshore wind and electric vehicles acceleration," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Jain, Sanjay, 2020. "Fumbling to the future? Socio-technical regime change in the recorded music industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    6. Fixson, Sebastian K. & Park, Jin-Kyu, 2008. "The power of integrality: Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1296-1316, September.
    7. Kingshuk K. Sinha & Andrew H. Van de Ven, 2005. "Designing Work Within and Between Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 389-408, August.
    8. Kriechbaum, Michael & Posch, Alfred & Hauswiesner, Angelika, 2021. "Hype cycles during socio-technical transitions: The dynamics of collective expectations about renewable energy in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    9. Kim, Yusoon & Choi, Thomas Y., 2021. "Supplier relationship strategies and outcome dualities: An empirical study of embeddedness perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 232(C).
    10. Yuanyuan Zhao, 2014. "Interpreting Innovation Dynamics with Complexity Theory," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(05), pages 1-18.
    11. Rui Mu & Wouter Spekkink, 2018. "A Running Start or a Clean Slate? How a History of Cooperation Affects the Ability of Cities to Cooperate on Environmental Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, June.
    12. Gjoko Stamenkov, 2023. "Recommendations for improving research quality: relationships among constructs, verbs in hypotheses, theoretical perspectives, and triangulation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 2923-2946, June.
    13. Ram Kamath & Aitziber Elola & Frans Hermans, 2023. "The green-restructuring of clusters: investigating a biocluster's transition using a complex adaptive system model," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(9), pages 1842-1867, September.
    14. Thomas, Llewellyn D.W. & Autio, Erkko & Gann, David M., 2022. "Processes of ecosystem emergence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    15. Negro, Simona O. & Hekkert, Marko P. & Smits, Ruud E., 2007. "Explaining the failure of the Dutch innovation system for biomass digestion--A functional analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 925-938, February.
    16. Ali Marjovi & Behrouz Zarei, 2023. "Design-oriented policy interventions: The case of technology-based international entrepreneurship in emerging context," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 111-142, March.
    17. Suurs, Roald A.A. & Hekkert, Marko P. & Kieboom, Sander & Smits, Ruud E.H.M., 2010. "Understanding the formative stage of technological innovation system development: The case of natural gas as an automotive fuel," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 419-431, January.
    18. Antonio Adrián Arciénaga Morales & Janni Nielsen & Hernán Alberto Bacarini & Silvia Irene Martinelli & Sergio Takeo Kofuji & Juan Francisco García Díaz, 2018. "Technology and Innovation Management in Higher Education—Cases from Latin America and Europe," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-34, April.
    19. Abu-Hussain Jamal & Oleg Tilchin, 2019. "A Model of Adaptive Accountability for Innovations in an Academic Institution," Business and Management Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 5(1), pages 68-75, March.
    20. Giulia Nardelli, 2017. "Innovation dialectics: an extended process perspective on innovation in services," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 31-56, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    User-producer interaction; demand articulation; interactive learning; emerging innovations;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O14 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Industrialization; Manufacturing and Service Industries; Choice of Technology

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wsi:ijimxx:v:12:y:2008:i:03:n:s1363919608001984. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijim/ijim.shtml .

    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.