@article{Thomke.2002,
        title = {Customers as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value},
        author = {Stefan Thomke and Eric Von Hippel},
        journal = {Harvard Business Review},
        number = 4,
        pages = {74-81},
        volume = 80,
        year = 2002,
        abstract = {Product R&D at many companies is a major bottleneck. The difficulty is that fully understanding the needs of just a single customer can be an inexact and costly process--to say nothing of the needs of all customers or even groups of them. In the course of studying product innovation across many industries, authors Stefan Thomke and Eric von Hippel have found several companies that have adopted a completely new, seemingly counterintuitive, approach to product R&D. Essentially, these companies have abandoned their efforts to understand exactly what products their customers want; instead, they equip customers with tool kits to design and develop their own products. Doing so can create tremendous value, but capturing that value is hardly a simple or straightforward process. Not only must a company develop the right tool kit, but it must also revamp its business models and management mind-set. When companies relinquish a fundamental task--such as designing a new product--to customers, the two parties must redefine their relationship, and this change can be risky. With custom computer chips, for instance, companies traditionally captured value by both designing and manufacturing innovative products. With customers taking over more of the design, companies must now focus more on providing the best custom manufacturing. In other words, the location where value is created and is captured changes, and companies must reconfigure their business models accordingly. This article offers basic principles and lessons for industries undergoing such transformations. ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER Copyright of Harvard Business Review is the property of Harvard Business School Publication Corp. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts)
Product R&D at many companies is a major bottleneck. The difficulty is that fully understanding the needs of just a single customer can be an inexact and costly process--to say nothing of the needs of all customers or even groups of them. In the course of studying product innovation across many industries, authors Stefan Thomke and Eric von Hippel have found several companies that have adopted a completely new, seemingly counterintuitive, approach to product R&D. Essentially, these companies have abandoned their efforts to understand exactly what products their customers want; instead, they equip customers with tool kits to design and develop their own products. Doing so can create tremendous value, but capturing that value is hardly a simple or straightforward process. Not only must a company develop the right tool kit, but it must also revamp its business models and management mind-set. When companies relinquish a fundamental task--such as designing a new product--to customers, the two parties must redefine their relationship, and this change can be risky. With custom computer chips, for instance, companies traditionally captured value by both designing and manufacturing innovative products. With customers taking over more of the design, companies must now focus more on providing the best custom manufacturing. In other words, the location where value is created and is captured changes, and companies must reconfigure their business models accordingly. This article offers basic principles and lessons for industries undergoing such transformations. ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER Copyright of Harvard Business Review is the property of Harvard Business School Publication Corp. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts)},
	biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2b5b8df7c12093363e43993b041698b46/callagialla},
	keywords = {adoptionRESEARCH addedCUSTOMIZATIONMARKETING CONSUMERS' -- & preferencesMANAGEMENT productsVALUE ResearchNEW designINNOVATION strategyPARTNERINGPRODUCT development}
}

@article{Henard.2001,
        title = {Why Some New Products Are More Successful Than Others},
        author = {David H. Henard and David M. Szymanski},
        journal = {Journal of Marketing Research (JMR)},
        number = 3,
        pages = {362-375},
        volume = 38,
        year = 2001,
        abstract = {Product innovation is increasingly valued as a key component of the sustainable success of a business's operations. As a result, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of studies directed at explicating the drivers of new product success. To help managers and researchers synthesize this growing body of evidence, the authors conduct a meta-analysis of the new product performance literature. Of the 24 predictors of new product performance investigated, product advantage, market potential, meeting customer needs, predevelopment task proficiencies, and dedicated resources, on average, have the most significant impact on new product performance. The authors also find that the predictor-performance relationships can vary by measurement factor (e.g., the use of multi-item scales, subjective versus objective measures of performance, senior versus project management reporting, time elapsed since product introduction) or contextual factor (e.g., services versus goods, Asian versus North American markets, competition in high-technology versus low-technology markets). They discuss the implications of these findings and offer directions for further research.},
	biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/29deaeaa2271f10761771eb01a28cfac0/callagialla},
	keywords = {researchNEW managementMETA-analysis MARKETING productsPRODUCT}
}

@article{Ali.1993,
        title = {Selecting Product Development Projects: Pioneering versus Incremental Innovation Strategies},
        author = {Abdul Ali and Manohar U. Kalwani and Dan Kovenock},
        journal = {Management Science},
        number = 3,
        pages = {255-274},
        volume = 39,
        year = 1993,
        issn = {0025-1909},
	abstract = {In this paper, we investigate project selection choices of duopolists facing two alternatives: undertaking a "pioneering" type project (Type A) aimed to develop a highly innovative product, or an "incremental innovation" type project (Type B) aimed to develop a less innovative product such as the modification of an existing product. A key objective of our research is to examine how firm characteristics such as their differential efficiencies in completing projects, differences in the degree of substitutability between Type A and B products, and first mover advantages affect product development strategies. We develop a game-theoretic model to obtain insights into the project selection problem taking into account competitive reactions to a firm's choice of project development strategies and technical uncertainties associated with project completion times. We report model findings on recommended project selection strategies for efficient and disadvantaged firms. Further, we examine how a firm's choice of a Type A project is affected by an increase in the variance of the project completion time of a Type A project relative to that of a Type B project, while the ratio of their mean completion times is held constant. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR Copyright of Management Science is the property of INFORMS: Institute for Operations Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts)
In this paper, we investigate project selection choices of duopolists facing two alternatives: undertaking a "pioneering" type project (Type A) aimed to develop a highly innovative product, or an "incremental innovation" type project (Type B) aimed to develop a less innovative product such as the modification of an existing product. A key objective of our research is to examine how firm characteristics such as their differential efficiencies in completing projects, differences in the degree of substitutability between Type A and B products, and first mover advantages affect product development strategies. We develop a game-theoretic model to obtain insights into the project selection problem taking into account competitive reactions to a firm's choice of project development strategies and technical uncertainties associated with project completion times. We report model findings on recommended project selection strategies for efficient and disadvantaged firms. Further, we examine how a firm's choice of a Type A project is affected by an increase in the variance of the project completion time of a Type A project relative to that of a Type B project, while the ratio of their mean completion times is held constant. ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR Copyright of Management Science is the property of INFORMS: Institute for Operations Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts)},
	biburl = {http://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/22a756cdee771532c15eb9556d5aa7833/callagialla},
	keywords = {managementMARKET BUSINESS researchNEW planningCOMPETITIONMARKETING productsMARKETINGPRODUCT orientation}
}