J. Eng. Technol. Manage.

37 (2015) 4051

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Engineering and Technology

Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jengtecman

The search for innovative partners in co-creation:

Identifying lead users in social media through
netnography and crowdsourcing
Alexander Brem a,*, Volker Bilgram b
a
University of Southern Denmark, Mads Clausen Institute, Alsion 2, 6400 Snderborg, Denmark
b
RWTH Aachen University, TIME Research Area, Kackertstr. 7, 52072 Aachen, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Despite the extensive literature on the benets of netnography and crowdsourcing for
Received 18 February 2014 insight and idea generation, little research has been conducted on their practical relevance
Received in revised form 18 August 2015 and application for identifying lead users. We address this gap through an analysis of 24
Accepted 20 August 2015
lead user projects investigating the viability, underlying processes, and main differences of
Available online 9 September 2015
these new search strategies. We argue that both methods justify the signicant
investments by additionally providing a user-centric basis for subsequent ideation
Keywords:
sessions with lead users. Our ndings contribute to user innovation literature by
Lead user
Social media demonstrating new ways of identifying these highly valuable users in the social media age.
Netnography 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Crowdsourcing
User innovation

1. Introduction

In the rst decade of the 21st century, companies began systematically capitalizing on creative and knowledgeable users
by applying co-creation methods. Top Coder, for example, orchestrates a two-sided market enabling a match-making
between software programmers and companies to solve IT-related problems (Lakhani et al., 2010). The new car
manufacturer Local Motors (King and Lakhani, 2013) manages a globally dispersed community of car enthusiasts to facilitate
distributed product innovation in one of the most complex technology-driven industries. The development of the rst car
series Rally Fighter was realized in 18 months, and was accomplished by choreographing over 25,000 engineers from
122 different countries. In 2012, BMW and Local Motors teamed-up to create ideas for premium cars suitable for the urban
environment of the future. Parallel to tapping the creativity of Local Motors, BMW had established a crowdsourcing
community for ideation tasks, which has since grown to more than 4500 members (Bartl et al., 2010). Therefore, the Internet
provides companies access to a vast number and variety of users for a new way to innovate: as brand fans on a companys
Facebook or Instagram page, as consumers in communities of interest, as user innovators who blog about their self-made
solutions, or as followers on Twitter and other social media sites.
Lead users are valuable partners in innovation, however, they are difcult to recruit. With the rise of social media, new
search options like crowdsourcing and netnography came into being. Although social media provides an expansive platform
for users easily accessible by companies, new mechanisms for lead user search have been widely neglected in research.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: brem@mci.sdu.dk (A. Brem), bilgram@time.rwth-aachen.de (V. Bilgram).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.08.004
0923-4748/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 A. Brem, V. Bilgram / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 37 (2015) 4051 41

Particularly, strategies to identify these rare, leading edge users in the environment of social media have not been sufciently
addressed. Hence, we address this research gap by evaluating emergent search routines. Our focus is on two fairly new social
media based search approaches, netnography and crowdsourcing. Companies heavily have relied on both approaches for
gaining insights, framing innovation opportunities and generating user-centric product ideas. However, although both
methods involve leading-edge consumers and point out unique need and solution information, researchers and companies
alike have only marginally directed their attention to the vantages of both approaches for the lead user search. In our case
study, we analyze a sample of 24 lead user projects which were conducted by a specialized consulting company in a wide
variety of industries and in total involved 188 lead users. We investigate the viability for lead user search of both approaches,
highlight differences, and depict the underlying processes. We also describe the barriers to a more widespread application of
netnography and crowdsourcing and provide theoretical and managerial implications. Finally, we detail opportunities for
further research.

2. Literature overview

The integration of external actors into companies innovation processes has been widely applied to complement internal
innovation efforts and a key topic for innovation management researchers (Horn and Brem, 2013). The transformation
toward an open innovation paradigm has been facilitated by digital and social technologies, and has signicantly altered the
sources and management of innovation. User innovation researchers have challenged the traditional assignment of roles for
rms and users and caused a reconsideration of marketing science (Bogers et al., 2010). Past innovation logic assumes that
rms create value that is then extracted by users, distinguishing between production and consumption (von Hippel, 1988;
Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000). In contrast to this traditional understanding of marketing, Vargo and Lusch (2008) claim
that [t]he customer is always a co-creator of value (p. 7). For example, a company does not deliver value but offers value
propositions to customers. Consequently, the distinction between producer and consumer roles in the market is now blurred
at any point of interaction.

2.1. User innovation and the lead user concept

Users are a valuable source of innovation who can surpass professional producers (von Hippel, 1986; Bogers et al., 2010).
For example, according to von Hippel et al. (2011), 6.1% of the UK population consists of consumer innovators. Furthermore,
the aggregated investments of UK users on consumer product development equal 144% of R&D expenditures on consumer
products by all commercial companies in the UK. Even in R&D-intensive countries, such as the US, investments in innovation
by users amount to 33% of commercial entities (von Hippel et al., 2011).
Inbound open innovation, i.e., obtaining innovations from individuals outside the company, was identied as the key eld
of open innovation research (West and Bogers, 2014). One of the central questions in this domain concerns the identication
of innovative, knowledgeable, and skilled individuals with whom companies can co-create. Dening the characteristics of
innovative users is a crucial factor for the success of distributed innovation (von Hippel, 1988; Lilien et al., 2002; Bogers and
West, 2012).
Considering three decades of user innovation research, lead users are the archetypal user innovators. Drawing on
observations of the user innovation phenomenon, von Hippel (1978, 1986) developed the lead user method, which
systematically recruits the right users and actively integrates them in the co-ideation of products. Lead users are positioned
to create innovative products as they are ahead of market trends. Moreover, they will likely benet from solutions and are
thus motivated to innovate (von Hippel, 1986).
Since lead users are rare subjects (von Hippel et al., 2009, p. 1397) and identifying them is an intricate process (Olson and
Bakke, 2001; Luthje and Herstatt, 2004), researchers are eager to investigate the search for these high caliber partners in
innovation (Ernst et al., 2013). Lead user search is also the most time consuming phase in the study of lead user projects. Two
major aspects of lead user search have been addressed to improve search effectiveness and efciency: (1) the lead user
characteristics (Schreier and Prugl, 2008), i.e. who to search for and (2) the search methods (von Hippel et al., 2009; Belz and
Baumbach, 2010; Tietz et al., 2006) applied, i.e. how to search for lead users.
While the literature on user innovation primarily focuses the users perspective and the benets that can be realized from
using innovation, research on co-creation also draws attention to the commercial benets companies can reap from selling
user-generated product innovations (Jeppesen and Lakhani, 2010; Sawhney et al., 2005). Evidence indicates that users vary
widely regarding their innovative capabilities. User characteristics are heterogeneous in aspects such as the progressiveness
of their need information, their skills and knowledge, or the extent to which they benet from a solution (von Hippel, 2005;
Fuller, 2010). To create disruptive products, lead users have become the co-creators of choice. von Hippel (1988) proposed
that lead users who are ahead of the majority of the market in terms of needs and who benet tremendously from better
solutions are most apt to propel innovation activities. Normal customers are primarily helpful in providing need information
as they have limited capability to disregard existing thought patterns and create disruptive innovations (von Hippel, 1986).
Lilien et al. (2002) found empirical proof that lead user projects are more successful than conventional innovation projects
that rely on internal resources. Luthje (2004) and Hienerth et al. (2007) found that innovative users are distinct from normal
users by certain qualities. For example, innovative users have been found to expect high benets from using a solution and
are further away from the considered market, i.e. they are from analogous markets.
42 A. Brem, V. Bilgram / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 37 (2015) 4051

Fig. 1. Four-step process of the lead user method (Luthje and Herstatt, 2004, p. 561).

Based on the four-step lead user process introduced by Luthje and Herstatt (2004) (see Fig. 1), Ernst et al. (2013)
presented an overall conceptual framework for the integration of social media applications into lead user management. For
each step of the lead user process, the most appropriate social media tools to support the main tasks and types of interactions
are described. Depending on the goal of the lead user project and the level of internal or external cooperation, different
instruments are recommended. Blogs, wikis, and microblogs are especially suitable for interaction with lead users (Bilgram
et al., 2008). While extant research describes important ways to manage and collaborate lead users via social technologies,
it has not been sufciently studied how these technologies can help nd lead users.
However, lead users are not necessarily the primary choice for companies. Nambisan and Baron (2007) and Nambisan
and Nambisan (2008) emphasize that users have different roles in various stages in new product development that require
a different set of characteristics and skills. Subject to the innovation task, specic user types with certain characteristics
may be particularly valuable co-creators. For example, market research involving customers as product testers to evaluate
market potential is one of the oldest disciplines of customer integration. Traditional market research focuses on those
customers who reect a companys target group as best to evaluate the commercial potential of incremental innovations
(von Hippel, 1986). Consequently, numerous user concepts have been developed that focus on special types of users for
specic purposes. Among other user types, brand ambassadors are recruited for co-marketing purposes (Bilgram et al.,
2013), interpreters for foresight and the denition of new meanings (Verganti, 2008), and market mavens for purchase
decisions (Feick and Price, 1987). Research indicates that such external sources can develop more successful solutions than
internal staff. For example, user-generated products have a higher survival rate than designer-generated products
(Nishikawa et al., 2013).

2.2. Lead user identication

A key challenge in harnessing user innovation is nding the right partners for a given task in an efcient way. Several
studies show that the identication of lead users is the most difcult and time-consuming phase of this method (Olson and
Bakke, 2001; Luthje and Herstatt, 2004). Multiple search strategies have been developed, ranging from screening (Urban
and von Hippel, 1988), to pyramiding (von Hippel et al., 2009), and to signaling (Tietz et al., 2006). To implement screening, a
predened population or a representative sample is screened for individuals who meet a certain prole via a questionnaire.
To nd lead users, the screened sample must be sufciently large. The pyramiding search is a more targeted approach
that reduces the considerable effort of the screening method. Through networking and following a chain of user
recommendations, the search gets closer to identifying lead users at each step. This strategy is effective as people who have
a strong interest in a topic tend to know people with higher levels of expertise (Lilien et al., 2002). In contrast to the active
selection of lead users, the signaling approach relies on the self-selection of users (Tietz et al., 2006). By advertising for
lead users in real-world or virtual places, companies can analyze user responses and evaluate their lead user potential. The
signaling process has parallels to a public call for proposals. Typically, only parties who have a sincere interest and are
capable of competing both in terms of quality and price respond to the invitation.
Inspired by the upsurge of new technologies and social media applications, researchers began to revise the search for lead
users (Piller and Walcher, 2006; Bilgram et al., 2008; Eisenberg, 2011; Mahr and Lievens, 2012). Both lead user
characteristics and search methods are impacted by social media. Online communities, blogs, and social media sites were
found to be the natural habitat for lead users (Bilgram et al., 2008; Lakhani et al., 2010), implying that companies should focus
their search efforts for lead users on virtual worlds. Bilgram et al. (2008) suggest that a high level of online activity in relevant
communities of interest may be a prerequisite for lead users. Online communities are often a meeting place for the global elite
of leading-edge users searching for solutions to satisfy their advanced needs. Fuller et al. (2007) found that innovative users
also generate creative ideas and reveal them in online communities.
 A. Brem, V. Bilgram / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 37 (2015) 4051 43

To optimize the search for lead users, researchers have also investigated additional characteristics of lead users. For
example, lead users demonstrate stronger opinion leadership and a high internal locus of control (Schreier and Prugl, 2008;
Schreier et al., 2007). Further, lead user criteria can be assessed signicantly easier in social media. Users tend to articulate
detailed needs in discussions with fellow consumers, making it easier to identify users with extreme needs. Additionally,
users with future-oriented, rare needs are able to nd and connect with globally dispersed, like-minded users. This helps
identify future needs and the corresponding lead users. Social media also offers new ways to comprehensively scrutinize the
solution information and creative skills of users as they often share their ideas or designs online (Fuller et al., 2007). By
assessing user-generated content, lead users can be identied based on their behavior, which is more reliable than
conducting a lead user search based on self-assessment via questionnaires.
Enabled by social technologies, companies use an array of methods, such as crowdsourcing (Boudreau and Lakhani, 2013),
co-creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Sawhney et al., 2005; Fuller et al., 2010), and netnography (Kozinets, 2002), to
exploit user knowledge and creativity. Crowdsourcing is one of the major trends in user and organizational research.
Especially in the context of related concepts such as crowdfunding, this research stream is no longer attracting attention in
practice only, but in theory as well (Tomczak and Brem, 2013). Consequently, the process and tool dimension (i.e., how to
co-create) has taken center stage whereas the people dimension (i.e., with whom to co-create) is somewhat neglected.
Nevertheless, some of the tools originally designed to serve other purposes, such as consumer insight and idea generation,
have proved to be valuable for lead user search.

2.3. Netnography and crowdsourcing in lead user research

Based on the rising impact of social media, new forms of lead user recruiting have evolved. Originally applied for gaining
consumer insights and ideating, the netnography method and crowdsourcing idea contests have been increasingly used to
identify lead users (Belz and Baumbach, 2010; Belz and Silvertant, 2009). As a byproduct of approaches originally focused on
insight and idea generation (Piller and Walcher, 2006), netnography and crowdsourcing have become veritable approaches
for lead user search.
Belz and Baumbach (2010) examined the potential of netnography in the search for lead users. Netnography, which was
originally designed to explore consumer needs and derive consumer insights, applies ethnographic research principles to the
online environment. Following Fuller et al. (2007), we dene netnography as the empathic approach of qualitatively
analyzing publicly accessible data from user conversations in online communities and social media to derive consumer
insights. Instead of collecting data (e.g., via surveys or focus groups), netnography uses the abundance of consumer
conversations in social media. In online communities of interest, users meet like-minded users, post product reviews,
express their needs and concerns, and exchange possible solutions to shared problems (Kozinets, 2002). By analyzing and
aggregating this massive amount of consumer data, researchers can derive insights and use them as starting points to create
user-centric products. The researcher passively listens to the conversations without inuencing them (Belz and Baumbach,
2010). Thus, the methodology allows for unbiased and unaltered information. Additionally, user anonymity on the Internet
creates an environment where users reveal their opinions about sensitive topics, which is information that is difcult to
obtain through traditional market research methods.
In contrast to the passive approach of netnography, crowdsourcing is the use of information technologies by a host (e.g.,
company, individual, organization) to outsource business tasks (Prpic et al., 2015). We follow Prpics et al. (2015) suggested
framework that is comprised of two dimensions to specify the type of crowdsourcing most relevant to lead user
identication. In the rst dimension, the framework refers to the type of contributions needed to achieve a goal. One type of
crowdsourcing initiative requests concrete solutions for a specic problem or task. The contributions are objective and fact-
based. Contrarily, another type of crowdsourcing initiative requests subjective contributions that are required to execute
tasks that revolve around users individual opinions, tastes, or beliefs. We concentrate on crowdsourcing initiatives with
subjective contributions, such as crowdsourcing idea contests. In the second dimension, the framework highlights the
importance of processing these contributions. While some crowdsourcing initiatives derive outcomes from aggregating
contributions (e.g., votes), others achieve better results by ltering the contributions (e.g., nding the best ideas or
solutions). The latter holds true for idea contests for which only a few submissions (i.e., the winners of the contest) are
considered helpful. In the search for lead users, we are particularly interested in crowdsourcing using the ltering approach
since only the best submissions indicate lead user potential.
Piller and Walcher (2006) nd that the identication of lead users is a promising byproduct of online idea generation
contests. In their case study, Adidas used an online toolkit to detect users who contribute creative ideas and consider
them for future lead user co-creation. A similar approach by BMW was documented by Tietz et al. (2006) to nd lead users in
their Customer Innovation Lab, a virtual place for users to create ideas. An open call on the Internet attracts user attention and
creates a self-selection effect to recruit the users most suited and motivated to participate in an innovation challenge.
As summarized in Table 1, netnography differs from crowdsourcing in several respects. First, each methodology has
different primary purposes. Netnography serves as a consumer insights approach whereas crowdsourcing is designed to
collect consumer ideas. Although both approaches utilize online communities, netnography capitalizes on the data, i.e. user
conversations, publicly available in the natural communities often created and maintained by users. In contrast, idea
contests using crowdsourcing are conducted in a rm-initiated community especially established for ideation. A second
fundamental difference is the type of interaction taking place in these communities. While the netnography method revolves
44 A. Brem, V. Bilgram / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 37 (2015) 4051

Table 1
Comparison of netnography- and crowdsourcing-based lead user search.

Netnography Crowdsourcing

Primary goal of the method  Understanding consumers  Collecting innovative ideas

 Gaining insights  Getting inspiration
Type of community Permanent, user driven communities aiming for a (Mostly) temporary, company-led communities
conversational exchange aiming for collaboration
Company role Observer Interactor, moderator
Type of interaction User-to-user conversations led by the community Company-to-user interaction in the following
in the community moderator format: open call for ideas by rm idea
submission by user feedback by rm iterative
renements by user
Characteristics of  Users who have common interests and needs  Skilled users attracted by the innovation
community members  Users seeking specic solutions to their needs challenge
 Users who like to connect with like-minded  Users with a passion for solving problems
people  Users with a need or passion for idea
 High level of intrinsic motivation communication
 Brand fans
 Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
Indicators of lead userness  Good articulation of advanced needs ! future  High-quality ideas ! creativity, knowledge, and
needs design skills
 Persistent search for solutions and trial-and-error  Strong articulation of advanced needs in idea
experiments ! high benet from solution description ! future needs
 Free sharing of self-designed solutions !  Positive feedback and high evaluations of the
creativity and knowledge idea(s) by the community ! good t with a
 Constructive contributions to conversations ! relevant need
conversational skills  Constructive feedback for others ideas ! true
 Empathic participation in conversations ! social interest in the topic and conversational skills
skills
Assessment of lead userness  Passive observation and analysis of consumer  Evaluation of submitted ideas
conversations and user-generated content  Analysis of user comments
 Proling of users through data collection  Analysis of user statistics and network centrality
 Analysis of user statistics
Required resources  Time range of two to six weeks  Time range of eight to twelve weeks (live phase
 Main cost factor is time for analysis (manual four to eight weeks)
reading)  Main cost factor is recruiting participants,
community management, and ltering ideas
Methodological advantages  Unobtrusive analysis without bias through asking  Submitted ideas reveal real innovative behavior
questions and skills of users
 Easy identication of the top 1% of active users  Self-selection mechanism saves time
 Availability of a long history of user activities in  The best ideas are a valid proxy for lead user
the community potential and are easy to identify
 Context-rich information, i.e., needs embedded in  High probability of nding concrete product ideas
extensive real-life context

around user-to-user conversations, crowdsourcing focuses on users submitted ideas. In the crowdsourcing context, the rm-
user relationship initiated by an open call for ideas causes an iterative exchange relationship of submitting ideas, gaining
feedback, and rening ideas, which is the basis of the lead user assessment. Thus, different indicators or proxies for lead user
potential can be applied to each of the two methods. With regard to netnography, expressed needs, the search for solutions,
and trial-and-error experiments are strong indicators of a participants lead user status. Crowdsourcing discovers lead users
by ltering the best ideas and analyzing their creators.
Both approaches have methodological advantages that facilitate the search for lead users. Netnography uses unobtrusive
observation and does not bias users by asking them screening questions. Users have natural conversations about their
interests and these users usually have a history of previous posts that can also be analyzed. Additionally, netnography helps
trace lead users and uncover the analog markets, trends, and need information used to rene lead user proles and search
locations. In most communities, a 9091 rule applies to the user structure: 90% of users are inactive lurkers, 9% contribute to
the community, and 1% account for the major share of activity in the community (Nielsen, 2006). Due to user statistics
accessible in most communities, the relevant 1% can be easily detected. The observatory approach of netnography also
allows for a stealth search that does not require public exposure.
The most convincing advantage of crowdsourcing is that lead user identication is based on actual innovative behavior,
i.e., the ideas submitted by users. Further, voting indicates the best ideas and only minor effort is required to evaluate the top
ideas. The method is also efcient as it makes use of the self-selection effect once it is broadcasted to a large number of users.
Additionally, crowdsourcing builds a valuable community of motivated and innovative users, which can be capitalized for
future projects.
Despite the potential of crowdsourcing and netnography, little research has been conducted on the practical relevance
and application of these new search strategies. Hence, we ll this gap through an empirical analysis of both tools. Our goal is
 A. Brem, V. Bilgram / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 37 (2015) 4051 45

Fig. 2. Realization possibilities of the lead user method.

to investigate their viability, the underlying processes, and main differences. We also describe the barriers that impede a
more widespread application of netnography and crowdsourcing as search tools for lead users.

3. Methods

To investigate new forms of lead user search in social media, we conducted an exploratory single embedded case study
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2009). Such research provides a deeper understanding of singularities that may occur throughout
many studies (Yin, 2009; Eisenhardt, 1989). According to the current state of research and to the best knowledge of the
researchers, no earlier empirical research has been conducted focusing on netnography and crowdsourcing for lead user
search. In reference to Yin (2009), the case study approach is the preferred method as the following three conditions apply to
our research. First, questions asking how and why are the main focus of the research. Second, the investigator has little or
no control over behavioral events. Third, this research will gain insights into the operational settings of the phenomenon.
A single embedded case study was chosen because the researched company is an extreme or unique case (Yin, 2009,
p. 47). Following Barlow and Hersen (1984), we apply replication logic to strengthen the reliability and generalizability of the
ndings in single cases. To gain deeper insight into the application of netnography and crowdsourcing for lead user
identication, our research is grounded in application data from lead user workshops in companies. Existing literature only
informs about the application of the lead user method in cooperation with organizations within the public sector and other
public/cross-sector organizations such as universities that conduct lead user workshops for research purposes. This is in line
with the nding that, to date, sourcing knowledge for innovation has focused on direct industryuniversity links, whereas
little is known about the role of consultants and private research organizations in innovation systems (Tether and Tajar,
2008). Except for 3M (von Hippel et al., 1999), no evidence exists of companies that conduct lead user projects on their own.
Churchill et al. (2009) proposed that companies executing the method for the rst time should seek training and coaching
from consultants who have expertise and experience using the lead user method. More recently, Eisenberg (2011) and
Diener and Piller (2010) reported that lead user projects are executed by consultants or so called Open Innovation
Accelerators (OIA). Consequently, the lead user method can be realized in different ways such as in cooperation with
intermediaries or internally (see Fig. 2). Within the group of intermediaries, the lead user method can be further
distinguished between the private sector, in which consultants such as OIAs act, and the public sector, to which academic
institutions belong.
The chosen research subject in this case study is the INNO-AGENT,1 a German OIA. The company has gained profound
knowledge and experience of the lead user method through accomplishing multiple lead user projects since the early 2000s,
making it a unique case. Furthermore, the subsequent case study adopts an embedded case study design because the
24 different lead user projects are subunits of the analysis (Yin, 2009). The projects are analyzed regarding their duration,
recruiting and composition of participants, lead user backgrounds, success, and frequency of cross-linked projects. A mix of
quantitative and qualitative evidence is used for this case study. To establish triangulation, the case study is based on
multiple sources of information (Voss et al., 2002; Yin, 2009). First, INNO-AGENT provided anonymized project

1
The name has been changed.
46 A. Brem, V. Bilgram / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 37 (2015) 4051

documentations. Second, anonymized data on the 24 projects and their 188 lead users was retrieved and analyzed. Third,
expert interviews were conducted to gain knowledge about the lead user method in theory and practice, as well as verify and
enrich ndings from the data analysis of the sample. Both Expert I and II hold a PhD degree and were concerned with the lead
user method during their occupation as scientic assistants. Expert I and III have been working for INNO-AGENT since
2008 and have been in charge of several lead user projects. Expert II has been part of this team since 2010. In total, three
guided interviews were conducted based on a semi-structured interview guideline, which each lasted between 45 min and
three hours. The expert interviews were taped and transcribed directly following the interviews, thus enabling an accurate
documentation. The method of structured content analysis was employed to analyze the qualitative data gained through the
expert interviews. Therefore, a category system has been developed to code and paraphrase relevant information. The coded
content was then classied, aggregated, and summarized within the categories (Mayring, 2008). Finally, a draft of the report
was sent to INNO-AGENT to obtain feedback.
Since 2006, INNO-AGENT has conducted 24 lead user projects with 17 companies. As displayed in Table 2, the companies
are from various industries and of different size. Three companies conducted more than one lead user project in the period
considered. One company in the consumer durables and apparel industry conducted three lead user projects. Another
company in the telecommunication services industry realized two lead user projects. The most experienced company in
terms of lead user co-creation was in the household and personal products industry and conducted ve lead user projects.

4. Results

As stated in the literature, the lead user search phase is the primary phase in a lead user project and requires the highest
investment of time. Based on the descriptive results of the case study, the lead user search has a mean time investment of
8.5 man-days. Thus, the phase of lead user identication is the most time intensive phase (N = 20), however with a high
standard deviation of 2.7. In comparison, the trend search has a mean time investment of 2.7 man-days with a standard
deviation of 1.5 (N = 13). Hence, these results conrm the time investment as described in previous research.

4.1. Netnography and crowdsourcing for lead user search

In a sample of 24 lead user projects, we found that 12 projects employed at least one of the two lead user search methods
in addition to conventional search strategies. In instances where the OIA relied on the netnography and crowdsourcing
methods to recruit lead users, the following processes were followed.

Table 2
Overview of research subjects.

Project Year Industry Annual revenue Applied lead user search strategy
(MEUR)

1 2006 Automobiles and Components 50,001100,000 Screening, pyramiding, signaling

2 2006 Consumer Durables and Apparel 5011000 Screening, pyramiding
3 2008 Telecommunication Services 10015000 Pyramiding
4 2008 Technology Hardware and Equipment 10015000 Screening, pyramiding, signaling
5 2008/2009 Consumer Durables and Apparel 5011000 Screening, pyramiding
6 2009 Consumer Durables and Apparel 5011000 Screening, pyramiding
7 2010 Household and Personal Products 500110,000 Screening, pyramiding, netnography
8 2010 Insurance 101500 Screening, pyramiding, netnography
9 2010 Telecommunication Services 10015000 Screening, pyramiding, signaling
10 2010 Food, Beverage and Tobacco 10015000 Screening, pyramiding, netnography
11 2010/2011 Consumer Durables and Apparel 101500 Pyramiding
12 2010/2011 Household and Personal Products 500110,000 Screening, pyramiding, signaling, netnography,
moderated online discussion
13 2011 Household and Personal Products 500110,000 Screening, pyramiding, signaling, netnography
14 2011 Household and Personal Products 500110,000 Screening, pyramiding, netnography (follow-up
project with the same core group of lead users
and some additional lead users, as in 7C)
15 2011 Telecommunication Services 500110,000 Screening, pyramiding, signaling, netnography
16 2011 Automobiles and Components >100,000 Screening, pyramiding, signaling, moderated
online discussion
17 2011/2012 Household and Personal Products 500110,000 Screening, pyramiding, netnography (follow-up
project with the same core group of lead users
and some additional lead users, as in 14C)
18 2011/2012 Health Care Equipment and Services 10015000 Screening, pyramiding, signaling
19 2012 Transportation 10015000 Crowdsourcing
20 2012 Technology Hardware and Equipment 500110,000 Screening, pyramiding
21 2012 Household and Personal Products 51100 Screening
22 2012 Telecommunication Services 50,001100,000 Netnography, crowdsourcing
23 2012 Household and Personal Products 10,00150,000 Screening, pyramiding, signaling, netnography
24 2012 Automobiles and Components 10015000 Screening, pyramiding, signaling, netnography
 A. Brem, V. Bilgram / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 37 (2015) 4051 47

INNO-AGENT selected a passive observation-only research design that refrained from direct interaction with consumers
following Fuller et al. (2007). In the rst step, search elds and specic search strings are dened based on the trend elds
identied for the lead user project. The search elds serve as a starting point for the identication of relevant online
communities. In the course of the search activities, the search elds are constantly revised and supplemented by new search
elds in an inductive way. Iterative search inquiries using a meta-search engine help rank the most relevant online
communities. The selection of communities is then analyzed, rened, and further reduced considering a set of quality
indicators such as the level of activity in the community, length of threads, and the quality of conversations. Data, i.e. the
conversations among consumers, are downloaded and qualitatively analyzed by a software program. This step was the most
manpower intensive part of the netnography process. The code system was used to analyze the data for both insight
generation and lead user search. For example, code categories may refer to the user characteristics or the degree of the
novelty of articulated needs or classify solution information shared by users. The analysis of conversations is linked to user
statistics on activity and membership status, which allows for a more user-centric evaluation of the content. The
identication of lead users is based on three-folded ndings relating to (1) need information (e.g., advanced needs),
(2) solution information (e.g., ideas or solutions to discussed problems), and (3) user information (e.g., characteristics such as
activity and creativity). Finally, a structured test of lead user potential via telephone interviews is carried out to verify the
results of the netnography.
The process of crowdsourcing begins with a denition of the innovation challenge to be broadcasted as an open call for
ideas. Challenges can encompass several sub-challenges, which are derived from current need gaps and trends identied as
relevant to the lead user project (see Fig. 1). For the next step, the crowdsourcing platform is conceptualized and established.
The most resource intensive step is the seeding, activation, and management of the crowdsourcing community. In particular,
nding social media sites and possible opinion leaders to spur participation is challenging. Over a period of six to eight
weeks, users submit their ideas and evaluate and enrich the ideas of other participants. After the live phase, the submitted
ideas, comments, and evaluations are analyzed and clustered. Based on the analysis of the submitted ideas and the user
statistics, potential lead users are identied and interviewed to ensure lead user potential.

4.2. The application of traditional methods for lead user search

In our sample of 24 lead user projects, the traditional methods, i.e., screening, pyramiding, and signaling, remained the
most frequently applied search strategies. In most of the 24 lead user projects, INNO-AGENT employed a combination of
screening, pyramiding, and signaling to identify lead users. In 22 projects, companies relied on at least one of the three
methods and in 13 projects, traditional search approaches were used exclusively. Table 2 provides a detailed overview of the
applied search methods in the lead user projects.

4.3. Challenges with conventional search strategies

Despite their widespread use, traditional search strategies confront companies with certain challenges. For example, for
screening a sample size of up to 2000 people is recommended. Simultaneously, decreasing response rates ascribed to
survey-fatigue by the interviewees make screening even more challenging. In practice, it is difcult to identify a large
sample and provide the questionnaire to a sufcient number of people. Furthermore, lead users are more uncommon in
large online panels. Therefore, screening is more time consuming and complicated than pyramiding. However, asking for
individuals who may be even better suited than the actual interviewee has been mentioned as one the most pressing issues
occurring in the course of pyramiding search. When asking interviewees for recommendations of other experts, an
experienced interviewer must handle this delicate question appropriately. Additionally, the dilemma of whether to reveal
the company searching for lead users is often undesirable for companies according to the INNO-AGENT. On the one hand,
transparent and open communication helps build user trust and increases success rates in the recruiting process.
Contrarily, strong and appealing brands may elicit a more biased self-presentation from interviewees, especially from
brand fans. Thus, revealing the company behind may aggravate the assessment of lead user potential. The search strategy of
signaling requires the intricate task of acquiring permission to conduct signaling in public places and online communities.
Community administrators often have strict rules against any form of commercial posts or advertisements, which also
includes posting questionnaires.
The interviews with senior project leaders reveal that the main reason for relying on traditional search approaches was
the signicantly higher effort necessary to use netnography or crowdsourcing. Nevertheless, even traditional search
methods are tailored to the new digital world. When companies apply a pyramiding search, outstanding users in the online
community are used as additional starting points to initiate snowball sampling in addition to the personal network. Users
with a relatively high level of articulated needs and competence and who are well connected to other community members
are valuable informants in a recommendation-based search for lead users. Social media has also changed the screening
search approach, which is usually performed via a digital questionnaire. Before a screening survey can be posted, relevant
communities must be identied. Both pyramiding and screening in social media also feature elements of a signaling search.
The combination of screening and signaling was used in 10 out of the 24 observed cases. A brief invitation to complete a
screening survey and a short innovation task are posted in selected communities and in the most relevant sub-forums of a
community. Even though netnography was fully performed only in nine lead user projects, netnographic principles, in
48 A. Brem, V. Bilgram / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 37 (2015) 4051

particular the unobtrusive empathic approach of observing conversations, were applied in each of the 24 lead user projects.
Rather than focusing on understanding consumers, exploring need gaps, and deriving need patterns, a netnography-based
search for lead users is concentrated on identifying the communities where potential lead users most likely exist. Within
these selected communities, netnographic analysis then targets the characteristics of the community members or identies
promising forums to start a screening or signaling search.

4.4. The application of social media based lead user search

In 12 of the 24 cases, lead users were recruited by new, social media-based search methods. In support of previous
research that has applied these methods in university-led lead user projects (Piller and Walcher, 2006; Tietz et al., 2006; Belz
and Baumbach, 2010), our case study revealed that innovative search strategies are used at a considerable extent in practice.
Netnography was utilized in 45% of the cases to support conventional lead user search strategies and also in combination
with crowdsourcing idea contests. Crowdsourcing was only deployed in two cases when users were invited to contribute
their ideas in an open call. Moderated online discussions over several days were conducted using research communities in two
projects. Research communities offer a variety of digital research modules, such as discussions, diaries, congurators, and
polls, to interact with consumers. Up to 100 users are invited to participate in a guided dialog to answer questions and
collaboratively work on tasks so lead users can be selected from the pool of participants.
Even though the identication of lead users was a key aspect, all social media based search strategies aimed to generate
insights (netnography and research communities) or ideas (crowdsourcing). Crowdsourcing and netnography are
techniques with individual purposes and thus incur additional costs. Belz and Baumbach (2010) estimate that an
experienced researcher may conduct a netnography search in two to four full weeks, which corresponds to signicant extra
costs. Based on our expert interviews, these search strategies are not necessarily economically viable. Therefore, it is
irrational to use these methods solely for the identication of lead users. The experts acknowledged that a social media-
based lead user search should be a byproduct of gaining insights or creating ideas. When embedded in a more holistic
co-creation process, however, lead user search can signicantly benet from the indirect effects of insight or idea generation.
While the lead user method is often described as a standalone innovation project in literature, we found that often lead user
projects are deeply integrated and interwoven in an innovation process. Thus, frequently there have been consumer insight
or ideation sessions before a lead user project and, if orchestrated well, new forms of lead user search can be embedded in
these pre-projects.

5. Discussion and implications

Social media is omnipresent in lead user searches regardless of whether traditional or more innovative approaches are
applied. For the lead user theory, this fundamental change in the way users communicate and interact has several
implications. This discussion covers both aspects of lead user search that were introduced earlier in this paper: lead user
characteristics (Schreier and Prugl, 2008), i.e. who to search for, and the search methods (von Hippel et al., 2009; Belz and
Baumbach, 2010; Tietz et al., 2006) applied, i.e. how to search for lead users.

5.1. Lead user search process

In reference to the typical process of a lead user project, which was introduced by Luthje and Herstatt (2004) (see Fig. 1),
we nd that netnography and crowdsourcing may be apt to support the second step of identifying needs and trends. Both
methods may also help integrate the third step of lead user identication. The more profound and elaborate the identied
needs (see phase 2 in Fig. 1) are, the easier it is to nd lead users in the following step. Against the background of the resource
intensive application of netnography and crowdsourcing, this is an important factor to decide which method to use.
Additionally, the extensive pool of ideas from crowdsourcing serves as an abundant source of inspiration for subsequent lead
user workshops (see phase 4 in Fig. 1).
Although social media based search strategies further blur the stages within the lead user process, they link lead user
projects to phases of the corporate innovation process. Most prominently, consumer insights research, which takes place
prior to ideation, may merge with lead user research. Our research underscores that trend and need identication and the
search for lead users are conducted increasingly in parallel and intertwined streams. By applying several iterative search
steps, both search streams provide insights that may inspire and enrich the other stream. For instance, an advanced need
identied during netnography research may be integrated into the lead user prole. Conversely, a lead user may submit
an idea that addresses an unknown need and thus encourages a company to consider a potential need gap.

5.2. Lead user characteristics

The conceptualization of lead user characteristics occurred in the 1980s. Since then, radical cultural changes in terms
of communication and social behavior have taken place. Being active in social media has become a prerequisite for lead
users in the digital era. Often, consumers rely on shared knowledge forums, question and answer sites, or Wikipedia. In
our case study we found that potential lead users who do not show substantial activity in online communities are quite
 A. Brem, V. Bilgram / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 37 (2015) 4051 49

often rather characterized as experts rather than lead users. Even though these experts have tremendous knowledge and
strong reputations, they usually lack a critical lead user criterion. Their needs in the considered trend elds are not
particularly extreme compared to other users. Hence, they do not benet as greatly from a solution and have different
motives for participation, e.g. networking, fun or monetary compensation. This indicates that lead user characteristics
have not changed, but have become manifest in a new set of behaviors, such as participation in online communities. For
lead user search, this implies that there are new indicators and potentially more effective ways of assessing lead user
potential. Hence, our insights add to lead user theory by highlighting how lead user characteristics should be
reconsidered. Specically, lead user characteristics must be operationalized according to the cultural changes triggered
by social media.
As Stock et al. (2015) recently report, utilitarian user motives positively inuence the utility of the developed solution,
and in contrast, hedonic user motives positively affect the novelty of the solution. Hence, it is very important that users
experience fun and joy while serving as lead users in innovation projects. In online communities, the source of data for
netnographic analyses, as well as in crowdsourcing systems users benet from the sense of community for enhancing their
creativity: the ow-like experience when creating ideas and the recognition from like-minded peers for ideas and thoughts
they shared. Hence, these environments have become a reinforcing breeding ground for user innovation enhancing process
benets and turning the journey into the reward (Raasch and von Hippel, 2013).
Our study results also have some managerial implications. Namely, the results show that a holistic planning of
co-creation research projects is critical. Netnography and crowdsourcing do not justify their efforts when employed for
the sole purpose of lead user identication, as both methods are resource intensive. Strategically combining these
methods in the earlier trend and market analysis phase improves the potential for the later ideation phase. Hence, the
primary goals of netnography and crowdsourcing should be integrated in the full lead user project or the corporate
innovation process. Subsequently, both methods can become more than just lead user search strategies and can spur
consumer insight generation and co-ideation respectively. First, crowdsourcing inspires ideas that can be integrated in
the following lead user ideation session. Second, netnography improves the understanding of consumers and derives
the consumer insights that are an ideal foundation for consumer-centric ideation. Therefore, both methods should
have an increasing role in user innovation research as tools for both identifying lead users and for insight and idea
generation.
Finally, ethical questions revolving around the potential exploitation of lead users by these practices have not been
adequately discussed in user innovation research. This is surprising considering the recent awareness of concepts such as
Responsible Research in Innovation (RRI). It is not sufcient to rely on the argument that lead users voluntarily participate in
innovation projects and prot from co-created solutions themselves, since such people typically have a certain tendency
toward voluntary work for companies. However, while lead users do not directly participate in the commercial success, they
benet from their participation and the solutions that are generated. In essence, responsible development must involve the
early engagement of users, which contributes to an increased awareness of RRI, particularly with a higher technology
assessment (Grunwald, 2007; Van den Hoven et al., 2014). Hence, user integration in technologies at early stages is likely to
mitigate any plausible societal risks and ethical issues related to innovation created by lead users. As Franke et al. (2013)
state: potential contributors not only want a good deal, they also want a fair deal (p. 1495).

6. Limitations and further research

The research of this paper was undertaken through the detailed analysis of 24 different lead user projects within a single
embedded case study. Against this background, several limitations and opportunities for future research arise. Even though
there was a structured process of identifying appropriate research subjects, lead user projects by additional OIAs were not
compared. If such data were available, the results would become more robust and generalizable. Moreover, information
about the success of the lead user workshops was not included because several innovation projects were still ongoing. Such
information would provide interesting insights into lead user success dynamics. Future researchers might draw on a jury
assessment or actual revenues generated from selling the product to evaluate product ideas or make the idea evaluation an
integral part of the crowdsourcing campaign. Furthermore, future quantitative research may provide the basis for a
structured comparison of OIA lead user workshops and the appropriate methods used in this core phase. Moreover, the
researched OIA was based in Europe, so results may differ from patterns in North America or Asia. In this context, we expect
different results, as research on cultural differences in new product development indicates (Brem and Freitag, 2015). Last but
not least, the interesting track of distributed fairness as well as procedural fairness (Franke et al., 2013) should play an
important role in lead user research. Accordingly, future researchers should also consider the ethical aspects of lead user
research in more detail.

References

Barlow, D.H., Hersen, M., 1984. Single Case Experimental Designs: Strategies for Studying Behavior Change, 2nd ed. Pergamon Press, New York.
Bartl, M., Jawecki, G., Wiegandt, P., 2010. Co-creation in new product development: conceptual framework and application in the automotive
industry. In: Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference, Manchester.
Belz, F.-M., Baumbach, W., 2010. Netnography as a method of lead user identication. Creat. Innov. Manag. 19 (3), 304313.
50 A. Brem, V. Bilgram / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 37 (2015) 4051

Belz, F.-M., Silvertant, S., 2009. Idea competition: a method to identify lead users? The case of fast moving consumer goods. In: 38th EMAC
Conference, Nantes.
Bilgram, V., Brem, A., Voigt, K.-I., 2008. User-centric innovations in new product development: systematic identication of lead users harnessing
interactive and collaborative online-tools. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 12 (3), 419458.
Bilgram, V., Fuller, J., Koch, G., Rapp, M., 2013. The potential of crowdsourcing for co-marketing: how consumers may be turned into brand
ambassadors. Transf. Werbeforsch. Prax. 59 (4), 4248.
Bogers, M., West, J., 2012. Managing distributed innovation: strategic utilization of open and user innovation. Creat. Innov. Manag. 21 (1), 6175.
Bogers, M., Afuah, A., Bastian, B., 2010. Users as innovators: a review, critique and future research directions. J. Manag. 36 (4), 857875.
Boudreau, K., Lakhani, K.R., 2013. Using the crowd as an innovation partner. Harv. Bus. Rev. 91 (4), 6169.
Brem, A., Freitag, F., 2015. Internationalization of new product development: results from a multiple case study on companies with innovation
processes in Germany and India. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 14 (4), 1550010-11550010-32.
Churchill, J., von Hippel, E., Sonnack, M., 2009. Lead User Project Handbook: A Practical Guide for Lead User Project Teams. Cambridge and
Minneapolis: Lead User Concepts, Inc.
Diener, K., Piller, F.T., 2010. The Market for Open Innovation Increasing the Efciency and Effectiveness of the Innovation Process. Lulu Company.
Eisenberg, I., 2011. Lead-user research for breakthrough innovation. Res. Technol. Manag. 54 (1), 5058.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14 (4), 532551.
Ernst, M., Brem, A., Voigt, K.I., 2013. Innovation management, lead-users, and social mediaintroduction of a conceptual framework for integrating
social media tools in lead-user management. In: Olivas-Lujan, M.R., Bondarouk, T. (Eds.), Social Media in Strategic Management, Advanced Series
in Management, 11. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd, pp. 169195.
Feick, L.F., Price, L.L., 1987. The market maven: a diffuser of marketplace information. J. Mark. 51 (January), 8397.
Franke, N., Keinz, P., Klausberger, K., 2013. Does This Sound Like a Fair Deal?: antecedents and consequences of fairness expectations in the
individuals decision to participate in rm innovation. Organ. Sci. 24 (5), 14951516.
Fuller, J., 2010. Rening virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective. Calif. Manag. Rev. 52 (2), 98122.
Fuller, J., Hutter, K., Faullant, R., 2010. Why co-creation experience matters: creative experience and its impact on the quantity and quality of creative
contributions. R&D Manag. 41 (3), 259273.
Fuller, J., Jawecki, G., Muhlbacher, H., 2007. Innovation creation by online basketball communities. J. Bus. Res. 60 (1), 6071.
Grunwald, A., 2007. Converging technologies: visions, increased contingencies of the conditio humana, and search for orientation. Futures 39,
380392.
Horn, C., Brem, A., 2013. Strategic directions on innovation management a conceptual framework. Manag. Res. Rev. 36 (10), 930954.
Hienerth, C., Potz, M., von Hippel, E., 2007. Exploring key characteristics of lead user workshop participants: who contributes best to the generation
of truly novel solutions. In: DRUID Summer Conference 2007, Copenhagen.
Jeppesen, L.B., Lakhani, K.R., 2010. Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organ. Sci. 21 (SeptemberOctober), 10161033.
King, A., Lakhani, K.R., 2013. Using open innovation to identify the best ideas. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 55 (1), 4148.
Kozinets, R.V., 2002. The eld behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities. J. Mark. Res. 39 (1), 6172.
Lakhani, K.R., Garvin, D.A., Lonstein, E., 2010. TopCoder (A): Developing Software Through Crowdsourcing. Harvard Business School.
Lilien, G.L., Morrison, P.D., Searls, K., Sonnach, M., von Hippel, E., 2002. Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new
product development. Manag. Sci. 48 (8), 10421059.
Luthje, C., 2004. Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods eld: an empirical study of sport-related product consumers. Technovation
24 (9), 683695.
Luthje, C., Herstatt, C., 2004. The lead user method: an outline of empirical ndings and issues for future research. R&D Manag. 34 (5), 553568.
Mahr, D., Lievens, A., 2012. Virtual lead user communities: drivers of knowledge creation for innovation. Res. Policy 41 (1), 167177.
Mayring, P., 2008. Qualitative Inhaltanalyse Grundlagen und Techniken (Qualitative Content Analysis). Beltz Verlag, Weinheim.
Nambisan, S., Baron, R.A., 2007. Interactions in virtual customer environments: implications for product support and customer relationship
management. J. Interact. Mark. 21 (2), 4262.
Nambisan, S., Nambisan, P., 2008. How to prot from a better Virtual Customer Environment. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 49 (3), 5361.
Nielsen, J., 2006. Participation Inequality: Encouraging More Users to Contribute. Available at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.
html (accessed 05.07.15).
Nishikawa, H., Schreier, M., Ogawa, S., 2013. User-generated versus designer-generated products: a performance assessment at Muji. Int. J. Res. Mark.
30 (2), 160167.
Olson, E.L., Bakke, G., 2001. Implementing the lead user method in a high technology rm: a longitudinal study of intentions versus actions. J. Prod.
Innov. Manag. 18 (6), 388395.
Piller, F.T., Walcher, D., 2006. Toolkits for idea competitions: a novel method to integrate users in new product development. R&D Manag. 36 (3),
307318.
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 2000. Co-opting customer competence. Harv. Bus. Rev. 78 (1), 7987.
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 2004. Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. J. Interact. Mark. 18 (3), 514.
Prpic, J., Shukla, P.P., Kietzmann, J.H., McCarthy, I.P., 2015. How to work a crowd: developing crowd capital through crowdsourcing. Bus. Horiz. 58 (1),
7785.
Raasch, C., von Hippel, E., 2013. Innovation process benets: the journey as reward. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. (Fall), 3339.
Sawhney, M., Verona, G., Prandelli, E., 2005. Collaborating to create: the Internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation.
J. Interact. Mark. 19 (4), 417.
Schreier, M., Oberhauser, S., Prugl, R., 2007. Lead users and the adoption and diffusion of new products: insights from two extreme sports
communities. Mark. Lett. 18 (12), 1530.
Schreier, M., Prugl, R., 2008. Extending lead-user theory: antecedents and consequences of consumers lead userness. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 25 (4),
331346.
Stock, R.M., Oliveira, P., Hippel, E., 2015. Impacts of hedonic and utilitarian user motives on the innovativeness of user developed solutions. J. Prod.
Innov. Manag. 32 (3), 389403.
Tether, B.S., Tajar, A., 2008. Beyond industryuniversity links: sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and
the public science-base. Res. Policy 37 (67), 10791095.
Tietz, R., Fuller, J., Herstatt, C., 2006. Signaling: an innovative approach to identify lead users in online communities. In: International Mass
Customization Meeting 2006, Hamburg.
Tomczak, A., Brem, A., 2013. A conceptualized investment model of crowdfunding. Venture Capital 15 (4), 335359.
Urban, G.L., von Hippel, E., 1988. Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Manag. Sci. 34 (5), 569582.
Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2008. Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36 (1), 110.
Verganti, R., 2008. Design, meanings, and radical innovation: a metamodel and a research agenda. J. Prod. Innov. Manag 25 (5), 436456.
Van den Hoven, M.J., Doorn, N., Swierstra, T., Koops, B.-J., Romijn, H. (Eds.), 2014. Responsible Innovation Volume 1: Innovative Solutions for Global
Issues. Springer, Dordrecht.
von Hippel, E., 1978. A customer-active paradigm for industrial product idea generation. Res. Policy 7 (3), 240266.
von Hippel, E., 1986. Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Manag. Sci. 32 (7), 791805.
von Hippel, E., 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford.
von Hippel, E., 2005. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge.
 A. Brem, V. Bilgram / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 37 (2015) 4051 51

von Hippel, E., Franke, N., Prugl, R., 2009. Pyramiding: efcient search for rare subjects. Res. Policy 38 (9), 13971406.
von Hippel, E., Thomke, S., Sonnack, M., 1999. Creating breakthroughs at 3M. Harv. Bus. Rev. 77, 4757.
von Hippel, E., Ogawa, S., de Jong, J., 2011. The age of the consumer-innovator. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 53 (1), 2735.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., Frohlich, M., 2002. Case research in operations management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22 (2), 195219.
West, J., Bogers, M., 2014. Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on open innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 31 (4), 814831.
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage.