Research Article
Consumer integration in sustainable product development
Esther Hoffmann,
Corresponding Author
Esther Hoffmann
Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung (IÖW) gGmbH, Institute for Ecological Economy Research, Berlin, Germany
Head of Research Field Corporate Environmental Management, Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung (IÖW) gGmbH, Institute for Ecological Economy Research, Potsdamer Strasse 105, 10785 Berlin, GermanySearch for more papers by this authorEsther Hoffmann,
Corresponding Author
Esther Hoffmann
Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung (IÖW) gGmbH, Institute for Ecological Economy Research, Berlin, Germany
Head of Research Field Corporate Environmental Management, Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung (IÖW) gGmbH, Institute for Ecological Economy Research, Potsdamer Strasse 105, 10785 Berlin, GermanySearch for more papers by this authorAbstract
Changes in production and consumption patterns are a crucial element of the sustainability agenda. Communication between product developers and users, and user integration in product development, can serve as a means for organizational as well as individual learning processes, resulting in sustainable product development. Recent approaches to innovation research describe the role of users in the innovation process as essential. However, conventional market research gives consumers a passive role as a mere object of research instead of considering them as possible innovators themselves. Improved methods, such as INNOCOPE (innovating through consumer-integrated product development), tested in this study with a cycle manufacturer and resulting in a new product, a pedelec, are needed for effective communication, activating consumers and enabling them to promote sustainability goals. Through co-operative product development processes key factors facilitating and obstructing the adoption of sustainable innovations may be identified. Such processes can enhance the emergence and diffusion of sustainable product innovations and different forms and bodies of knowledge can be combined. Integrating users' contextual everyday knowledge of the product with the technical knowledge of companies may lead to mutual learning, technical innovations and changes in consumer behaviour. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
REFERENCES
- Berthoin Antal A, Krebsbach-Gnath C. 2001. Consultants as agents of organizational learning: the importance of marginality. In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge M Dierkes, A Berthoin Antal, J Child, I Nonaka (eds). Oxford University Press: Oxford. 462–483.
- Berthoin Antal A, Lenhardt U, Rosenbrock U. 2001. Barriers to organizational learning. In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge M Dierkes, A Berthoin Antal, J Child, I Nonaka (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 865–885.
- Böhling K. 2005. Organizational Learning in a Supranational Organization. The Impact of Boundary Spanning Activities, dissertation. Technische Universität Berlin Fakultät VII – Architektur Umwelt Gesellschaf: Berlin.
- Brockhoff K. 1997. Wenn der Kunde stört – Differenzierungsnotwendigkeiten bei der Einbeziehung von Kunden in die Produktentwicklung. In Marketingorientierte Unternehmensführung: Reflexionen – Denkanstöße – Perspektiven M Bruhn, H Steffenhagen (eds). Gabler: Wiesbaden. 353–370.
- Brockhoff K. 1998. Der Kunde im Innovationsprozess. Berichte aus den Sitzungen der Joachim-Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften e.V. Hamburg 16(3): 3–34.
- Christensen CM, Bower JL. 1996. Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal 17: 197–218.
- Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ. 1986. An investigation into the new product process: steps, deficiencies, and impact. Journal of Product Innovation Management 3: 71–85.
- Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ. 1995. Benchmarking the firm's critical success factors in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 12: 374–391.
- Coopey J. 1995. The learning organisation, power, politics and ideology. Management Learning 26(2): 193–213.
- Danneels E. 2003. Tight–loose coupling with customers: the enactment of customer orientation. Strategic Management Journal 24: 559–576.
- De Brentani U. 1989. Success and failure in new industrial services. Journal of Product Innovation Management 6: 239–258.
- Douthwaite B, Keatinge JDH, Park JR. 2000. Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption. Research Policy 30: 819–836.
- Dwyer L, Mellor R. 1991. New product process activities and project outcomes. R&D Management 21(1): 31–42.
- Engelbrektsson P. 2002. Effects of product experience and product representations in focus group interviews. Journal of Engineering Design 13(3): 215–221.
- Grabowski H, Geiger K (eds). 1997. Neue Wege zur Produktentwicklung. Raabe: Stuttgart.
- Gruner K, Homburg C. 1999. Innovationserfolg durch Kundeneinbindung. Eine empirische Untersuchung. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft – Ergänzungsheft 1: 119–142.
- Hansen U, Raabe T. 1987. Konsumentenbeteiligung an der Produktentwicklung als Form des Dialogs zwischen Unternehmen und Verbrauchern. In Konsumentenbeteiligung an der Produktentwicklung, U Hansen, T Raabe, I Schoenheit (eds). Universität Hannover–Stiftung Verbraucherinstitut: Berlin. 1–22.
- Hansen U, Raabe T. 1991. Konsumentenbeteiligung an der Produktentwicklung von Konsumgütern. Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft 61(2): 171–194.
- Heiskanen E, Kasanen P, Timonen P. 2004. Consumer Participation in Sustainable Technology Development. National Consumer Research Centre: Helsinki.
- Henard DH, Szymanski DM. 2001. Why some new products are more successful than others. Journal of Marketing Research 38(3): 362–375.
- Herstatt C. 1991. Anwender als Quellen für die Produktinnovation. ADAG Administration & Druck: Zürich.
- Herstatt C, Hippel Ev. 1992. From experience: developing new product concepts via the lead user method. A case study in a ‘low-tech’ field. Journal of Product Innovation Management 9: 213–221.
-
Herstatt C, Lüthje C, Lettl C. 2003. Fortschrittliche Kunden zu Breakthrough-Innovationen stimulieren. In Management der frühen Innovationsphasen C Herstatt, B Verworn (eds). Gabler: Wiesbaden. 57–71.
10.1007/978-3-322-96471-7_4 Google Scholar
- Hippel Ev. 1976. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy 5: 212–239.
- Hippel Ev. 1986. Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32(7): 791–805.
- Hippel Ev. 1998. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press: New York.
-
Hoffmann E. 2006a. Multi-stakeholder approaches to product development. In Governance of Integrated Product Policy. In Search of Sustainable Production and Consumption, D Scheer, F Rubik (eds). Greenleaf: Sheffield. 277–299.
10.9774/GLEAF.978-1-909493-58-2_20 Google Scholar
- Hoffmann E. 2006b. Participatory development of climate-friendly products. In European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, KM Ekström, H Brembeck (eds). Association for Consumer Research: Provo, Utah. 237–243.
- Huber GP. 1991. Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science 2(1): 88–115.
- Jelsma J. 1999. Huishoudelijk energiegebruik: Beter gedrag door beter beter ontwerpen – een aanzet tot een integrale benadering. Enschede. Universiteit Twente.
- Jelsma J. 2001. Design of Behaviour Steering Technology. International Summer Academy on Technology Studies: Deutschlandsberg.
- Keller RT, Holland WE. 1975. Boundary spanning roles in a research and development organization: an empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal 18(2): 388–393.
- Keller RT, Szilagyi AD, Holland WE. 1976. Boundary spanning activity and employee reactions. Human Relations 29(7): 699–710.
- Keppler M. 1987. Der Dialog zwischen Verbraucher und Hersteller als Chance für die Optimierung des Marktgeschehens. In Konsumentenbeteiligung an der Produktentwicklung, U Hansen, T Raabe, I Schoenheit (eds). Universität Hannover, Hannover. 92–99.
- Kerlen C. 2003. Problemlos beraten? Die Problemdefinition als Startpunkt organisationalen Lernens. Sigma: Berlin.
- Kohn S, Niethammer R. 2002. Aufgabengerechte Kundeneinbindung im Innovationsprozess. Digitale Fachbibliothek ‘Das innovative Unternehmen’ December: Chapter 03.18.
- Kreuz P, Förster A. 2003. Erfolgsfaktor Innovation: Neue Leistungsangebote gemeinsam mit Kunden entwickeln. Advanced Innovation: Wien.
- Kroode T, Zee V. 2001. Demos: genererende en toetsingsmethoden voor consumentgerichte productontwikkeling. Novem: Utrecht.
- Leifer R, Delbecq A. 1978. Organizational/environmental interchange: a model of boundary spanning activity. Academy of Management Review 3(1): 40–50.
- Lester RK, Piore MJ, Malek KM. 1998. Interpretive management: what general managers can learn from design. Havard Business Review March/April: 86–96.
-
Lüthje C. 2000. Kundenorientierung im Innovationsprozess. Gabler: Wiesbaden.
10.1007/978-3-322-83433-1 Google Scholar
- Maidique MA, Zirger BJ. 1984. A study of success and failure in product innovation: the case of the U.S. electronics industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 31(4): 192–203.
- Mishra S, Kim D, Lee DH. 1996. Factors affecting new product success: cross-country comparisons. Journal of Product Innovation Management 13: 530–550.
- Mohr J, Spekman R. 1994. Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication, behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal 15: 135–152.
- Murphy SA, Kumar V. 1997. The front end of new product development: a Canadian survey. R&D Management 27(1): 5–14.
- Nonaka I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5(1): 14–37.
- Ornetzeder M, Rohracher H. 2003. User-led innovations, participation processes and the use of energy technologies. In ECEEE 2003 Summer Study – Time to Turn Down Energy Demand, St. Raphael.
- Ornetzeder M, Rohracher H. 2004. Nutzer und Nutzerinnen als Innovatoren. Selbstbau als Gruppen der Innovationsstrategie? Soziale Technik 1: 3–5.
- Ornetzeder M, Rohracher H, Suschek-Berger J. 2003. Partizipative Technikgestaltung und nachhaltige Entwicklung. Eine sozialwissenschaftliche Analyse. Klagenfurt, Institut für Interdisziplinäre Forschung und Fortbildung (IFF), Abteilung Technik- und Wissenschaftsforschung, Projektbericht, Projekt im Auftrag des Jubiläumsfonds der Österreichischen Nationalbank.
- Parry ME, Song XM. 1994. Identifying new product successes in China. Journal of Product Innovation Management 11: 15–30.
- Peters K. 1987. Formen der Konsumentenbeteiligung an Prozessen der Produktentwicklung in der qualitativen Marktforschung. In Konsumentenbeteiligung an der Produktentwicklung, U Hansen, T Raabe, I Schoenheit (eds). Universität Hannover, Hannover. 100–119.
-
Pitta D, Franzak F. 1996. Boundary spanning product development in consumer markets: learning organization insights. Journal of Consumer Marketing 13(5): 66–81.
10.1108/07363769610130891 Google Scholar
-
Quist JN, Knot M, Young W, Green K, Vergragt PJ. 2001. Strategies towards sustainable households using stakeholder workshops and scenarios. International Journal of Sustainable Development 4(1): 75–89.
10.1504/IJSD.2001.001547 Google Scholar
- Raabe T. 1987. Ziele und Voraussetzungen des Dialogs bei Unternehmen. In Konsumentenbeteiligung an der Produktentwicklung, U Hansen, T Raabe, I Schoenheit (eds). Universität Hannover, Hannover. 155–163.
- Raabe T. 1993. Konsumentenbeteiligung an der Produktinnovation. Campus: Frankfurt.
- Raabe T. 1996. Produktentwicklung im Dialog mit Konsumenten. In Marketing im gesellschaftlichen Dialog, U Hansen (ed.). Campus: Frankfurt/Main. 267–280.
- Reichart SV. 2002. Kundenorientierung im Innovationsprozess. Die erfolgreiche Integration von Kunden in den frühen Phasen der Produktentwicklung. Deutscher Universitätsverlag: Wiesbaden.
- Reinicke T. 2004. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Nutzerintegration in der Produktentwicklung: Eine Systematik zur Anpassung von Methoden der Nutzerintegration, doctoral thesis. Technische Universität Berlin Fakultät V – Verkehrs- und Maschinensysteme: Berlin.
- Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J. 1995. Constructive technology assessment: a new paradigm for managing technology in society. In Managing Technology in Society. The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, A Rip, TJ Misa, J Schot (eds). Pinter Publishers: London. 1–12.
-
Rogers EM. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press: New York.
10.1002/1520-6297(198624)2:4<501::AID-AGR2720020412>3.0.CO;2-G Google Scholar
- Rohracher H. 1999. Zukunftsfähige Technikgestaltung als Soziale Innovation. In Paradoxien der Innovation D Sauer, C Lang (eds). Campus: Frankfurt; 175–192.
- Rohracher H, Ornetzeder M. 2002. Intelligent and Green? Nutzerzentrierte Szenarien für den Einsatz von I&K-Technologien in Wohngebäuden unter dem Gesichtspunkt ihrer Umwelt- und Sozialverträglichkeit, 26/2002. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie, Berichte aus der Energie- und Umweltforschung: Wien.
- Rothwell R, Freeman C, Horlsey A, Jervis VTP, Robertson AB, Townsend J. 1974. SAPPHO updates – project SAPPHO phase II. Research Policy 3: 258–291.
- Schot J. 1999. Constructive Technology Assessment Comes of Age. The Birth of a New Politics of Technology. Proceedings of International Summer Academy on Technology Studies: Technology Studies and Sustainability. Interuniversitäres Forschungszentrum für Technik, Arbeit und Kultur: Graz.
- Schot J, Rip A. 1997. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54: 251–268.
- Slater SF, Narver JC. 1995. Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing 59: 63–74.
- Souder WE, Buisson D, Garrett T. 1997. Success through customer-driven new product development: a comparison of U.S. and New Zealand small entrepreneurial high technology firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 14: 459–472.
- Thompson JD. 1962. Organizations and output transactions. The American Journal of Sociology 67: 309–324.
- Thompson JD. 1967. Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill: New York.
- Thompson JD, McEwen WJ. 1958. Organizational goals and environment: goal-setting as an interaction process. American Sociological Review 23: 23–31.
- Udwadia FE, Kumar KR. 1991. Impact of customer coconstruction in product/service markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 40: 261–272.
- Urban GL, Hippel EV. 1988. Lead user analysis for the development of new industrial products. Management Science 34(5): 569–582.
- van Est R, Van Eijndhoven JCM, Aarts W, Loeber A. 2002. The Netherlands: seeking to involve wider publics in technology assessment. In Participatory Technology Assessment. European Perspectives, S Joss, S Bellucci (eds). Center for the Study of Democracy: London. 108–125.
- Väyrynen E, Kivisaari S, Lovio R. 2002a. Ilmastomyötäisten innovaatioiden juurruttaminen, VTT Tiedotteita Research Notes 2175. Espoo, Finland.
- Väyrynen E, Kivisaari S, Lovio R. 2002b. Societal embedding of innovations related to renewable energies and energy saving. In Technology and Climate Change (Climtech) Programme – Final Report, Technology Programme Report 14/2002, S Soimakallio, I Savolainen (eds). Finnish National Technology Agency (Tekes): Helsinki. 235–244.
- Weller I. 2001. Ökologie im Alltag. Wahrnehmung und Bewertung der Gestaltungsmacht privater KonsumentInnen. In Ökonomische Bewertungen in gesellschaftlichen Prozessen. Macht – Markt – Diskurs, W Elsner, A Biesecker, K Grenzdörffer (eds). Centaurus: Herbolzheim. 241–255.
- Zahn E, Komes N, Walfort R. 1995. Status der Markt- und Kundenorientierung in Innovationsprozessen. Eine Analyse auf Basis einer repräsentativen Umfrage in Unternehmen des Maschinenbaus und der elektrotechnischen Industrie. Diebold Deutschland: Eschborn.
- Zimbardo PG. 1988. Psychology and Life. Scott, Foresman: Glenview, IL.
