basketball tmp

8/2/2019 Basketball TMP

1/12

Innovation creation by online basketball communities

Johann Fller, Gregor Jawecki 1, Hans Mhlbacher1

Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism; Innsbruck University School of Management, Universittsstrasse 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria

Received 1 August 2006; received in revised form 1 September 2006; accepted 1 September 2006

Abstract

This article investigates joint-development activities within online consumer groups. While research on user-innovations within communitiesexists for open source software as well as for emerging extreme sports like kite-surfing or rodeo kayaking in offline contexts, this study focuses on

innovation activities within online consumer communities for basketball shoes, a physical consumer product in a mature market. The research

shows that a small number of consumers are highly creative and possess sufficient domain specific skills and motivation to develop new

innovative basketball shoes. While many community members state their experiences and problems with existing shoe models, those actively

participating in joint-innovation activities tend to be driven by excitement rather than by pure need for product improvement. The high quality and

variety of innovations, and general willingness of community members to share their ideas with producers, lead to the discussion of how to

integrate creative online communities into a company's innovation process.

2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Innovation; Online community; Consumer goods; Knowledge creation; Virtual consumer integration; New product development

1. Introduction

Examples of commercially successful consumer goods likethe

snowboard (Shah, 2000) and the rodeo kayak (Hienerth, 2004a)

as well as numerous empirical studies (e.g., Von Hippel, 2005)

demonstrate that consumers are highly innovative and often

develop new products. Consumers rarely innovate in isolation,

but rather in cooperation with like-minded people acquain-

tances, colleagues, and friends who bring in additional know-

how and offer active support necessary for transforming an idea

into a product (Franke and Shah, 2003; Von Hippel, 2005).

Online communities centering on common shared hobbies

attract innovative consumers (e.g., Kozinets, 1999; Lynn et al.,1997; McAlexander et al., 2002; McWilliam, 2000; Sawhney

and Prandelli, 2000; Verona et al., 2004). The consumers'

motivation is to use the Internet to exchange use experiences

with latest equipment and to share their ideas for product

modifications or entirely new developments. As onlineconsumer groups represent a large pool of relating product

know-how, such groups are a promising source of innovations

(Morrison et al., 2004; Verona et al., 2004).

While in-depth analyses of the development of open source

software (OSS) (e.g., Butler et al., 2002; Hemetsberger and

Pieters, 2001; Lakhani and Wolf, 2003; Von Krogh, 2003),

computer games in online communities (e.g., Jeppesen and

Molin, 2003; Prgl and Schreier, 2004), and the development of

physical consumer goods in offline communities, especially for

emerging sports without a dominant equipment design (Franke

and Shah, 2003; Lthje, 2004; Lthje et al., 2002; Shah, 2000),

already exist, to the authors knowledge, so far, no empiricalstudy has considered physical product development in online

communities as a subject for analysis.

As innovation creation, like knowledge creation, depends on

context, expanding on the possible differences is worthwhile.

Offline innovation communities in the sporting goods industry

and online communities developing software differ in two di-

mensions: the medium used (offline vs. online), and the product

(tangible vs. intangible) that is created. In sports like

windsurfing, enthusiasts jointly develop new or modify existing

products and test their advanced products directly (Von Hippel,

2001). In OSS projects, users with different skill levels

Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 60 71

The authors thank Eric von Hippel for his important and very helpful

suggestions for improving earlier versions of this article. Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 512 507 7201; fax: +43 512 507 2842.

E-mail addresses: [email protected](J. Fller),

[email protected] (G. Jawecki), [email protected]

(H. Mhlbacher).1 Tel.: +43 512 507 7201; fax: +43 512 507 2842.

0148-2963/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.019
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.019http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.019mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/12

voluntarily contribute to collaborative software administered on

the Internet. As software consists of intangible code, software is

easy to produce and distribute via the Internet. Members of

OSS communities benefit almost immediately from their

innovation activities by using the newly developed software.

In contrast, physical products can neither be produced nor

distributed virtually. At best, joint development activities oftangible products on the Internet may result in animated virtual

models, manuals and 3D-data that allow the members to make a

physical product. Further, tangible products, especially in

advanced markets (e.g., cars, mobile phones, TVs, basketball

shoes, or skis), often consist of several components and in-

corporate complex technologies. Hence such products require

investments in production capabilities which normally lie

beyond the reach of consumer communities (Fller and

Schmidt-Gabriel, 2003; Von Hippel, 2002). Consequently, cre-

ative members of online communities which develop physical

products will hardly ever be able to immediately benefit from

using their innovation.Despite the challenges, several scholars underline the

innovative potential of online communities for consumer pro-

ducts (e.g., Kozinets, 2002; McWilliam, 2000; Prahalad and

Ramaswamy, 2004; Sawhney et al., 2003). For example, in the

virtual caf alt.coffee, devoted coffee connoisseurs share their

ideas and thoughts about how to improve coffee machines and

bean roasters in order to enjoy the optimal coffee experience

(Kozinets, 1999, 2002). Another popular example of an

innovative online community is the Harley-Owners-Group

www.hog.com. Members of this online community dedicated to

Harley Davidson motorcycles discuss and demonstrate concepts

for individualized motorbikes and accessories and the producer

Harley Davidson later includes the users' ideas in the devel-opment process (McWilliam, 2000). For almost every product

category (e.g., wines, cameras, and cars), hobby (e.g., rock

climbing, music, and chess), or life situation (e.g., retirement,

diseases, and pregnancy), online communities exist which re-

present a large pool of product know-how and consumption

experience.

Despite the recognition of the innovative potential of online

consumer groups for new product development (Kozinets,

2002; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Verona et al., 2004), so

far, little is known about the phenomenon of joint innovation

creation in online consumer groups. Building from the pro-

mising examples found in literature, this study provides deeperinsights into:

(1) the quality and quantity of ideas innovated by consumers

on the Internet,

(2) the reasons that drive individuals to jointly innovate in

online communities,

(3) the process through which innovations emerge, and

(4) the community members' willingness to share their ideas

with inquiring companies.

The next two sections are a review of relevant literature on

innovation and knowledge creation in communities and a de-

scription of the research method applied for this study. Fol-

lowing this is a presentation of the findings on joint innovation

creation activities in online basketball communities, a discus-

sion of the findings and an outline of the possible implications

on virtual integration of online community members into a

company's innovation process.

2. Innovation creation in communities

Insights into the process and motives of innovation creation

within online communities derive from several streams of

literature.

2.1. User innovation communities

In user innovation communities, members actively discuss

provided ideas, offer possible solutions, further elaborate and

test them, or just give their opinion. User innovators get in

contact with their friends, peer group members, relatives, and

acquaintances to look for complimentary knowledge and skillsneeded to realize their new product ideas (Von Hippel, 2005,

2002). The confrontation with an innovator's new product,

discussing the proposal, and providing feedback create a com-

mon understanding about the innovation new common

knowledge emerges (Hienerth, 2004b; Sawhney and Prandelli,

2000). Through the ongoing dialogue the innovator is

constantly challenged. The innovator may rethink the proposed

idea with respect to the suggestions made by the community

members and may be able to overcome previously unsolved

problems. The innovator learns from the community and com-

plements the common knowledge. In addition, the disseminated

knowledge will encourage other community members to build

upon this idea (Hemetsberger and Reinhardt, 2004). Throughintense interactions, finally, a new product may result that is

superior to a proposal innovated by a single user and that is

superior to the sum of the individual outputs, because new

knowledge is created through the emerging relationships

(Sawhney and Prandelli, 2000). While explicit knowledge is

codifiable and expressible in words and numbers and shareable

in data forms, formula and manuals, tacit knowledge is highly

personal, subject to automatic processing and, therefore, hard to

formalize, difficult to communicate or to share with others

(Nonaka and Konno, 1998). Hence, tacit knowledge is sticky

(Andersen, 1999; Ogawa, 1998; Szulanski, 1996; Von Hippel,

1998, 1994).

2.2. Communities of practice

Knowledge creation literature within communities of

practice, which provides an interesting analogy to the devel-

opment of innovations within communities, gives further in-

sight into how innovation creation in communities works

(Franke and Shah, 2003; Sawhney and Prandelli, 2000).

Members of communities of practice continuously interact

and communicate. This includes talking about their work,

posing questions, raising problems, offering solutions, con-

structing answers, laughing at mistakes or discussing changes in

their work (e.g., Brown and Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 2004). In

61J. Fller et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 6071
http://www.hog.com/http://www.hog.com/


3/12

all their activities, members keep each other up to date about

their knowledge, their learnings, and their actions (Brown and

Duguid, 2000). The community members develop a pool of

collective knowledge which transcends any individual's

knowledge and which is open accessible for all members. If

community members confront an unfamiliar situation beyond

their current know-how, the members conduct a series ofalternating experimentation and improvisation stages, accom-

panied by sharing and reflecting stories of similar situations,

which eventually leads to a solution for the problem. This

process of improvisation resembles what Levi-Strauss (1966)

calls bricolage: the ability to perform tasks and find solutions

with whatever materials and tools are at hand, from odds and

ends (Brown and Duguid, 1991).

2.3. Concept of ba

Similarly, the concept ofba, which roughly means place,

offers interesting insights into how people share, create andutilize knowledge physically, virtually, or mentally (Nonaka

and Konno, 1998). According to ba, a spiraling process of

interactions among individuals with different types and contents

of knowledge creates new knowledge. Within several loops of

interaction where community members share their experiences,

ideals and ideas with others, new knowledge individual as

well as collective emerges. According to Sawhney and

Prandelli (2000), besides the generation of new knowledge, this

process of deep and recurrent knowledge sharing explains the

origins of every community.

2.4. Motives of free revealing

Analyzing four different offline sports communities, Franke

and Shah (2003) report that on average one third of the com-

munity members improve their sporting equipment or even

design their own products. As users benefit from using and not

from selling the product, most of the time, hiding the innovation

does not represent an advantage. On the contrary, users look for

ways to share their innovation with others users and

manufacturers (Von Hippel, 2002). Users get in contact with

manufacturers with the aim of finding professional support.

Among others, Harhoff, Henkel, and von Hippel (2003) show

that consumers may derive several benefits by freely revealing

information about their developed product. Freely revealingmeans that the innovator voluntarily gives up all intellectual

property rights to that information and gives access to all

interested parties the information becomes public property

(Von Hippel, 2005). This has a number of effects that explain

the received benefits. These benefits are; network effects,

reputational gains, revealing of related innovations by others,

and the setting of an informal standard (Harhoff et al., 2003;

Von Hippel, 2002). Following Franke and Shah (2003), another

reason for consumers to participate in joint innovation activities

is that doing so is fun and exciting. From this perspective,

innovators do not view sharing of innovation-related informa-

tion as a loss requiring compensation, but rather as enjoyable in

and of itself. Studies in OSS contexts, provide similar findings,

but offer additional reasons why community members share

their ideas and support each other, including e.g., communal

norms, sense of belonging, friendship, intellectual stimulation,

and gain of knowledge (e.g., Butler et al., 2002; Hemetsberger

and Pieters, 2001; Hertel et al., 2003; Lakhani and Von Hippel,

2003; Lakhani and Wolf, 2003).

2.5. Constraints of the Internet

While agreement exists on the fact that the Internet is capable

of transferring information and explicit knowledge (Barrett

et al., 2004; Carayannis, 1998; Descantis et al., 2004), scholars

often considered the online environment as inadequate for user

collaboration on highly complex tasks such as product

innovation which require high levels of creativity and flexibility

(Nemiro, 2002; Nonaka et al., 2000). However, Hemetsberger

and Reinhardt (2004) show that virtual communities can also

manage complex tasks and overcome the problems related to

the transfer of tacit knowledge through technological tools, taskrelated features, collective reflection, stories and usage sce-

narios. Thus, even more complex tasks of joint consumer pro-

duct innovation may be realized on the Internet.

Although, extensive research on user innovations in offline

communities and for OSS exists, little is known about inno-

vation creation in online communities in the field of consumer

products. Further, no empirical study addresses how a company

could systematically use the innovative potential of online

consumer groups in the innovation process. This study sheds

light on joint development activities in online basketball com-

munities and gives ideas how companies could use the inno-

vative potential of online communities.

3. Method

This research focuses on the field of basketball sports, as a

typical physical product of a mature market. The authors con-

sidered netnography (Kozinets, 2002) as adequate for the

research as the methodology includes data from a host of dif-

ferent sources: observations of community behavior, qualitative

analyses of the members' communication, and interviews with

experts in the product field.

3.1. Research field

Four considerations prompted this study's selection of online

communities focusing on basketball shoes: first, a great number

of people play and watch basketball. Thus, researchers may

expect a high number of online communities. Second, as

basketball is typically a team activity, players likely have tight

relationships and share their experiences. Third, one of the

authors was an enthusiastic basketball player for more than ten

years and possesses profound knowledge in the field of

basketball footwear, indispensable in understanding the con-

versation among community members. Fourth, the basketball

shoe sector is an already established, highly competitive market

with a variety of new models each year. Product innovations

consist mainly of modifications in the optical appearance of

62 J. Fller et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 6071


4/12

shoes whereas radical innovations are rare and often require a

very long development time. For instance, the company Nike

spent 16 years from conception to creation of the new

cushioning technology Nike Shox (Von Wartburg, 2002).

The focus on an already established major mass market with

highly sophisticated and advanced products distinguishes this

research from former studies on creative sports communitiesmainly focusing on product innovations in emerging sports.

3.2. Netnographic approach

Netnography (Kozinets, 1999, 2002) originated from

ethnography (e.g., Arnould and Wallendorf, 1994). Netnogra-

phy uses information publicly available on the Internet to study

the nature and behavior of online consumer groups (e.g., Muniz

and Schau, 2005; Nelson, 2005). The netnography approach

describes how to identify and contact online communities and

how to analyze and check the trustworthiness of community

insights. Further, netnography covers the question how toconduct online marketing research in an appropriate, ethical

way. The method provides a grounded knowledge (Glaser and

Strauss, 1967) concerning a certain research question.

For this study, the netnography divides into four steps: (1)

determination of user characteristics, (2) community identifi-

cation and selection, (3) observation and data gathering, (4) data

analysis and interpretation of findings.

The first step comprised the compilation of a list of personal

characteristics indicative of creative and innovative community

members (Amabile, 1996). Such members behave in a similar

way to lead users (Morrison et al., 2004; Von Hippel, 1986).

The description of the user characteristics gave a fairly good

picture of the most relevant individuals in the research scope:highly enthusiastic basketball players who are creative, have

extensive use-experience and product-related knowledge in the

field of basketball equipment, and are the most active members

within online communities related to their interest. According to

Kozinets (2002), these insiders and devotees represent the

most important data sources for marketing research. Step two

comprised the identification of more than 500 online commu-

nities dedicated to basketball-related topics. Extensive screening

related to quality of content, posting frequency, professionalism

(Kozinets, 2002), as well as member profile, identified five

online communities, more precisely five basketball message

boards, as most promising for this research: Niketalk, Basket-ballboards, Solecollector, Kickz101, Kicksology. Table 1 gives a

brief description of the selected basketball communities.

In step three, the researchers observed all five communities

over a period of 6 months from October 2003 to March 2004,

screening more than 240,000 posts in more than 18,000

discussions and filing all innovation-related content electroni-

cally. This approach is similar to purposive sampling in eth-

nography (Wallendorf and Belk, 1989). In step four, the

researchers used QSR NVivo software (Paccagnella, 1997) to

analyze and interpret 460 discussions including 11,000 posts

(9000 of the posts were innovation-related). In accordance with

the proposed guidelines of ethics in online research (Kozinets,

2002) the researchers asked for and the web administrators of

the selected online communities gave their agreement to the

analysis of the communication and interaction of their members.

You certainly have my permission to utilize NikeTalk in

your academic study. If you have any specific requests,

please let us know. Otherwise, you're certainly more than

welcome to analyze anything that's been posted to the

community (Method Man, NikeTalk Staff, 2004).

Following data analysis, four experienced product managers

checked the trustworthiness of the findings and interpretations

and evaluated the quality and variety of user ideas (Wallendorf

and Belk, 1989). Several past examples and other publications

found on the Internet helped to validate other aspects, like the

assessment of the members' willingness to share their ideas with

producers.

4. Findings

The first part gives an overview of the selected basketball

communities and their members followed by the findings

Table 1

The five online basketball communities in the research sample

Community Members Posts/

day

Origin Operator Description

Niketalk 34,000 5000 US Private Based on number of

members and content

best communityNo official affiliation

with Nike Inc.

Clear preferences

towards Nike footwear

Basketball-

boards

11,600 1000 US Private Members are of

younger age

Most topics are

dedicated to

professional players

and leagues

One forum

specifically for apparel

Solecollector 9000 3000 US Official

forum of

SoleCollector

Magazine

Often mentioned as

second best online

communityMembers discuss all

brands frequently

Formerly called

Instyleshoes

Kickz101 3300 2000 A US Sporting

apparel

store

Interesting because of

international perspective

Separate footwear and

apparel sections

Often early pictures

of new models

Kicksology N/A 200 US Private Reviews of more than

150 basketball shoes

Reviews strongly

influence purchase

decisionsTerminated in 2004

due to limited time of

operator



5/12

regarding the type of innovations, members' motivations for

innovation creation, and the innovation creation process.

Finally, the article gives evidence of community members'

willingness to collaborate with producers.

4.1. Communities and their members

From time to time participants start threads to introduce

themselves and their basketball obsession (Schau and Gilly,

2003). This behavior provides a fairly good picture of the

participants in the selected online basketball communities.

Typically, members are between 15 and 25 years old and still go

to school or university. Several members are employees of

sporting goods stores, however, their contributions show that

such employees do not participate with the intention of ad-

vertising their stores, but rather because of their passion for

basketball footwear. Among other things, ownership of a high

number of shoes demonstrates the members' high involvement

in basketball footwear. Often, such collections include betweentwenty and fifty different pairs of basketball shoes. For the most

enthusiastic members, the online community is like a virtual

family. One member of the Niketalk community explains,

Niketalk really has grown into a family, nationwide!

Similar to offline relationships, the community provides a

sense of belonging to members:

it does feel like a community, even way out here in Tokyo.

Social ties among the most active participants are so strong,

that these members even organize so-called summits to meet

and to get to know each other offline. The communication among

members is typically marked by mutual respect. Memberscommonly accept different points of view and often use other

opinions as a starting point for constructive discussions.

While each of the selected communities has several thousands

members, a much smaller group of users make the majority of

postings. Table 2 illustrates the different categories of community

members based on their frequency of contribution and describes

their typical behavior and role within the community.

At Solecollector for example, the 212 most active users make

80% of the postings (3.4% of total 6216 members). The top 50

contributors (0.8%) produce 50% of all messages. 2399

members (39%) are frequent posters, while 3600 members

(58%) are lurkers (cf. Nonnecke et al., 2004). In each com-munity a group of highly active, broadly respected, well-known,

long-standing, and knowledgeable insiders exists. Most other

members of the community immediately adopt what these

opinion leaders express. This is how one community member

experiences the special standing of the two opinion leaders ekin

and airmax:

I have been here since 2001. I don't really post I tend to just

observe, but what I noticed is that whenever ekin or airmax

puts up a post everyone magically does not ever affront him,

says the shoes sucklike he or she is a god or something.

Many community members are heavy users of equipment

and thus have extensive use-experience with a variety of models

and brands. Members frequently share their experiences,

thoughts, and opinions in detailed shoe reviews including

detailed judgments of specific features e.g., cushioning and

comfort. These product discussions do not only support others

in their purchase decisions, but are also starting points for newinnovative product ideas.

4.2. Joint innovation creation ideas, motives, and process

Creative members conceptualize not only improvements of

current models but also develop entirely new technologies and

basketball shoes from scratch. Numerous innovative ideas exist

for almost every shoe component, e.g., design, cushioning,

lacing, and ventilation. In total, the analysis identified 24

components and attributes of a shoe to which community

members make specific contributions, come up with modifica-

tions, and new ideas. Table 3 shows the number of innovation-related passages identified and coded for each shoe component,

differing between 10 and 307. These numbers give first

indication of the popularity and importance of the respective

shoe components for basketball players.

For example, a lively discussion is going on about what makes

the design of a basketball shoe attractive and what does not.

Contributors use existing shoe models as a reference to point out

which design elements are, in their opinion, desirable and which

are overdone or unaesthetic. Members provide a lot of information

as to the ideal design for a basketball shoe. A further example is

sharing of shoe customization guidelines and manuals. In order to

stand out from the crowd, many basketball shoe enthusiasts

customize their footwear by applying paint, glitter, and even

Table 2

Categorization of members based on their posting frequency (numbers

exemplary for Solecollector community)

Absolute

number

Percentage

of total

members

Behavior and role in community

Lurkers 3605 58% Registered members who rarelycontribute

Passively observe communication to

gather information and to read interesting

discussions

Do not hold social ties to other members

Numerous unregistered lurkers can also

be expected

Posters 2399 39% Contribute regularly to topics of interest

Share shoe reviews with other members

Are also members of other basketball

communities

Are interested in social interaction

besides of footwear-related discussions

Frequent

posters

212 3% Contribute frequently or even daily

Hold strong social ties to other frequentposters

Possess extensive product-related know-

how

Most respected members of their

communities

Some take the role of opinion leaders



6/12

denim. However, to do so community members have to overcome

some difficulties, such as how to make the paint flexible and thin inorder to avoid creases. Members who modify their shoes share

their experiences and give detailed advice as to how to achieve the

best results e.g., for shoe painting; which acetone to use, the best

ratio to mix acetone and paint, and how many coats of paint to

apply. These examples, as well as the following expressions of

gratitude demonstrate that typically, members freely share their

innovations within the community either in form of verbal

descriptions or self-made drawings:

Continue producing your masterpieces and thank you for

always sharing with the community.

Members' motives for freely revealing their innovations are

manifold: the perception that doing so is a community norm, the

inner satisfaction when doing so, the desire to give back to the

community, the need for recognition from other members, and the

hope of feedback from a knowledgeable audience. As one

member of the Niketalk community states his desire to give back:

If I ever make it in shoe design (like 10 years from now) I

will forever be indebted to this board and will give back tothe Niketalk community. That will be a long time, but I am

Table 3

Categories and number of text passages coded for each category

Component/

attribute

Number of posts

coded

Component/

attribute

Number of posts

coded

Design 307 Lace cover 69

Cushioning 206 Soles 63

Comfort 167 Shoe cleaning 48Customization 162 Material 43

Ankle support 152 Shoe lacing 38

Durability 122 Outdoor use 23

Imitations 115 Color 22

Insole 106 Fit 21

Traction 89 Courtfeel 18

Quality 87 Laces 13

Injury 81 Ventilation 12

Weight 72 Responsiveness 10

Table 4

Comparison ofneed-driven and excitement-driven innovators

Criteria Need-driven innovators Excitement-driven innovators

% of total number of

ideas posted

20% 80%

Motives that trigger

innovation

activities

Perception of so-far unsatisfied needs when

using equipment

Fun and enjoyment from the innovation activity itself

Desire to improve skills

Aim to receive competent feedback

Want recognition from other members and potentially companiesFrequency of

innovation

Infrequent Regularly

Continuous innovation activities

Role in online

community

Regular members Highly respected members

Commonly known members within their communities,

so-called designers

Opinion leaders

Form of sharing

and advancing

innovative ideas

Description of an experienced problem Innovation activity is triggered by a design challenge stated by

one of the designers or just by the desire to design a new

basketball shoe

Present only a first rough idea how to improve the problem Presentation of a sophisticated innovative idea

with lengthy explanations of the proposed solution

Typically do not make attempts to further advance the

innovative idea

Besides a verbal descriptions, innovators visualize ideas in form

of detailed designs or even 3-dimensional computer renderings

Excitement-driven innovators make first attempts to realize

their innovative ideasAdvancement of innovations by incorporating the

feedback from other members

Example of typical

contribution

pattern

Several members report about serious ankle injuries when

playing basketball. The injury is commonly attributed to

insufficient ankle protection and cushioning in existing

basketball shoes.

Driven by his interest in designing basketball shoes,

the Niketalk Designer Vocaldigital23 develops an entirely new

basketball shoe from scratch. Vocaldigital23 visualizes the new

concept (see Fig. 2), including a new cushioning and lacing

technology, in more than 50 designs which show the shoe as a

whole and all key-components. The innovator then presents a

selection of these designs to the members of the Niketalk

community, who are astonished by the skills displayed:

Starting from this problem, members come up with the idea,

that by taking out the insoles of one basketball shoe and

inserting the insoles into another model, the cushioning

could be drastically improved while, at the same time,

guaranteeing ankle stability.Thanks for the worthwhile critique. I did not go to school, man.

This is just what I do. I worked on this project from sun up to

sundown from July to November of 03 and created a 50 page book

on its development. Almost drove me nuts.

This is only 15 pages of it.

What I do right now is go half a size big on shoes with zoom

air and use that extra space to insert another insolewhich

provides me with that great court feelbut better impact protection



7/12

determined to make it happen. Thanks again guys, and

continue to be honest with your opinions and impressions.

Another member sees the community as a source of feedback

from some of the most knowledgeable basketball shoe

enthusiasts:

Thank you very much for your kind feedback. It's nice to

get critics and try to top my own limits.

Consumer-innovators in the selected online basketball

communities seem to be motivated either by the perception of

a so-far unsatisfied need or by the inner satisfaction when

engaging in the creative activity itself. Thus, this study labels

creative community members as either (1) need-driven or (2)

excitement-driven innovators. Table 4 shows the typical

characteristics of the two groups of innovators.

A search for excitement triggers approximately 80% of all

ideas posted in the sample and need only 20%. Need-driven

innovators become active because of a perception of needswhich are as yet not satisfied by any existing product on the

market. For instance, one member has the idea of protective

equipment to play basketball more safely:

I think basketball is a leading cause of injuries. I've hurt

myself the most in ball. I've hurt my wrist, both my ankles,

knees, and shoulders. I think it's because there's no protective

equipment for the sport.

Excitement-driven innovators develop and pursue new ideas

because of the fun,pleasure, and enjoyment from the activity itself

and less because of a desired outcome (e.g., the protection from

injury in the pervious example). In contrast to need-driven

innovators for whom innovating is not part of their community

routines and who typically express their ideas solely in a verbal

manner, innovators driven by excitement regularly and con-sciously engage in innovation activities. Excitement-driven

innovators contribute more sophisticated ideas which are usually

translated into virtual prototypes in the form of drawings or even

3-D renderings. The community knows the most ambitious

excitement-driven innovators as designers. The small group

of designers (e.g., approximately 20 members of the total

34,000 members of Niketalk) contribute, by far, the highest

number and quality of innovative ideas (see Figs. 1 and 2).

Designers spend significant time making their own

drawings of basketball shoes or shoe features and demonstrate

impressive drawing and design skills. These members see

sharing their work with the community as a way to gainrecognition and feedback from a knowledgeable audience

which in turn helps to further improve the designer's skills.

Now, I begin to understand how important it s to get inputs

from this community (which is made of truly kicks lovers as

I am) to improve my skills and refine my technique.

For many designers making own renderings is not simply a

hobby, but their intended career.Designers dream of becoming

Fig. 1. Innovative basketball shoe designs by Archeever, Air Elijah, Archeever; and Zenith (Sources: Niketalk 2004).



8/12

professional basketball footwear designers for one of the major

brands. In order to achieve this goal, many study industrial

design or go to art schools. Table 5 shows the typical char-

acteristics ofdesigners as well as their sources of inspiration.

To increase the challenge and fun when making renderings,

communities from time to time initiate so called Designer's

Roll Calls (DRCs). In these friendly competitions a community

member assigns a specific innovation task e.g., design the

basketball shoe for the year 2050 and then the designers of the

community try to creatively fulfill this task within the given

deadline. Then, numerous members (not only the designers)

give their feedback on the posted submissions. Table 6 illustrates

the pattern of innovation creation by means of an exemplary

Designer's Roll Call.

Feedback and comments of the knowledgeable audience

indicate the quality of contributions. The following is just one

example:

WhoaI really think ALL the submissions from you guys

are (read: wow!!) there ain't never gonna be a shortage of

creative talent in here.

The archive of Niketalk provided perhaps the most intriguing

example illustrating the high innovative and creative potential of

community members: Jason Petrie, known under the username

Fig. 2. Concept of an entirely new basketball shoe named Odonata by Vocaldigital23, including new lacing and cushioning technologies as well as a detailed

construction plan (Source: Niketalk, 2004).



9/12

Alphaproject, continuously showcased his renderings in the

Niketalk community, and improved his skills through the

competent feedback from other shoe-enthusiasts. At that time,

one member, amazed by one of his designs, predicted:

One day I will hold your first designed Nike sneaker in my

hands, telling myself that this one is from Alpha, who had

his beginning at Niketalk.

The prediction came true. Alphaproject was discovered by

Fila and now works as basketball footwear designer at Nike

(Kicksguide, 2003). Besides the impressive example of

Alphaproject, in an interview, four experienced product man-

agers of a leading sporting goods company confirmed the high

quality of ideas and their attractiveness for manufacturers. As

the managers did not want to reveal their identity for this paper,

further explications regarding the company and their positions

cannot be made at this point.

4.3. Community collaboration with producers

Several statements indicated that community members are

aware of the high potential value of their knowledge to

companies in the sporting goods industry. As one member

stated:

Nike gains millions dollars worth of R&D information per

year from this websiteOne thing that is very valuable to

companies is unbiased, candid feedback, hey what do we

have here?? DIRECT CANDID UNBIASED FEEDBACK

HMMMMMMM it has to be worth something.

Despite this knowledge, several observations indicate that

community members are typically willing to share their thoughts

with producers free of charge. In November 2003, one visitor of

the Niketalk community claimed to work for Reebok and asked

how the firm could improve their basketball equipment. Al-

though the person who claimed to work for Reebok did not offer

any rewards for those who contributed, the question initiated a

Table 5

Typical characteristics ofdesigners and their sources of inspiration

Typical characteristics of designers

Characteristics Play basketball and thus have extensive use experience with

basketball shoes

Typically between 20 and 25 years old

Longtime members of their communityDream of becoming professional footwear designers for one

of the major companies

Often study design or go to art schools to pursue their career

dream

Demonstrate impressive drawing and design skills (e.g.,

former member Alphaproject is now working as a footwear

designer for Nike)

Combine their interest for basketball and design in their

creative activities (e.g., although designing also other things

such as running shoes from time to time, basketball shoes are

their most favorite and most frequently addressed topic)

Have a very profound knowledge about current and past

basketball shoes

Typically agree which basketball shoes are the best and

worst in terms of designAre not the users with the highest number of posts but with the

highest quality of innovative content

Freely share their ideas as well as insights into their design

techniques with other members who are eager for knowledge to

improve their own design skills

Highly acknowledged members of their community

Organize friendly innovation competitions with self-stated

tasks from time to time

Honor the work of otherdesigners and give advices how to

improve their ideas

Sources of

inspiration

The statements of the designers indicate that their ideas are

stimulated by a variety of factors:

Existing basketball shoes on the market (mainly high-end

shoes of the major companies)

Inspiration for new shoes from a variety of sources, such ascars, airplanes, animals (e.g., the basketball shoe Odonata by

Vocaldigital23, shown in Fig. 2, is inspired by a shark)

Pure phantasy stimulated by the challenge to come up with

something new

Problems stated by other members

Feedback of other members to their posted designs

Journals which are dedicated to basketball shoes

Own usage experience when playing basketball

Table 6

The pattern of contribution in Designer's Roll Calls along the example of the Air

Jordan XIX

Air Jordan XIX Designer's Roll Call

Total number of

replies

317

Innovation ideas 40 designs by 20 members

Feedback to

innovations

250 posts by 100 members

Pattern of participation

Time ActionsStart of Designer's

Roll Call

One of the designers assigns the task to draw the

upcoming so-called Air Jordan XIX basketball shoe

The designer asks the participants to submit their ideas

within the next two weeks

1st week Most of the designers confirm their participation

Interested members ask questions to the task and discuss

their planned submissions

Some designers submit their first drawings after two days

Community members (not only designers) give their

feedback to submissions

Members start asking for designers who so-far did not

confirm their participation

2nd week Number of new posts per day reaches peak in the first half

of week 2 (approx. 20 per day)

Some designers already submit their 2nd or 3rdrenderings

Designers incorporate feedback of members to advance

their initial submissions

Not so experienced designers ask for advice to improve

their technique

Numerous community members point out their favorite

submission

3rd week Despite official deadline end new designs are submitted

Number of new posts per day continuously drops during

week 3

Designers Roll Call is revitalized by the week's end

through new submissions of some of the most respected

designers

4th week Number of new posts per day falls below five

Last post 26 days after discussion started



10/12

very productive discussion with more than 100 detailed replies

within five days. Even when doubts about the author's identity

arose, the discussion continued unaffected. Despite the lack of

award, the contributors felt sufficiently rewarded by the

challenge of the task and their participation in an interesting

discussion:

I for one couldn't care less if the guy was really from

Reebok or not. It's still an interesting discussion and a lot of

the comments make for interesting reading.

On another occasion, the shoe manufacturing firm Nike

approached Niketalk through one of the moderators with the

invitation to share their experiences with basketball shoe imi-

tations (fakes). Also in this case the participants had no guar-

antee for rewards and only the best submissions had the chance to

be printed in the firm's official magazine. Still, more than 40

members reported about their experiences with fakes.

One example which illustrates that innovative members even

actively initiate contacts with sporting goods companies is adesign contest on Kicksguide.com, a private user homepage

dedicated to basketball shoes. Several creative basketball shoe

enthusiasts contribute their drawings to each month's theme.

The winning designs compete for the Artist Series Shoe

Design of the Year and the site submits the artwork of the

winner to various shoe manufacturers. Several of the de-

signers in the observed online communities also take part in the

Kicksguide design contest. Their hope is to become known as

creative and innovative designers, get in touch with one of the

major brands, get an opportunity to start working for a well-

known basketball company, and that one day their creative shoe

designs become realized.

5. Discussion

As the research shows, online gatherings of consumers at

least in the field of basketball shoes participate in the

development of tangible consumer goods. Similar to OSS and

offline innovation communities, members of online basketball

communities do not innovate in isolation but in interaction with

like-minded people. The members consider sharing their product-

related knowledge and ideas for new products or product

modifications as a fun and rewarding activity. The consumers'

innovation experience generates value in itself (Prahalad and

Ramaswamy, 2004; Von Hippel, 2005). For many enthusiasticcommunity members, the exchange of innovation-related product

knowledge is one of the main reasons for belonging to the

community. This is in line with scholars describing that task

involvement combined with learning constitutes a self-sustaining

system that helps to establish and maintain an online community

(e.g., Hemetsberger and Pieters, 2001; Sawhney and Prandelli,

2000).

The findings show that at least a small number of community

members are very knowledgeable, highly skilled, and able to

create their own virtual products with an impressively high

quality and level of innovation. Hence, not only are software

development communities (Franke and Von Hippel, 2003; Von

Hippel and Von Krogh, 2003) and offline user innovation

communities (Franke and Shah, 2003; Shah, 2000) highly

innovative, but also online consumer groups in mature markets,

despite the fact that the designers of virtual basketball shoes

will never benefit from wearing their own creations. In contrast

to lead user innovations (Urban and Von Hippel, 1988; Von

Hippel, 1986), excitement rather than pure need drives inno-

vation creation in basketball communities. Lately, Shah (2005)identified similar motives as main drivers for most dedicated

software developers of OSS.

Further, similarly to OSS developers, highly skilled com-

munity members post their innovations in the hope of getting

visibility helpful for future employment as professional shoe

designers (Butler et al., 2002).

The Designer's Roll Calls pattern that this study identifies is

an interesting, new process of innovation generation. These

friendly self-stated design competitions stimulate innovation

creation and dissemination of highly complex knowledge. Further,

such contests emphasize the playful element of innovation creation

in online communities (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002; Mathwick andRigdon, 2004), as Designer's Roll Calls can be interpreted as

kind of games with self-defined roles. Regarding the effect of play

on creative output, Csikszentmihalyi (1975) notes: Philosophers

from Plato to Sartre have remarked that people are most human,

whole, free and creative when they play.

By posting pictures and drawings of self-created shoe designs

and concepts, the so - called designers not only disclose their

explicit but also implicit knowledge. In the design of an

innovative shoe the consumers' implicit, non verbally articulat-

ed knowledge about basketball equipment such as values,

feelings, perceptions of latest trends, and design preferences

surface ( Nonaka, 1994). Visual models help in transferring

sticky knowledge to the community (Ogawa, 1998; Von Hippel,1998). While only a few community members are capable of

creating professional shoe designs, many less skilled members

help to improve the innovation by giving their opinions, coming

up with proposals for improvement, or asking challenging

questions. The proposals of others may in turn inspire some to

come up with even more radical innovations. Through intense

interactions, numerous contributions, and countless loops of

trial and error experimentations, finally, a new product results

that is superior to that innovated by a single user. A sense of

group efficacy emerges (Hemetsberger, 2001). The overall

community can be seen as a dynamic system of adaptive learning

that produces innovations from the ideas of communitymembers (Hienerth, 2004b). Besides contributing their knowl-

edge, another important function of less skilled community

members is to admire thedesigners, to show recognition and to

take on the role of fans (Schouten and McAlexander, 1995).

While the study at hand gives initial insights into joint-

innovation creation within online consumer groups and provides

a lot of plausible evidence that online consumer groups are a

promising source of innovation, further research is required to

come up with more generalizable and quantifiable results. Based

on the findings, interest arises to examine, whether online com-

munities centering around physical consumer goods other than

basketball footwear, e.g., mobile phones, cameras, or skis, dem-

onstrate similar innovative potential and patterns of innovation.



11/12

In addition, a quantitative study on what innovative communi-

ties expect from companies when sharing their ideas is overdue.

This subject needs a variety of conceptual and empirical studies

to explore the topic of virtual integration of communities in a

company's innovation process in more detail.

6. Managerial implications

In all of the five observed consumer online communities, very

knowledgeable members think of innovative ways to modify

existing or create new basketball footwear. In addition, these

community members seem to be willing to share their ideas

when approached by a sports equipment manufacturing com-

pany. Thus, the observable process fulfills two main precondi-

tions for successful virtual integration of community members

into a company's innovation process the community's inno-

vative potential and the willingness to participate. Members of

online consumer groups could provide valuable contributions

information, knowledge, and assistance to various tasks whenintegrated in a company's innovation process (Dahan and

Hauser, 2002; Nambisan, 2002).

Managers, intending to actively integrate online community

members into new product development, may ask how the

interaction between community and producer works. Regarding

this question, two basic forms of virtual community integration

exist: (1) the virtual integration of community members for

specific innovation tasks from time to time, and (2) the con-

tinuous collaboration with online communities as a permanent

source of new ideas and co-developers of new products. For

specific innovation tasks, a company could provide special

interaction tools like toolkits (Von Hippel and Katz, 2002) or

virtual customer tools (Dahan and Hauser, 2002) that facilitateparticipation and transfer of the community members' know-

how. Selected communities may serve as pools of qualified

consumers that are invited to participate via postings and ban-

ners (Fller et al., 2006). For example, given that several

members of the observed basketball communities discussed

customizable cushioning systems which allow adjustment of the

responsiveness of the shoe cushioning according to personal

preference, the question about new, customizable cushioning

technologies could become the topic of such a project.

In contrast to punctual integration of community members

for specific tasks, a company could aim to benefit from the

ongoing knowledge exchange and innovation activities withinonline communities. Obviously, continuously monitoring the

communication of thousands of community members for inno-

vative ideas represents high efforts in terms of time and cost.

Hence, community members with new ideas should become

active themselves and contact the company of their choice. In

the basketball community example, one possibility is to install a

permanent link; which directly connects community members

with the innovation team of a company of their choice; on

basketball community websites such as Niketalk. The commu-

nity itself could take on a central position by activating the link

if and when the members think that a certain innovation should

be introduced to and discussed with a company. Of course,

issues regarding intellectual property and gratifications have to

be clarified before a company may collaborate with communi-

ties. At present, most of the time consumers have to accept the

terms and conditions of the respective company and surrender

their intellectual property rights (Chung and Grimes, 2005).

With their community of creation model, Sawhney and

Prandelli (2000) offer an alternative, far more cooperative

approach for continuous interaction with online communities. Intheir community of creation model, a central firm acts as

sponsor and defines the ground rules for participation. The entire

community then owns the intellectual property rights arising

from joint innovation activities. This permeable governance

model acts to blend the benefits of hierarchies and markets.

Effective and efficient interaction with online communities

requires certain knowledge and skills which not every company

may have, especially in reaching the right consumers, or creating

a certain context of integration. Under such conditions, Sawhney

et al. (2003) note that relying on innomediaries is advisable,

that is, third-party actors who facilitate the mediating innovation

and specialize in the virtual dialogue with communities.

References

Amabile Teresa.Creativity in context.Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press; 1996.

Andersen Poul H. Organizing international technological collaboration in

subcontractor relationships: an investigation of the knowledge-stickiness

problem. Res Policy 1999;28:62542.

Arnould Eric, Wallendorf Melanie. Market-oriented ethnography: interpretation

building and marketing strategy formulation. J Mark Res 1994;31:484504

[November].

Barrett Michael, Cappleman Sam, Shoib Gamila, Walsham Geoff. Learning in

knowledge communities: managing technology and context. Eur Manag J

2004;22(1):111.

Brown John Seely, Duguid Paul. Organizational learning and communities-of-

practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovating. Organ

Sci 1991;2(1):4057.

Brown John Seely, Duguid Paul. The social life of information. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press; 2000.

Butler Brian, Sproull Lee, Kiesler Sara. Community effort in online groups: who

does the work and why? In: Weisband S, Atwater L, editors. Leadership at a

distance; 2002.

Carayannis Elias. The strategic management of technological learning in

project/ program management: the role of extranets, intranets and intelligent

agents in knowledge generation, diffusion and leveraging. Technovation

1998;18(11):697703.

Chung Grace, Grimes Sara. Cool hunting the kids' digital playground:

datamining and the privacy debates in children's online entertainment

sites. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island,

Hawaii: IEEE; 2005. HICSS-38.

Csikszentmihalyi Mihaly. Play and intrinsic rewards. J Humanist Psychol

1975;15(3):4163.

Csikszentmihalyi Mihaly. Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and

invention. New York, NY: Harper Perennial; 2002.

Dahan Ely, Hauser John R. The virtual customer. J Prod Innov Manag 2002;19

(5):33253.

Descantis Gerardine, Fayard Anne-Laure, Roach Michael, Jiang Lu. Learning in

online forums. Eur Manag J 2004;22(5):56577.

Franke Nikolaus, Shah Sonali. How communities support innovative activities:

an exploration of assistance and sharing among innovative users of sporting

equipment. Res Policy 2003;32(1):15778.

Franke Nikolaus, Von Hippel Eric. Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via

innovation toolkits: the caseof Apache security software.Res Policy 2003;32

(7):1199215.

Fller Johann, Schmidt-Gabriel Michael. Vom Lead User zum Unternehmer

Virtuelle Kundeneinbindung am Beispiel des DiGGiT Snowboard



12/12

Rucksacks. In: Piller Frank, Stotko Christof, editors. Mass Customization

und Kundenintegration. Dsseldorf: Symposion; 2003.

Fller Johann, Bartl Michael, Ernst Holger, Mhlbacher Hans. Community

based innovation: how to integrate members of virtual communities into new

product development. Electron Commer Rev J 2006;6(2):5773.

Glaser Barney, Strauss Anselm. The discovery of grounded theory. New York:

de Gruyter; 1967.

Harhoff Dietmar, Henkel Joachim, Von Hippel Eric. Profiting from voluntaryinformation spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations.

Res Policy 2003;32(10):175369.

Hemetsberger Andrea. Fostering cooperation on the Internet, social exchange

processes in innovative virtual consumer communities. Adv Consum Res

2001;29:3546.

Hemetsberger Andrea, Pieters Rick. When consumers produce on the Internet:

an inquiry into motivational sources of contribution to joint-innovation. In:

Derbaix Christian, et al, editors. Fourth International Research Seminar on

Marketing Communications and Consumer Behavior. La Londe: Leopold-

Franzens-Universitt Innsbruck; 2001.

Hemetsberger Andrea, Reinhardt Christian. Sharing and creating knowledge in

open-source communities the case of KDE. Fifth European Conference

on Organizational Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities. Innsbruck; 2004.

Hertel Guido, Niedner Sven, Herrmann Stefanie. Motivation of software

developers in Open source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributorsto the Linux kernel. Res Policy 2003;32:115977.

Hienerth Christoph. The commercialization of user innovations: the develop-

ment of the kayak rodeo industry. Vienna: Vienna University of Economics

and Business Administration; 2004a.

Hienerth Christoph. Impediments to the transfer of knowledge in innovative

communities. In: Carayannis Elias, Campbell David, editors. Knowledge

creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and clusters: a

comparative systems approachacross the U.S.,Europe and Asia. Greenwood

Publishing Books; 2004b.

Jeppesen Lars Bo, Molin Mans J. Consumers as co-developers: learning and

innovation outside the firm. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 2003;15(3):36383.

Kicksguide. Alphaproject: http://www.kicksguide.com/articles/featured/alphaproject.

asp. Accessed: 1 December, 2003.

Kozinets Robert. E-tribalized marketing? The strategic implications of virtual

communities of consumption. Eur Manag J 1999;17(3):25264.Kozinets Robert. The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing

research in online communications. J Mark Res 2002;39(1):6172.

Lakhani Karim, Von Hippel Eric. How open source software works: free user-

to-user assistance. Res Policy 2003;32(6):92342.

Lakhani Karim, Wolf Robert. Why hackers do what they do: understanding

motivation effort in free/open source software projects. Working Paper, vol.

4425-03; 2003.

Levi-Strauss Claude. The savage mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1966.

Lthje Christian. Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods field:

an empirical study of sport-related product consumers. Technovation

2004;24(9):68395.

Lthje Christian, Herstatt Cornelius, Von Hippel Eric. The dominant role of

local information in user innovation: the case of mountain biking.

Cambridge, MA: MIT; 2002.

Lynn Leonard, Aram John, Reddy Mohan. Technology communities andinnovation communities. J Eng Technol Manag 1997;14:12945.

Mathwick Charla, Rigdon Edward. Play, flow, and the online search experience.

J Consum Res 2004;31:32432 [September].

McAlexander James, Schouten John, Koenig Harold. Building brand commu-

nity. J Mark 2002;66(1):3854.

McWilliam Gil. Building strong brands through online communities. Sloan

Manage Rev 2000;41(13).

Morrison Pamela, Roberts John, Midgley David. The nature of lead users and

measurement of leading edge status. Res Policy 2004;33(2):35162.

Muniz Jr Albert, Schau Hope Jensen. Religiosity in the abandoned Apple

Newton brand community. J Consum Res 2005;31:73747 [March].

Nambisan Satish. Designing virtual customer environments for new product

development: toward a theory. Acad Manage Rev 2002;27(3):392413.

Nelson Michelle R. Exploring cross-cultural ambivalence: a netnography of

intercultural wedding message boards. J Bus Res 2005;58:8995.

Nemiro Jill. The creative process in virtual teams. Creat Res J 2002;14(1):6983.

Nonaka Ikujiro. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ

Sci 1994;5(1):1437.

Nonaka Ikujiro, Konno Noboru. The concept of Ba: building a foundation for

knowledge creation. Calif Manage Rev 1998;40(3):4054.

Nonaka Ikujiro, Reinmoeller Patrick, Senoo Dai. Integrated IT systems to

capitalize on market knowledge. In: Von Krogh Georg, Nonaka I,

Nishiguchi T, editors. Knowledge creation a source of value. NewYork, NY: Macmillan Press; 2000.

Nonnecke Blair, Preece Jenny, Andrews Dorine. What lurkers and posters think

of each other. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS-

37. Big Island, Hawaii: IEEE; 2004.

Ogawa Susumu. Does sticky information affect the locus of innovation? Evidence

from the Japanese convenience-store industry. Res Policy 1998;26:77790.

Paccagnella Luciano. Gettingthe seats of your pants dirty: strategies for ethnographic

research on virtual communities. J Comput-Mediat Commun 1997:3 [June].

PrahaladC, RamaswamyVenkatram. The futureof competition: co-creatingunique

value with customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 2004.

Prgl Reinhard, Schreier Martin. Opening up the innovation process by toolkits:

learning from leading-edge customers at The Sims. R&D Management

Conference. Sesimbra (Portugal); 2004. July.

Sawhney Mohanbir, Prandelli Emanuela. Communities of creation: managing

distributed innovation in turbulent markets. Calif Manage Rev 2000;42(4):2454.

Sawhney Mohanbir, Prandelli Emanuela, Verona Gianmario. The power of

innomediation. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 2003;44:7782.

Schau Hope Jensen, Gilly Mary C. We are what we post? Self-presentation in

personal web space. J Consum Res 2003;30:385404.

Schouten John, McAlexander James. Subcultures of consumption: an

ethnography of the new bikers. J Consum Res 1995;22:4361.

Shah Sonali. Sources and patterns of innovation in a consumer products field:

innovations in sporting equipment. Working Paper, vol. 4105. MIT; 2000.

Shah Sonali. Motivation, governance and the viability of hybrid forms in open

source software. Working Paper, vol. 04-0115. University of Illinois at

Urbana Champaign; 2005.

Szulanski Gabriel. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of

best practice within the firm. Strateg Manage J 1996;17:2743 [Winter,

Special Issue].Urban Glen, Von Hippel Eric. Lead user analyses for the development of new

industrial products. Manage Sci 1988;34(5):56982.

Verona Gianmario, Prandelli Emanuela, Sawhney Mohanbir. Innovation and

virtual environments: towards virtual knowledge brokers. Working Paper,

vol. 38; 2004.

Von Hippel Eric. Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Manage Sci

1986;32(7):791805.

Von Hippel Eric. Sticky information and the locus of problem solving:

implications for innovation. Manage Sci 1994;40(4):42939.

Von Hippel Eric. Economics of product development by users: the impact of

sticky local information. Manage Sci 1998;44(5):62944.

Von Hippel Eric. Innovation by user communities: learning from open-source

software. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 2001;42(4):826.

Von Hippel Eric. Horizontal innovation networks by and for users. Working

paper. MIT Sloan School of Management; 2002.Von Hippel Eric. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005.

Von Hippel Eric, Katz Ralph. Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Manage

Sci 2002;48(7):82133.

Von Hippel Eric, Von Krogh Georg. Open source software and the private-

collective innovation model: issues for organaization science. Organ Sci

2003;14(2):20923.

Von Krogh Georg. Open-source software development. MIT Sloan Manag Rev

2003:148 [Spring].

Von Wartburg I. Fallstudie Nike Shox. Bern: Universitt Bern, Institut fr

Innovations-management; 2002.

Wallendorf Melanie, Belk Russel. Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic

consumer research. In: Hirschman E, editor. Interpretive consumer research.

Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research; 1989.

WengerEtienne. Knowledgemanagement as a doughnut: shaping your knowledge

strategy through communities of practice. Ivey Bus J 2004;68(3):18.

http://www.kicksguide.com/articles/featured/alphaproject.asphttp://www.kicksguide.com/articles/featured/alphaproject.asphttp://www.kicksguide.com/articles/featured/alphaproject.asphttp://www.kicksguide.com/articles/featured/alphaproject.asp

basketball tmp

Documents