The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Users' contributions to radical innovation: evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology
Abstract
This paper focuses on contributions of users in early phases of radical innovation projects. In a multiple case study analysis in the field of medical equipment technology, we identify characteristics of users who contribute substantially to the development of radical innovations by being their inventors and (co)-developers. These innovative users have high motivation to seek new solutions, possess a diverse set of competencies, and are embedded in a supportive environment. We furthermore observe that they play an entrepreneurial role as they establish and organize the required innovation networks. These innovation networks are needed to transform the users' radically new concepts into first physical prototypes and marketable products. The study highlights how manufacturing firms can benefit from innovative and entrepreneurial users in the early phases of radical innovation projects.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
The Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286 · cited 2×
“Neuendorf, K.A. (2002) The Content Analysis Guide-”
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1920110 · Cited by 3,470
Moving beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences
Rowley, T. J. (1997) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1997.9711022107 · Cited by 2,522
Lead User Analyses for the Development of New Industrial Products
Urban, G. L., & von Hippel, E. (1988) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.5.569 · Cited by 1,125
Assessing a Multidimensional Measure of Radical Technological Innovation
Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1995) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/17.403738 · Cited by 457
User and third-party involvement in developing medical equipment innovations
Biemans, W. G. (1991) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/0166-4972(91)90032-y · Cited by 166
New product ideas from lead users
von Hippel, E. (1989) · Research-Technology Management · doi:10.1080/08956308.1989.11670596 · Cited by 146
Cited by
Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges
van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & de Rochemont, M. (2009) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.001 · Cited by 2,184
Chen, J., Chen, Y., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2011) · Technovation · doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.03.002 · Cited by 425
Using users: When does external knowledge enhance corporate product innovation?
Chatterji, A. K., & Fabrizio, K. R. (2014) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.2168 · Cited by 309
Schreier, M., Fuchs, C., & Dahl, D. W. (2012) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.10.0462 · Cited by 293
Chen, Y., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Du, J. (2016) · R&D Management · doi:10.1111/radm.12162 · Cited by 144
Metadata
- Authors
- Lettl, C., Herstatt, C., & Gemuenden, H. G.
- Venue
- R and D Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 251-272
- ISSN
- 0033-6807 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9310
- OpenAlex
- W2119635064
- Cited by
- 465
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 35.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Users' contributions to radical innovation: evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00431.x
- The paper
- Lettl, C., Herstatt, C., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2006). Users' contributions to radical innovation: evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology. R and D Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00431.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
