The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Complementing Mass Customization Toolkits with User Communities: How Peer Input Improves Customer Self‐Design*
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, the authors propose that the canonical customer–toolkit dyad in mass customization (MC) should be complemented with user communities. Many companies in various industries have begun to offer their customers the opportunity to design their own products online. The companies provide Web‐based MC toolkits that allow customers who prefer individualized products to tailor items such as sneakers, personal computers (PCs), cars, kitchens, cereals, or skis to their specific preferences. Most existing MC toolkits are based on the underlying concept of an isolated, dyadic interaction process between the individual customer and the MC toolkit. Information from external sources is not provided. As a result, most academic research on MC toolkits has focused on this dyadic perspective. The main premise of this paper is that novice MC toolkit users in particular might largely benefit from information given by other customers. Pioneering research shows that customers in the computer gaming and digital music instruments industries are willing to support each other for the sake of efficient toolkit use (e.g., how certain toolkit functions work). Expanding on their work, the present paper provides evidence that peer assistance appears also extremely useful in the two other major phases of the customer's individual self‐design process, namely, the development of an initial idea and the evaluation of a preliminary design solution. Two controlled experiments were conducted in which 191 subjects used an MC toolkit to design their own individual skis. The authors found that during the phase of developing an initial idea, having access to other users' designs as potential starting points stimulates the integration of existing solution chunks into the problem‐solving process, which indicates more systematic problem‐solving behavior. Peer customer input also turned out to have positive effects on the evaluation of preliminary design solutions. Providing other customers' opinions on interim design solutions stimulated favorable problem‐solving behavior, namely, the integration of external feedback. The use of these two problem‐solving heuristics in turn leads to an improved process outcome—that is, self‐designed products that meet the preferences of the customers more effectively (measured in terms of perceived preference fit, purchase intention, and willingness to pay). These findings have important theoretical and managerial implications.
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
Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 · Cited by 4,479
Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(01)00009-6 · Cited by 2,357
Self‐Explanations: How Students Study and Use Examples in Learning to Solve Problems
Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1 · Cited by 1,714
Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(83)90156-3 · Cited by 1,309
SELF-REGULATION FOR MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS: THE ROLE OF ACTIVE FEEDBACK SEEKING.
Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256442 · Cited by 774
Harhoff, D., Henkel, J., & von Hippel, E. (2003) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(03)00061-1 · Cited by 772
Design and other types of fixation
Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1996) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(96)00023-3 · Cited by 552 · cited 2×
“In the literature on problem solving, this initial phase is regarded as crucial to the success of problem-solving processes (Goel and Pirolli, 1992; Guindon, 1990; Purcell and Gero, 1996; Simon, 1973).”
BackgroundShifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits
von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.7.821.2817 · cited 11×
“After all, there is a big difference to noncommercial endeavors like open-source software, where free (nonmonetary) user-to-user assistance and revealing one’s own ideas and developments for free are considered an important norm (Franke and Shah, 2003; Harhoff, Henkel, and von Hippel, 2003; Jeppesen, 2005; Jeppesen an…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Cited by
The “I Designed It Myself” Effect in Mass Customization
Franke, N., Schreier, M., & Kaiser, U. (2010) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1090.1077 · Cited by 760
Self-citationThe mass customization decade: An updated review of the literature
Fogliatto, F. S., da Silveira, G. J. C., & Borenstein, D. (2012) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.002 · Cited by 710
Customer participation in services: domain, scope, and boundaries
Dong, B., & Sivakumar, K. (2017) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-017-0524-y · Cited by 265
Metadata
- Authors
- Franke, N., Keinz, P., & Schreier, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Product Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-09-09
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 546-559
- ISSN
- 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5885
- OpenAlex
- W2025500414
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 21.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Complementing Mass Customization Toolkits with User Communities: How Peer Input Improves Customer Self‐Design*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00321.x
- The paper
- Franke, N., Keinz, P., & Schreier, M. (2008). Complementing Mass Customization Toolkits with User Communities: How Peer Input Improves Customer Self‐Design*. Journal of Product Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00321.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.