User Service Innovation on Mobile Phone Platforms: Investigating Impacts of Lead Userness, Toolkit Support, and Design Autonomy1
Abstract
User participation is increasingly being seen as a way to mitigate the challenges that firms face in innovation, such as high costs and uncertainty of customer acceptance of their innovations. Thus, firms are establishing online platforms to support users in innovating services, such as iOS and Android platforms for mobile data service (MDS) innovation. Mobile phone platforms are characterized by technology (toolkits) and policy (rules) components that could influence user’s innovation. Additionally, attributes of user innovators (lead userness) are expected to drive their innovation behavior. Yet it is unclear how these characteristics jointly impact users’ service innovation outcomes. To address this knowledge gap, we propose a model that builds on user innovation theory and the work design literature to explain the influences of lead userness, design autonomy, toolkit support, and their interactions on user’s innovation outcomes (innovation quantity) on these platforms. We conceptualize toolkit support in terms of two constructs (i.e., ease of effort and exploration), and design autonomy in terms of three constructs (i.e., decision-making autonomy, scheduling autonomy, and work-method autonomy). The model was tested using survey and archival data from two dominant mobile phone platforms (i.e., iOS and Android). As hypothesized, lead userness, exploration through toolkits, and ease of effort through toolkits positively affect users’ innovation quantity. Additionally, decision-making autonomy and work-method autonomy influence innovation quantity, but scheduling autonomy does not. Further, the proposed three-way interactions between lead userness, toolkit support, and design autonomy constructs on users’ quantity of MDS innovation are largely supported. The findings enhance our understanding of user innovation on mobile phone platforms.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Job autonomy is a multidimensional construct composed of scheduling autonomy, decision-making autonomy, and work methods autonomy.
“Job autonomy can be understood as a multidimensional construct (Weber et al. 2020) which is composed of three dimensions: scheduling autonomy, including scheduling, planning, and prioritising of tasks; decision-making autonomy, using personal initiative or judgment to make decisions; and work methods autonomy, choosing procedures and methods for performing tasks”
From Content Creators Between Platform Control and User Autonomy: The Role of Algorithms and Revenue Sharing (2023) · cites this paper as Ye and Kankanhalli 2018
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194 · see citing works
Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5 · Cited by 16,280 · see citing works
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018 · Cited by 6,479 · see citing works
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0323 · Cited by 1,514 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis
Boudreau, K. J., Lacetera, N., & Lakhani, K. R. (2011) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1322 · Cited by 830 · see citing works
Ahuja, M. K., & Bennett, J. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148691 · Cited by 818 · see citing works
Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1348/096317901167460 · Cited by 617 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Riasanow, T., Setzke, D. S., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2020) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-019-00377-4 · Cited by 945 · see citing works
Chen, L., Tong, T. W., Tang, S., & Han, N. (2022) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/01492063211045023 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Chen, L., Yi, J., Li, S., & Tong, T. W. (2022) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206320988337 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
“Moreover, in digital innovations, user participation constitutes an important channel of knowledge acquisition and alleviates the cost of feasibility test in product development (Ye & Kankanhalli, 2018).”
BackgroundHödl, T., & Myrach, T. (2023) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-023-00808-9 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
A multi-perspective framework for research on (sustainable) autonomous systems
Beck, R., Dibbern, J., & Wiener, M. (2022) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-022-00752-0 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Knorr, C., Erath, M., Saesen, J., Kindermann, B., & Strese, S. (2025) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-025-00817-4
- Authors
- Ye, H. (., & Kankanhalli, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Kankanhalli, Atreyi
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2018-03-01
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 165-187
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W2785506998
- Cited by
- 138
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 16.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Keywords
- user innovation, mobile phone platform, design autonomy, job design, user participation, iOS, Android, decision-making autonomy, exploration, innovation quantity
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