User innovation is a new economic paradigm that has the ability to create a new engine for social and economic development. Furthermore, many users are not limited to their role as a user but evolve into business starters, thus becoming user entrepreneurs. This study aimed to reveal the important factors of successful user entrepreneurship by closely investigating two successful Korean user entrepreneurship cases. Based on this study’s findings, the importance of an entrepreneur’s caliber and networking ability was found. An entrepreneur’s innovation ability from expert knowledge and great familiarity and experience with the business as a user coupled with a strong will to entrepreneurship was the most important success factor at the early stage. In further developing user innovation technologically and commercially, the most important factor was an entrepreneur’s networking ability that can give access to complementary assets for successful development and commercialisation. With this, the innovation community—composed of related users and producers—has played a crucial role in the successful entrepreneurial process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlankS. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 63–72.
2.
BogersM., AfuahA., & BastianB. (2010). Users as innovators: A review, critique, and future research directions. Journal of Management, 36(4), 857–875.
3.
Burger-HelmchenT., & CohendetP. (2012). User communities and social software in the video game industry. Long Range Planning, 44(5), 317–343.
4.
Burton-JonesA. (2011). Knowledge capitalism: Business, work, and learning in the new economy. Oxford: OUP Catalogue.
5.
ChatterjiA., & FabrizioK. (2012). How do product users influence corporate invention?Organization Science, 23(4), 971–987.
6.
ChesbroughH.W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology (Vol. 22, No. 25, p. 16). Boston: Harvard Business Press.
7.
ChristensenC. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
8.
ChristensenJ.F., OlesenM.H., & KjærJ.S. (2005). The industrial dynamics of open innovation—Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research Policy, 34(10), 1533–1549.
9.
Di GangiP.M., & WaskoM. (2009). Steal my idea! Organizational adoption of user innovations from a user innovation community: A case study of Dell IdeaStorm. Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 303–312.
10.
FrankeN., von HippelE., & SchreierM. (2006). Finding commercially attractive user innovations: A test of lead-user theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(4), 301–315.
11.
GaultF., & von HippelE.A. (2009). The prevalence of user innovation and free innovation transfers: Implications for statistical indicators and innovation policy (Working Paper No. 4722–09). Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management.
12.
HaefligerS., JägerP., & von KroghG. (2010). Under the radar: Industry entry by user entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 39(9), 1198–1213.
13.
HerstattC., & von HippelE. (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(3), 213–221.
14.
KhosropourH., FeiziK., TabaeeanK., & TaheriZ. (2015). The effect of open innovation on technology intelligence in aviation industry of Iran. Science Technology & Society, 20(1), 89–113.
15.
KodamaF., & ShibataT. (2015). Demand articulation in the open-innovation paradigm. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 1(1), 1–21.
16.
Korean Startup Statistics. (2015). Korea Institute of Startup and Entrepreneurship Development.
17.
KrishnaV., PatraS.K., & BhattacharyaS. (2012). Internationalisation of R&D and global nature of innovation: Emerging trends in India. Science Technology & Society, 17(2), 165–199.
18.
LettlC., & GemündenH.G. (2005). The entrepreneurial role of innovative users. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 20(7), 339–346.
19.
LindblomC.E. (1959). The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.
20.
LintonJ.D., & WalshS. (2008). Acceleration and extension of opportunity recognition for nanotechnologies and other emerging technologies. International Small Business Journal, 26(1), 83–99.
21.
LiuS.S., LuoX., & ShiY.Z. (2002). Integrating customer orientation, corporate entrepreneurship, and learning orientation in organizations-in-transition: An empirical study. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 367–382.
22.
LynnG.S., MoroneJ.G., & PaulsonA.S. (1996). Marketing and discontinuous innovation: The probe and learn process. California Management Review, 38(3), 3.
23.
MarkmanG.D., SiegelD.S., & WrightM. (2008). Research and technology commercialization. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1401–1423.
24.
ModyC. (2006). Corporations, universities, and instrumental communities: Commercializing probe microscopy, 1981–1996. Technology and Culture, 47(1), 56–80.
25.
MorrisonP.D., RobertsJ.H., & von HippelE. (2000). Determinants of user innovation and innovation sharing in a local market. Management Science, 46(12), 1513–1527.
26.
NewbertS., WalshS., KirchhoffB., & ChavezV. (2006). Technology-driven entrepreneurship: Muddling through and succeeding with the second product. In HabbershonTimothy G., MinnitiMaria, RiceMark P., SpinelliStephenJr., ZacharakisAndrew (Eds), Entrepreneurship: The engine of growth (pp. 291–312). New York: Praeger Perspectives.
PatraS.K., & KrishnaV.V. (2015). Globalization of R&D and open innovation: Linkages of foreign R&D centers in India. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 1(1), 1–24.
29.
ShahS. (2000). Sources and patterns of innovation in a consumer products field: Innovations in sporting equipment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management.
30.
ShahS.K. (2005). Open beyond software. In DibonaC., CooperD., & StoneM. (Eds), Open sources 2: The continuing evolution. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
31.
von HippelE. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
32.
von HippelE. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Journal Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.
33.
von HippelE. (1976). The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy, 5(3), 212–239.
34.
von HippelE. (1977). The dominant role of the user in semiconductor and electronic subassembly process innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-24 (2), 60–71.
35.
von HippelE., de JongJ.P.J., & FlowersS. (2010). Comparing business and household sector innovation in consumer products: Findings from a representative study in the United Kingdom. Management Science, 58(9), 1669–1681.
36.
WestJ., & GallagherS. (2006). Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software. R&D Management, 36(3), 319–331.
37.
YunJ.H.J. (2015). How do we conquer the growth limits of capitalism? Schumpeterian dynamics of open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 1(1), 1–20.
38.
YunJ.H.J., JeongE., & YangJ. (2015). Open innovation of knowledge cities. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 1(1), 1–20.
39.
YunJ.H.J., & MohanA.V. (2012). Exploring open innovation approaches adopted by small and medium firms in emerging/growth industries: Case studies from Daegu–Gyeongbuk Region of South Korea. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 12(1), 1–19.
40.
YunJ.H.J., ParkS., & AvvariM.V. (2011). Development and social diffusion of technological innovation cases based on mobile telecommunications in national emergency management. Science Technology and Society, 16(2), 215–234.
