posted on 2017-01-19, 00:00authored byAnna Shaojie Cui, Fang Wu
More and more companies are actively involving their customers in the new product
development (NPD) process. However, there is little consensus regarding the contribution of
customer involvement to new product outcomes. A better understanding of this contribution
can shed light on whether and when it is worthwhile to involve customers and thus provide
firms better guidelines for making such decisions. This study examines the effects of two
forms of customer involvement on new product outcomes: the traditional form of customer
involvement as an information source (CIS) and the more active form of customer
involvement as co-developers (CIC). The authors offer a better understanding of whether
customer involvement can lead to successful innovation by (1) identifying conditions that
impact the effects of CIS and CIC on NPD outcomes, (2) contrasting the conditional effects
of CIS and CIC to understand how they influence NPD outcomes differently, (3) examining
the potential substitutive relationship between CIS and CIC to understand their joint effects in
improving innovation. They find that an experimental NPD approach that emphasizes trial
and error learning moderates the relationship between customer involvement and new
product outcomes. Specifically, the results reveal contrasting contingent effects of CIS and
CIC: CIS is more beneficial for new product outcomes when firms take a more experimental
NPD approach, whereas the effect of CIC is stronger when the NPD process is characterized
with lower experimentation. CIS and CIC also substitute for each other in their contribution
to new product outcomes. These findings suggest that each of the two forms of customer
involvement has its unique advantages and is suitable for different conditions. When
considering the adoption of CIC, firms should take into consideration their learning
approaches as well as the effectiveness of CIS in the NPD process.
Funding
The authors acknowledge the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) for providing funding for this research and assisting the data collection process. Also thank Gina O’Connor for her valuable comments on this project.
History
Publisher Statement
Post print version of article may differ from published version. The definitive version is available through Blackwell Publishing Ltd at DOI:10.1111/jpim.12326