Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Triggers entrepreneurship among creative consumers

⁎,1
Linda Hamdi-Kidara, , Cyrielle Vellerab,1
a
Toulouse Business School, France
b
Toulouse School of Management, France

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: While entrepreneurship has received much attention, little research has focused on end user entrepreneurship,
User entrepreneurship which refers to entrepreneurship by consumers who develop innovative solutions that better answer their daily
End user entrepreneur personal needs. This exploratory research aims to provide a deeper understanding of what motivates end user
User innovation entrepreneurs to found firms. Based on a qualitative study conducted among 20 end user entrepreneurs, our data
Entrepreneurship process
suggest that three significant factors may lead consumers to switch to an entrepreneur role: (1) intrinsic moti-
Entrepreneurial consumer
vations - passion, enjoyment and the willingness to help others - rather than extrinsic ones - rational search for
profit and search for recognition; (2) the lack of alternative ways to diffuse their innovations in the market; (3)
favorable life periods with minimum implied risk to their professional activity. This paper contributes to both
user innovation and user entrepreneurship literature by extending academic knowledge and provides oppor-
tunities for further research.

1. Introduction service and who experience a need for improvement (Shah & Tripsas,
2007). This need can be related to a job (professional user en-
“I'm Gary Fisher. I've been called the founding father of mountain biking. trepreneurs) or personal use (end user entrepreneurs).
I don't know about that, but I do know this: I love bikes. Riding them, Empirical studies have shown that 10.7% of all startups and 46.6%
building them, making them better. Cross bikes, mountain bikes, town bikes. of innovative startups (that survived to their fifth year) created in the
Bikes for fun, for transport, for everything. I love them all.”2 In the early United States in 2004 were founded by users (Shah, Winston Smith, &
1970s, Fisher wanted a bike he could ride off-road, “away from cops, Reedy, 2011). Other studies find that 29% of US-based medical device
cars, and concrete.”3 He went on to develop a new genre of biking. Later, startups and 84% of large and small firms in the juvenile products in-
he decided to go into business and created a bicycle company called dustries (263 firms created between 1980 and 2007) were founded by
Mountain Bikes. Similarly, during his spare time, Marc Grégoire in- users (physicians in the first case and parents, babysitters and care-
vented a new non-stick material for fishing: Teflon®. His wife suggested givers in the second) (Chatterji, 2009; Shah et al., 2011; Shah & Tripsas,
he might coat her set of cooking pans to make washing-up easier.4 After 2007, 2016). Over the past 10 years, these empirical patterns high-
registering a patent, Grégoire decided “to sell the idea to the manu- lighted the magnitude and importance of user entrepreneurship for the
facturers. But they took no notice of him” (Le Masson, Weil, & Hatchuel, industrial system (Winston Smith & Shah, 2014). However, as firm
2010). At this point, he subsequently decided to produce non-stick founders, end users (in contrast with professional users) remain rela-
cookware and to create his own firm, “Tefal,” which became a part of tively unexplored by scholars, even though the Kauffman Firm Survey,
the global Group SEB. Both Fisher's and Grégoire's anecdotal cases are conducted among a sample of 5000 startups launched in 2004, showed
striking illustrations of the phenomenon of user entrepreneurship (Shah that 40% of user entrepreneur firms were created by end user en-
& Tripsas, 2007). User entrepreneurship describes the new venture trepreneurs (Shah et al., 2011).5
creation and commercialization of a new product or service by an in- This exploratory study focuses exclusively on consumer en-
dividual or group of individuals who are also users of the product or trepreneurs and aims to extend our knowledge of this unconventional

⁎
Corresponding author at: 20 Boulevard Lascrosses, 31068 Toulouse, France.
E-mail addresses: l.hamdi-kidar@tbs-education.fr (L. Hamdi-Kidar), cyrielle.vellera@tsm-education.fr (C. Vellera).
1
The authors are listed alphabetically and contributed equally to the research.
2
http://www.bblawnequipment.com/products/Cycles_And_Fitness_Equipment.
3
http://www.trekbikes.com/uk/en/collections/gary_fisher/.
4
http://www.tefal.co.uk/about-tefal/our-history.
5
40% by professional user entrepreneurs and 20% by hybrid professional/end user entrepreneurs (Shah et al., 2011).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.018
Received 15 January 2017; Received in revised form 9 July 2018; Accepted 11 July 2018
0148-2963/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Hamdi-Kidar, L., Journal of Business Research (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.018
L. Hamdi-Kidar, C. Vellera Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

but growing form of production. More precisely, we aim to shed light consumers who can, on the one hand, constitute a pool of original ideas
on why, in some cases, innovative consumers decide to diffuse and and, on the other, postpone product end-of-life.
commercialize a solution they have developed for their own use, by Cova (2008) similarly compares these two types of consumers. He
creating their own business and starting a for-profit company. To ad- describes creative consumers as individuals who innovate through love
dress this aim, we interviewed 20 innovative consumers who developed and passion, who spend less, are more difficult for a company to
a product or service related to their daily consumption experience and, manage and more community-committed than lead users. Cova (2008)
subsequently, decided to found firms. Based on our results, we develop explains that these two consumer profiles also share common features,
a set of research propositions about the factors that lead consumers to such as enduring involvement in the product category and the pleasure
switch to an entrepreneurial role. gained by communicating their ideas. Regarding what motivates these
individuals, Füller, Jawecki, and Mühlbacher (2007) reporte that “80%
of creative members participate in innovative actions because in doing so
2. Literature review they experience pleasure and joy from it.” This means that for creative
consumers, the creative experience itself is experienced as a reward;
2.1. The user innovation phenomenon there is no expectation of immediate benefits in their case.
Despite a broad consensus in previous work about the benefits of
Von Hippel's pioneering work opened a tremendous research stream user-driven innovation, some have stressed the limitations of this lit-
that challenges the traditional dominant perspective that “the firm erature. Lüthje and Herstatt (2004) were among the first to specify that
produces goods and services for the user.” Von Hippel's view considers that the lead user method was more appropriate for industrial and niche
consumers can be a source of innovation since they are able to find truly markets and that most radical innovations were not developed by users.
novel solutions that better fit their personal needs. This “paradigm Trott, Van Der Duin, and Hartmann (2013) agree and criticize lead user
shift” (Baldwin & von Hippel, 2011) has been supported by many em- theory from a conceptual, methodological and empirical point of view.
pirical studies across different domains and countries.6 In parallel, Also, Bogers, Afuah, and Bastian (2010) call for a more explicit defi-
numerous examples illustrate the increasing enthusiasm of consumers nition of user innovation by making a clear distinction between dif-
for creative and do-it-yourself activities, ranging from cooking kits to ferent types of innovations (incremental, radical, architectural, gen-
home and car improvements (Dahl & Moreau, 2007), underlying a new erational, modular or disruptive) and between invention and
consumption culture where passion and pleasure are at the heart of the innovation (i.e. diffusion/commercialization). They point out that
search for a unique and personalized experience. This is emphasized by previous research has thoroughly documented users' motivations and
the multiple interactions and connections that are possible through the processes of innovation but has failed to address a key point: why do
Internet, including the multiplication of social networks and user some of these users decide to share their innovations more widely and
communities in every existing domain. want to start a new business, becoming user entrepreneurs? Few studies
This visibly growing phenomenon rapidly interested companies that address this question. In the medical domain, Lettl and Gemünden
are continuously searching for innovative inputs to confront a highly (2005) identified the conditions under which innovative users switch to
competitive environment and high failure rates for new products. While user entrepreneurs. They highlighted two main issues/challenges that
certain companies are still “resisting” or “ignoring” the fact that users user entrepreneurs face. First, user entrepreneurs experience great
can be a valuable source of innovation, other firms adopt a positive pressure when trying to find a solution in a context of scarce resources
attitude by “enabling” or “encouraging” them to co-create value and skills. Second, user entrepreneurs lack an established and organized
(Berthon, Pitt, McCarthy, & Kates, 2007). The literature about user- network. In the video game domain, Haefliger, Jaeger, and von Krogh
driven innovation underlines the role and contribution of two major (2010) developed a two-phase model to explain user entrepreneurs'
groups of consumers, including lead users (von Hippel, 1986) and market entry process in an industry. In the first phase, these creative
creative consumers (Berthon et al., 2007; Cova, 2008). Von Hippel users tend to “start under radar of incumbent firms” by combining the
(1986) was the first to highlight the key role of lead users in the in- knowledge derived from their own product/service experience and the
novation process and to identify them as (1) being ahead of a general experimentation within a peer community. Then, in the second phase,
market trend and (2) expecting significant benefits from their motiva- they try to commercialize their innovation. In line with this work,
tion to tailor their own solutions to their advanced needs. The other Hienerth and Lettl (2011) revealed the crucial role social networks play,
group of interest is creative consumers, whom Berthon et al. (2007) for example, in interactions between individual lead-users and their
define as “consumers who adapt, modify or transform their own offer.” peer communities regarding new product diffusion and its acceptance
They compare the status of lead users and creative consumers in four as a standard. More specifically, they showed how social networks help
ways. First, unlike lead users, creative consumers are interested in all creative consumers succeed thanks to feedback as well as increased
types of product offerings, new and old. Second, creative consumers are access to technical, social and financial assets.
not necessarily at the forefront of future market trends; their innova-
tions primarily serve their personal interest in the private sphere and 2.2. The user entrepreneurship phenomenon
can be shared with only a small group of individuals. Third, creative
consumers do not need to benefit directly from their innovations; most According to Shah and Tripsas (2016), user entrepreneurship by and
of the time they are searching for pleasure and recognition from others. large introduces incremental and breakthrough technological changes,
Fourth, creative consumers are less connected to companies. While insights and contributions to the commercial marketplace and the in-
Berthon et al. (2007) highlight these key differences between lead users dustrial system. Innovative startups, whose founders are user en-
and creative consumers, they also acknowledge overlaps between the trepreneurs, are more likely to exploit patents than other types of
two. They strongly recommend that companies take an interest in startups (Shah et al., 2011). While sources of entrepreneurial activities
and corporate venturing have attracted scholarly attention (such as
6 firms' formation by employees and academics), user entrepreneurship
6.1% of UK adult consumers have already developed a new product or
remains relatively unexplored (apart from Shah and her colleagues'
modified an existing one in an innovative way (von Hippel, de Jong & Flowers,
2012); 5.4% in Finland (de Jong et al., 2015); 3.7% in Japan (Ogawa & work). A burgeoning literature defines this phenomenon as new venture
Pongtanalert, 2011); 10.7% in France (Vernette & Hamdi-Kidar, 2013) and creations by individuals (professional or end users) who innovate in-
10.8% in Austria (Franke et al., 2016). These findings have recently been dis- itially to satisfy their own needs, which are unfulfilled by existing
cussed by Franke et al. (2016), who consider that these statistics are sub- products or features (Agarwal & Shah, 2014; Shah & Tripsas, 2007).
stantially underestimated. In an extensive seminal and empirical survey of the juvenile product

2
L. Hamdi-Kidar, C. Vellera Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

industry, Shah and Tripsas (2007) characterized the user en- have fewer resources (i.e. fewer revenues and workers) and come from
trepreneurship phenomenon in two ways. The first is an emergent less privileged sections of the population, it has been acknowledged
process with different stages and steps, where creating a for-profit that they are a critical source of many small and large innovations
company is not the initial plan or motivation; the authors call these (especially in the case of consumer products). In their empirical data to
“accidental entrepreneurs,” distinct from classical entrepreneurs for document the user entrepreneurship phenomenon in the juvenile pro-
whom the desire to undertake entrepreneurial activities occurs prior to ducts industry, Shah and Tripsas (2007) noted that “the desire for fi-
developing the idea and outcome. The second is a collective social nancial gain is only one motive for entrepreneurial activity […] a wide
process, open and shared, which is more likely to prevail in small new variety of motives may propel an individual to found a firm.” This echoes
markets and nascent niche segments where high variety is in demand. the well-established and documented expectancy-valence theory of
Literature streams and insights show that users' communities are an work motivation (e.g. Vroom, 1964), which sets up a dichotomy be-
important prerequisite for user entrepreneurship and commercial ven- tween intrinsic and extrinsic motives. The first category of motives is
ture creation (e.g. Agarwal & Shah, 2014; Hienerth & Lettl, 2011; Lettl directly linked to the activity itself and refers to the individual's feel-
& Gemünden, 2005; Shah, 2005; Shah & Tripsas, 2007). For example, ings, such as stimulation and pleasure. In contrast, extrinsic motives are
Agarwal and Shah (2014) and Shah and Tripsas (2007) showed that not related to the activity per se so much as to the search for financial or
users' communities, social context and interactions between the mem- verbal rewards and the recognition of others. Thus, despite a bour-
bers provide three valuable benefits to user entrepreneurs: (1) gath- geoning body of work in this field, no study, at our knowledge, provides
ering iterative feedback, support, advice and directions for subsequent a classification for the variety of motives that drive a creative user to
improvement of the potential solution (enabling product adjustments start an entrepreneurial activity that is worthy of further investigation.
prior to firm formation); (2) creating a potential market or new niche In the same vein, in the field of consumer sporting goods, Shah and
(by expressing interest, giving encouragement and spreading the in- Tripsas (2016) developed a theoretical model to explain when creative
novation through word-of-mouth); (3) providing first-hand information users decide to found or not found a firm to commercialize their own
and input about entrepreneurial and commercial opportunities (sharing innovations. They identified three main factors that accelerate the user
knowledge, resources and ideas). innovators' entrepreneurship process: “when they have access to com-
Previous published work identifies two categories of user en- plementary assets (…), when they possess informational advantages en-
trepreneurs (Shah & Tripsas, 2007): professional users and end users. abling them to uniquely identify opportunities that established firms would
Professional user entrepreneurs generally use a product and identify a underestimate, and when the rents from entrepreneurial activity exceed the
need for it in their professional life (workplace, job or business) and opportunity costs of their time.” This initial work opens a research avenue
consequently develop their own solution to improve it. Later, they de- for further investigation since the authors focus on organizational time
cide to leave their company and enter the commercial marketplace by factors rather than private factors in terms of life stages.
founding their own firm inspired by their previous professional ex- To extend Shah and Tripsas' first assumptions and to explore why
perience. This widespread phenomenon has been observed in various creative consumers decide to become entrepreneurs, we aim to answer
domains and product categories, including typesetting (Tripsas, 2008), the three following research questions: What mechanisms trigger
ice harvesting (Utterback, 1994), atomic force microscopy (Mody, creative consumers to become entrepreneurs (RQ1)? What are the
2006; Shah & Mody, 2014) and the medical devices industry (Winston pathways of end user entrepreneurship? (RQ2) Are there more favor-
Smith & Shah, 2014). Conversely, end user entrepreneurs take a sig- able times or periods of life for end users to undertake entrepreneurial
nificantly different approach. They are individuals who face a problem ventures (RQ3)?
or have a personal need in their day-to-day lives or everyday activities.
These “frustrated” users (because no solution fits and addresses their
3. Methodology
needs successfully) develop a solution and a prototype that addresses
their need and have a deep desire to share their solution openly with
This research aims to explore empirically why innovative end users
others before starting a for-profit business. They subsequently engage in
decide to bring their solutions to market and start their own firms. Since
entrepreneurial opportunities as opposed to simply using their in-
this research is exploratory and expands an existing theory, we used a
novations for their own use to capture economic value from their so-
phenomenon-based approach to “capture, describe, document, as well as
lutions (Shah & Tripsas, 2007).
conceptualize a phenomenon [end user entrepreneurship]” (von Krogh,
An early comprehensive study conducted by Shah (2005) illustrates
Rossi Lamastra, & Haefliger, 2012). To address this research goal, we
the impact of this phenomenon in the field of extreme sports. The au-
conducted in-depth interviews with end users who developed a product for
thor observes that a sizable fraction (43%) of key and viable innova-
personal use that they subsequently decided to commercialize, successfully
tions in windsurfing, skateboarding and snowboarding were initially
or unsuccessfully, by starting their own firm. We chose this qualitative
commercialized by the end users who developed them. A few but
method to fit Churchill's (1999) recommendations for extending theory
nonetheless significant single cases of user entrepreneurship have been
and clarifying concepts and because in-depth interviews do not constrain
observed, occurring in heterogeneous industries (both industrial and
informants' discourse and allow “real,” “rich” and “deep” information
consumer fields) such as sporting goods (Baldwin, Hienerth, & von
gathering (Stainback & Stainback, 1988). The data were collected fol-
Hippel, 2006; Lüthje, Herstatt, & von Hippel, 2005; Shah & Mody,
lowing a semi-structured set of questions designed to shed light on the
2014), automobiles (Franz, 2005), new media and stereo components
motivations of end users for ideation, prototyping and commercialization
(Langlois & Robertson, 1992), cinema and animation technology
processes, supplemented with specific follow-up questions based on each
(Haefliger et al., 2010) and juvenile products (Shah & Tripsas, 2007).
subject's individual responses (see Appendix A).
However, given the fact that these empirical surveys of the founding of
Our data collection began with an extensive review of published and
users' firms are based on historical, cross-sectional or longitudinal
public online and offline documentation concerning end user en-
contexts and frames, to date no design research has emerged as a norm
trepreneurship, including newspapers, business press articles, websites
(Agarwal & Shah, 2014).
and biographies. Based on this review, and given the scarcity of the
Moreover, in a longitudinal study, Shah et al. (2011) investigate end
profiles sought, we focused initially on the National Federation of
user entrepreneurs' demographic profiles and firm characteristics. They
French Inventors' Associations (FNAFI).7 The FNAFI coordinates
posit that firms founded by end users differ in significant ways from
other types of ventures: they are more likely to be created and operated
(after founding) from home and more likely to be self-financed and 7
The Fédération Nationale des Associations Françaises d'Inventeurs, http://
receive venture capital financing. Even though end user entrepreneurs fnafi.wordpress.com/.

3
L. Hamdi-Kidar, C. Vellera Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

national efforts to support independent innovators and is made up of dissatisfaction with a product/service category; (2) a sense of pleasure
16 units corresponding to different geographical regions in France.8 or enjoyment and the desire to take up a challenge; (3) personal belief
We initiated prospective phone interactions and/or emails with unit in the success of the project; (4) social relations; and (5) financial
managers in different regions. These early informants gave us a series of benefits. These motives are strongly interrelated.
contacts among different FNAFI members who were end users, not
professional, entrepreneurs and advised us to refer to their internal 4.1.1. Dissatisfaction
directory (Charrier, 2008). Then, we randomly selected our informants All our informants expressed dissatisfaction vis-à-vis a product ca-
and interviewed those who: (1) agreed to participate in the study; (2) tegory or a domain, which led them to search for a specific solution to a
had innovated to find solutions related to specific problems en- problem by themselves. In most cases, our informants first innovated to
countered in their daily life and personal consumption experiences (e.g. meet their own personal needs but in few cases, they developed solu-
routine activities, leisure and hobbies); (3) decided to diffuse these tions to help solve the problems of other people, whether their close
innovations, ranging from improvements to existing products to family and friends or unknown others. Simon's case is typical. After
creating completely new ones; (4) varied in terms of product-domain spending an entire day looking for a pair of shoes for his girlfriend he
innovation (e.g. DIY devices, outdoor activities, home accessories, developed an application that geolocalizes shoes in physical stores.
board gaming, motorbiking, digital apps, juvenile products, etc.). Mohammed created a signaling system for motorbike safety. He told us:
We stopped recruiting informants at the point of theoretical sa- “Making my system resulted in saving lives. Today it's my goal. I'm vice-
turation (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), that is, when ad- president of the Azur France Association of Motorcyclist Protection.”
ditional learning from among FNAFI members was minimal. This point
was reached with 12 informants, which is consistent with Guest, Bunce, 4.1.2. Passion/challenge
and Johnson' (2006) conclusions: “saturation occurred within the first Informants described the search for new solutions and the will-
twelve interviews, although basic elements for meta-themes were present as ingness to diffuse them as intuitive, pleasurable and exciting. Whether
early as six interviews.” it is for innovation or entrepreneurship, passion dominates: most in-
However, since the ages of the 12 selected informants were relatively novators consider their activities as a hobby, sometimes a game and can
high (11 were over 58), this first wave of interviews was supplemented by even go so far as to talk about an “obsession.” The entrepreneurial
a second round of data collection with younger end user entrepreneurs. process seems to be driven by the search for self-fulfillment, the desire
We contacted different incubators9 in the same city and used a snowball to take up a challenge and share stimulating experiences with others.
sampling approach to select the informants—the first interviewed were Typical comments included: “I share my passion, there are all these ex-
asked to provide introductions to other end user entrepreneurs. This changes which are very important” (Jean-Louis); “Working when I want, it
technique is particularly relevant to searching among “hard-to-reach po- was for fun, yes” (Pierre).
pulations” (Atkinson & Flint, 2001). Eight informants who met the same
selection criteria as the first sample were selected. Altogether, we inter- 4.1.3. Personal belief in the success of the project
viewed 20 individuals, 14 men and 6 women, ranging in age from 20 to Our respondents were convinced that there was a market opportu-
77, who had varied socioeconomic backgrounds, family status and geo- nity and strongly believed that their solution could meet similar needs
graphical dispersion. The profiles of our sample and descriptions of their that the available offerings on the market were failing to satisfy. Claire,
innovations are listed in Table 1. Because of the geographical dispersion of who created new cactus designs, said: “It's something that is extremely
the informants, the in-depth interviews were conducted by telephone10 or trendy right now, and this is the reason that pushes us (…) It's to tell oneself
face-to-face. The average length of the interviews was one hour. All were that there is now a niche, it's now that there is an opportunity, that it was
recorded and transcribed in their entirety for subsequent content analysis necessary to launch quickly and if we didn't do it now, it would be too late.”
(Bardin, 2003; Weber, 1990). To carry out the content analysis, we used a In the same way, Michel was convinced that his innovation was “a great
conventional manual approach. First, we read the transcripts and noted invention” that deserved to be diffused: “We cannot abandon it. I tell
specific themes in the text data. Then, we analyzed each informant's dis- myself: I'm sure that this invention will be successful.”
cussion word by word to explore the different responses and to capture Interestingly, unlike older informants, who were mainly driven by
coding schemes, emergent categories and subcategories derived directly intuition, our younger informants all tested the market potential of
from the data. In the following section, we develop our findings in detail. their innovation by conducting market research studies that confirmed
the market need and the mix-marketing of their offerings: “In the end, it
meets my needs but also the needs of other consumers and we made sure of
4. Findings emerging from the exploratory analysis
that before setting up the firm” (Julie).
4.1. Triggering mechanisms and motives (RQ1)
4.1.4. The role of social relations
We identified three main types of actors that usually interact with
Five main factors that motivated our informants to switch from an
innovative users and influence their decisions during the en-
innovator to an entrepreneur role emerged from our research: (1)
trepreneurial process, family and friends, a community of innovators/
entrepreneurs, and unknown (anonymous) others. Family and friends
8
The results of two web-based surveys (source: Vernette & Hamdi-Kidar, generally intervene in the early stages of the process by providing
2013; LSA, 2017:https://www.lsa-conso.fr/co-creation-le-oui-mais-des- constructive and fruitful feedback. Pierre reported: “Our friends told us
consommateurs-etude,262867) conducted among representative samples of ‘You really have to market [Tuyaucom], it's going to work!’ Word-of-mouth
the French population revealed that the prevalence and significance of user was already working. The bikers spoke to each other, we had calls, we had
innovation and user entrepreneurship in France is comparable to that of several requests, we felt there was a need.” Many young end user entrepreneurs
western countries (e.g. de Jong, 2011; de Jong et al., 2015). have parents who are self-employed, which creates a naturally stimu-
9
An incubator is a pedagogical hub or center that welcomes students and
lating environment for entrepreneurship. Surprisingly, the role of these
helps them develop and finalize business creation or takeover projects through
parents is ambivalent: they generally try, at first, to warn off their
individualized coaching and training seminars. The incubators contacted were
TBSeeds, Ekito, At Home, Le Village by CA and Pôle Ecrin Midi-Pyrénées. children and are reluctant to see them start a new business but they
10
According to Novick (2008): “Respondents have been described as relaxed on gradually change their minds and finally decide to help them.
the telephone, and willing to talk freely and to disclose intimate information. Qua- The second influential group is related more to the professional
litative telephone data have been judged to be rich, vivid, detailed, and of high sphere, including innovators and actors both inside and outside the
quality.” same domain. All our respondents tried to network with other experts,

4
L. Hamdi-Kidar, C. Vellera Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Profiles of the informants.
Informants Age Gender Initial products

Alexia & Olivier 44, 37 F, M Parentissime: coaching service for young parents with childcare included
Anne-Louise 22 F Teamagine: teas and herbal teas personalized
Chantal 60 F A new clothes hanger
Christian 64 M Aqua Limpid: sterilization system for swimming pool water
Claire 23 F Cactus corner: new cactus designs
Dusan 58 M The nail positioner: a magnetic hammer that attracts and positions nails correctly without the risk of hitting the fingers
Emmanuel 29 M Liberty rider: a smartphone app that detects motorbike accidents and send signals to emergency services
Guy 77 M Babydor: monitoring to prevent sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
Hugo 20 M Versus: a digital app for soccer players
Jean-François 72 M Furukoo: several board games and an online multiplayer game
Jean-Louis 59 M Easy-brod: An easy-to-carry embroidery loom that prevents back pain and eye strain
Jean-René 64 M Le Chauss'confort: system to lace up shoes
Julie 25 F Catspad: an automatic cat feeder and water dispenser connected to smartphones
Mélanie 34 F Urban challenge: sport training service
Michel 66 M Babaz: special key to open a gas bottle
Mohammed 28 M Clic-light: signaling system, worn on a motorcyclist's back to increase visibility for other drivers on the road
Pierre 66 M Tuyaucom: intercom between two motorbikers
Raymond 63 M Somagic Raymond barbecue: a vertical and remote control barbecue
Richard 58 M The heliotropium parasol: a self-repositioning parasol that shelters the user from the sun throughout the day
Simon 32 M KissMyShoe: a digital app that uses geolocalization to find shoes in physical stores that match clients' expectations and specific needs

not only because they were seeking information but also to meet other 4.2. Pathways to end user entrepreneurship (RQ2)
individuals who share the same interests and passion. These profes-
sional contacts give the end-user entrepreneur essential support in In this section, we aim to enrich the end user entrepreneurial model
different ways, including specific informational support (advice, gui- conceptualized by Shah and Tripsas (2007) by defining the main
dance, suggestions, etc.). For instance, Chantal told us: “At the first level pathways between opportunity identification (when users recognize
of the drawings I had made at the start, I found a company a few miles from potential commercial opportunities) and the decision to undertake (or
my home that cuts plastic and wood using a laser system. I asked them nicely not) a commercial venture (form a firm) for entry to the commercial
if they could make me a prototype. And they did it for free.” marketplace (Table 2).
Finally, end user entrepreneurs are likely to meet anonymous others At an early stage, when end users decide to enter the commercial
(virtually or directly) who play a fundamental role by giving impartial marketplace, two processes can be distinguished, depending on whe-
feedback to the innovator and diffusing information about the in- ther they want to start by commercializing their solutions on their own
novation through positive word-of-mouth. Raymond commented: “This or through others (established manufacturers or new entrants).
was the opinion of those who saw it. The first ones who bought [the vertical In the first case, of the 20 informants we interviewed, 13 decided to
barbecue] were delighted. Let's just say that all the feedback I got pushed me handle this stage by themselves because (1) they were afraid to lose
to sell it more. [...] It makes me happy to make it easier for people to bar- control and authorship of their solutions, (2) they were motivated to
becue, even if I don't know them.” Dusan also said: “What motivates me is engage actively in an entrepreneurial journey and/or (3) they were
peoples' need, when you participate in innovation fairs, people say your idea legally “forced” to undertake it.
is great […] it is awesome, it is great.” For instance, Jean-René, who designed the “comfort shoe,” de-
clared: “[Established manufacturers] leap on you, they do business for you
and then, they take it all […] That's why I created a micro-enterprise […] It
4.1.5. Financial benefits
gives me the opportunity to sell what I make.” Similarly, Dusan, who
Not surprisingly, many informants mentioned that financial gain
created the nail positioner, reported: “I had offers from [company name
was the motivation for undertaking an entrepreneurial process. The
1]. But they wanted to produce it in China. They wanted four or five times
monetary motive can be differentiated: some individuals want to make
the price but I didn't […] Then [company name 2] asked me as well, but I
money and large financial gains thanks to the commercialization of
said no, no […] My will is to create, to start a business, to solve the problem
their innovations; others search for additional financing to help in a
and to find something that does not exist.” Simon, who launched the
crisis or to offset a drop in income (e.g. retirement). “In 2007, the
KissmyShoe app, noted: “At that time I wanted to take risks and to go
economic crisis had befallen us and I said why don't I create my own
further in my life. I want to start a new adventure […] Can I start a new
company? The crisis motivated me to found my own firm. My income didn't
adventure and complete it? Can I create something original and go further?”
melt away but salary, pension… we got poorer […] with the crisis, I earn
Hugo, who created the smartphone app Versus, explained: “It was im-
less” (Christian).
posed on us. It was necessary. It couldn't be an undeclared activity. My
developer sent me an email saying: ‘Hugo, the app is gonna be ready but we
4.1.6. Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motives won't have a company. If we are on Apple store, we have to create a com-
In the large majority of cases, our informants were more stimulated pany. We have to. It is a must.’”
by intrinsic motives (the sense of pleasure, enjoyment and the will- In the second case, for consumers who do not want to found a firm,
ingness to help others) than by extrinsic motives (rational search for some of our informants search for established manufacturers or new
profit and recognition). Alexia declared: “For my part, it has nothing to do entrants (operating in the same product sector or field-related) to en-
with a need for recognition, or financial motivation. No, for me, I was really able them to exploit and commercialize their innovations in exchange
fed up with this lifestyle, the pressure, and I had an urge to find meaning, to for appropriate financial returns, through patent licensing or assign-
work on values that I couldn't find any more. It's more for this [that I ment. More precisely, the end users we interviewed did not want to
decided to found a firm].” In the same vein, Jean-René indicated: assume the active role of manufacturer and preferred yielding rights to
“When you create something and you see it in your entourage, that's what's the intellectual property (IP) of their solutions to existing manu-
interesting. We don't talk about money here, we talk about pleasure. It's a facturers for two principal reasons. First, they did not want to create a
pleasure.”

5
L. Hamdi-Kidar, C. Vellera Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 2
End user entrepreneurship paths from our sample.
End user name and initial Patent End users have a desire to End users have a desire to diffuse their solutions through others (established Success? Yes, no,
product diffuse their solutions by manufacturers or new entrants) but fail in progressb
themselves

User forms a firm User forms User choses alternative User limits the diffusion to self
a firm commercialization and diffusion and/or community (family,
outcomes friends sphere)

Alexia, Olivier X In progress

(Parentissime)
Anne-Louise X In progress
(Teamagine)
Chantal X No
(Clothes hanger)
Christian X X Yes
(Aqua Limpid)
Claire X In progress
(Cactus corner)
Dusan X X Yes
(Nail positioner)
a
Emmanuel X Yes
(Liberty rider)
Julie X X Yes
(Catspad)
Guy X X No
(Babydor)
Hugo X In progress
(Versus)
Jean-François (Furukoo) X No
Jean-Louis X X Yes
(Easy-Brod)
Jean-René X X No
(Le Chauss'confort)
Melanie X Yes
(Urban Challenge)
Michel X X Yes
(Babaz key)
Mohammed (Clic-light) X X XX
Pierre (Tuyaucom) X X Yes
Raymond (Somagic) X X Yes
Richard X No
(Parasol)
Simon X Yes
(KissMyShoe)
Total (20) 10 10 6 1 2 /

“A success” means that the company generates enough revenue to allow the firm's founder to earn a living from its activity and/or that the company generates high
enough revenues to consider new development perspectives (e.g. recruitment of new employees, etc.).
a
Trademark registration.
b
“In progress” means that the company is still in the process of being set up or is less than six months old.

company due to the uncertainty, time and efforts a firm foundation innovative clothes hanger, commented: “One day, I was reflecting and I
requires. Pierre, who designed the Tuyaucom, told us: “I was working, I said to myself: this is a wardrobe from IKEA. I will suggest my thingummy to
earned 3000 euros per month. I didn't want the bother of setting up my them […] and maybe they would buy my idea for €10,000.”
business and taking risks.” Finally, for all our informants, the willingness to give or diffuse the
Second, they did not want to found a firm because they did not have innovation through others has not been conclusive for two main rea-
the financial support and resources for producing the innovation and sons. First, some end users did not find the right manufacturers to
could not face IP protection costs. Richard, who invented Parasol, commercialize their innovations. For example, the founder of Furukoo,
commented: “For a private individual buying solar panels, doing things like Jean-François, declared: “The only way to sell a game you created on your
that, was pretty expensive. And I couldn't manage the development alone. It own is to find a game publisher. But no one wanted to take the risk of starting
was financially onerous. I did just one version of [the parasol].” something new”; and Chantal said: “I even sent emails to Italy to hanger
Moreover, we noticed that, at this stage of the process, informants manufacturers […] No, no, I never got an answer.”
have great enthusiasm and a credulous attitude, overestimating the Second, informants manifested disappointment at the imbalance
interest and economic returns offered by existing established firms. between the proposal made to them and their initial expectations,
For example, Michel, the innovator of a special key for connecting especially in terms of financial benefits. For instance, Michel declined a
domestic gas bottles to gas pipes, remembered: “At that time I thought: proposal from a large firm that was not financially appealing. He
they will see the product and will make me a proposal and give me a check. commented: “[a company specialized in synthetic material products]
They will roll out the red carpet for me.” Similarly, Richard reported: “For told me: We sell our own products. Would you like to sell your patent? I said,
myself, ideally, it was to find a manufacturer who wanted to commercialize why not? They made me an offer… It was worth peanuts.” Mohammed
[the parasol] and I could carry on working and be involved a little bit in the observed: “In our head, we are multimillionaires and then we are quickly
research unit to continue to improve functionalities. But I wanted to keep my brought back to reality.”
job as associate professor at the university.” Chantal, who created an These inconclusive experiences illustrate the difficulty end users

6
L. Hamdi-Kidar, C. Vellera Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

face in attempting to enter the market with established manufacturers Conversely, most of young respondents already have or aim to have
or external actors. Those in our sample tended to respond in three a high level of education (Master's degree); most of them decided to
distinct ways. found a firm during or immediately after the end of their studies, that is,
The first, taken by two of our discouraged informants, was to check at the beginning of their professional career, which makes en-
their entrepreneurship route by limiting the diffusion of their solutions trepreneurship their first job experience.
to their personal use or simply use them or share them freely with in- In both cases, these life periods are less risky in terms of professional
dividuals from their community (family and friends). As Chantal put it: and personal paths. The selection of these time windows is a specificity
“It has come a cropper. But it doesn't matter. I continue to make [hangers] of end user entrepreneurs, who ultimately seem to be more cautious
for me and my daughter.” than conventional entrepreneurs.
The second is for end users to choose to enter the marketplace and
commercialize the solutions independently by founding their own
profit-driven firms. Four of our informants decided to capture the 5. Discussion and contributions to the literature
economic benefits from their solutions after disappointing experiences
with manufacturers. Pierre reported: “I was looking for a company to Based on 20 interviews conducted with end users who decided to
switch from handmade to small series. Nobody replied. So, I decided to commercialize their solutions, our research contributes new theoretical
develop it by myself in attic rooms in Paris […] I started the business. and empirical knowledge to an extensive phenomenon that is still un-
Similarly, Christian, the founder of Aqua Limpid, noted: “My main derestimated (Franke, Schirg, & Reinsberger, 2016) and understudied
motivation [to create a firm] was that I didn't find any opportunities with (Shah & Tripsas, 2007). While most work published to date has focused
manufacturers for my product […] In desperation, I started a micro- on the user entrepreneurship phenomenon in general (without making
enterprise.” any distinction between end users and professional users), our study
The lack of interest and the absence of consideration from estab- addresses this gap with an in-depth examination of what motivates end
lished manufacturers sparked the idea of undertaking entrepreneurial user entrepreneurs and stimulates this unusual entrepreneurship pro-
activities. At this point, end users have the impression of having no cess. Moreover, our research focuses on end users who developed a
other option than to form their own firms. wide range of products with a clear innovative dimension (physical
The third response was to look for alternative outcomes and options products, digital goods and services) and experienced different stages of
for commercialization, such as fairs or exhibitions. Jean-François noted: firm development.
“I would not have commercialized [his board game] by myself if I had The data suggest that three main factors can trigger entrepreneur-
found a game publisher who would do it […] But when I realized that it was ship among creative consumers: (1) intrinsic and extrinsic motivations;
an impossible mission, I said to myself: I'll do it by myself and I'm going to (2) the lack of other alternatives; and (3) time/stage of life. We can
commercialize it on my own […] And now, I commercialize it by myself frame these results in terms of three specific propositions (P1, P2, P3)
during fairs, to schools and toy libraries […] I must be over 1000 [games that could be tested in future research.
sold]. I sell through my association.” P1. End user entrepreneurship is more likely to occur when the rational
These descriptions enable us to identify three main routes and dri- search for profit and economic benefit does not dominate.
vers through which the commercial diffusion of end user innovations
can occur: full end user entrepreneurship (when end users commer- Our study reveals that end user entrepreneurship stems from two
cialize their innovations by creating firms); alternative end user en- main motivations: the first is the search for a solution to a given pro-
trepreneurship (when end users commercialize their innovations blem, usually identified during personal consumer experiences; the
through alternative channels and outcomes without creating firms); and second is the willingness to diffuse this solution as widely as possible.
zero end user entrepreneurship (when end users do not assume the role Most of the time, this problem is experienced and identified by the
of manufacturer and license their innovations to established manu- entrepreneur him/herself but we show that, to a lesser extent, the
facturers or new entrants or others, including diffusing their innova- problem can be experienced by other individuals (close contacts or
tions freely to the community, capturing no economic value from anonymous others). In both cases, the entrepreneurial consumer is
them). passionate11 and excited about finding a solution and taking up the
challenge. This first proposition can be related to Shah et al.' (2011)
4.3. Favorable periods for end-user entrepreneurship (RQ3) conclusions that showed that, compared to professional entrepreneurs,
end user entrepreneurs earn lower incomes, are less likely to receive
Our informants had work experiences outside their field of in- bank financing and are more heavily self-financed five years after
novation. Our results suggest a clear difference between younger and founding. These findings suggest that end user entrepreneurs are not
older end user entrepreneurs. driven primarily by financial motives. In contrast, they are generally
Most senior entrepreneurs described non-linear career paths in a embedded in structured social networks—composed of users who share
wide variety of jobs and domains. Many of them indicated very low a common passion/interest in a certain domain. The main role of these
(one did not receive any formal education at all) to medium levels of specific innovation networks is to counterbalance the creative con-
education, except one who had a PhD. This characteristic clearly shows sumers' lack of competencies, financial resources, and informational
that these individuals can be considered self-taught since they create and emotional support (e.g. Haefliger et al., 2010; Hienerth & Lettl,
and innovate thanks to the knowledge they derive and accumulate from 2011; Lettl & Gemünden, 2005). More precisely, Hienerth and Lettl
their user/consumer experiences. They bring new approaches to solving (2011) identified two major community pull effects. The first relates to
specific problems without any constraint (they “think outside the box”) the ability of few community members to serve as a point of reference
and many of them are really proud about this, considering it sweet by checking and confirming the importance and potential of innovative
revenge. For example, Pierre commented: “I tried to be a chef at 14 […] user ideas. This early participation by the “micro-community” tends to
Later I was a laborer, camembert maker. Later, I worked in metallurgy and increase the likelihood that the creative consumer will develop a tan-
after that for [name of company] for 32 years, 25 years in after sales gible product (i.e. prototyping the innovation). This pull effect
service and the remaining time, until 1999, in the press office.”
Interestingly, most senior informants decided to found their firms at the 11
We refer to the definition of entrepreneurial passion by Cardon, Wincent,
end of their professional career, a few years before or after retirement. Singh, and Drnovsek (2009) as: “consciously accessible, intense positive feelings
Christian, for instance, explained: “So now when I retired, I thought, why experienced by engagement in entrepreneurial activities associated with roles that are
not start a business?” meaningful and salient to the self-identity of the entrepreneur.”

7
L. Hamdi-Kidar, C. Vellera Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

increases if the skills and backgrounds of the micro-community mem- part of their lifestyle; these companies are more “likely to be founded at
bers are heterogeneous, since these members tend to become the first home and be operated from home five years after their foundation” (Shah
adopters. The second pull effect is initiated by selected members who et al., 2011).
play the role of opinion leaders by helping to diffuse the product within Our research has also limitations that offer clear opportunities for
the community. This enables crossing the chasm between the first future research. First, a central limitation of this survey is that it is
adopters and the early majority by increasing new product acceptance. focused only on end user, and not professional, entrepreneurs. Our in-
Research conducted by Martin and Schouten (2014) confirms that terviews were conducted with 20 end users who became entrepreneurs.
peer communities are key success drivers for end user entrepreneurs. A strong complementary study would replicate this same qualitative
These peer communities catalyze the diffusion and acceptance of the survey with two samples (end user and professional user entrepreneurs)
new products developed by “embedded entrepreneurs” as they serve as to establish a clear comparison between both entrepreneurial processes.
collaborative places to build their project (business opportunity iden- Second, current research—including ours—analyzes the end user en-
tification, development, testing and diffusion of the related solutions, trepreneurship process ex-post. A deeper understanding and report
emotional support). Unlike traditional entrepreneurial ventures, this could be made using ethnographic and longitudinal methodologies that
form of creation is an uncontrolled and somehow anarchic, instinctive are more appropriate to exploring an ongoing process, as well as
and empirical process where consumers aggregate, step-by-step, their quantitative methods to identify interesting entrepreneurship patterns
product-related knowledge, skills, experience and social relations to and determinants such as age, gender, education and work trajectory.
start a new business. This consumption-driven market emergence seems Third, our research explores user entrepreneurship in founding for-
to be fueled by passion, playfulness and a climate of conviviality within profit firms. A promising approach would be to explore in more detail
these communities (Guercini & Ranfagni, 2016; Martin & Schouten, other forms of end user entrepreneurship ranging from those that dif-
2014). fuse innovations freely, through voluntary sectors, non-governmental
organizations or non-profit charities, to those using hybrid models with
P2. End user entrepreneurship can occur when initial alternatives to
a combination of charitable work and commercial activities. These in-
commercialization and diffusion outcomes fail.
vestigations would extend knowledge about social entrepreneurship
Extending the seminal work of Shah and Tripsas (2007), we confirm and produce a better understanding of “collective” end user en-
their findings and bring new insights to their initial model. Our results trepreneurship, that is, when the firm foundation process is undertaken
suggest that despite a strong willingness to diffuse and spread their by more than one end user entrepreneur. Finally, many of our in-
innovations, most entrepreneurial consumers do not initially want to formants revealed that they do not consider themselves entrepreneurs;
commercialize their innovations by themselves, confirming the theory this certainly indicates a deep identity opposition between the user/
of an “accidental entrepreneur.” This echoes the recent work of de consumer and the entrepreneur that merits research attention.
Jong, von Hippel, Gault, Kuusisto, and Raasch (2015), who explored
why only a fraction12 of user innovators diffuse their innovations Appendix A. Interview guide
broadly. They revealed that the potential value gained is not inter-
nalized by user innovators who ultimately do not want to invest time 1) Can you introduce yourself in a nutshell?
and effort in innovation diffusion, which can be considered a novel type 2) Can you tell me the chronology of your innovating project starting
of market failure. In the same vein, Shah and Tripsas' (2016) theoretical from the idea?
model explains the conditions under which user innovators decide to 3) How did you come up with your new idea(s)?
license (in the case of a strong IP regime) or give (low IP regime) their 4) What was/were the origin(s) of the idea(s)?
innovation to a manufacturer instead of commercializing it. They 5) Was this innovation for you, your family or society in general?
identify two main conditions: when the estimated profit of entering the 6) How was the prototyping/design step?
market as a producer is below the innovator's own threshold level and 7) Did you receive some help? From your family, friends or member of
when established firms have the control of key assets like distribution. a community?
But paradoxically, a fraction of these same user innovators do not want 8) Have you filed a patent for your innovation?
to “abandon” their innovations for free or lose control of it, so decide 9) Can you tell me in detail how and when you decided to start your
nevertheless to found a firm. This lack of alternatives creates a context own firm?
that encourages ordinary consumers to switch to an entrepreneur role. 10) Can you identify what drove that choice?
11) Can you indicate the weight of each motivation to become an en-
P3. End user entrepreneurship is more likely to occur at the beginning
trepreneur?
or at the end of a professional career and rarely substitute for any
12) What do you feel when thinking about people who use your in-
established professional activity.
novation?
For creative consumers, the time factor, and more specifically stage 13) What place did this new activity take in your daily life?
of life, seems to be important in the decision to found a firm. This de- 14) How do you consider yourself? As an entrepreneur?
cision is more likely to be motivated when there are gaps in the pro-
fessional career, typically at the end of studies (before getting the first References
job), during the last job experience and after retirement. These periods
present a favorable context for end user entrepreneurship for three Agarwal, R., & Shah, S. (2014). Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: Firm formation
main reasons: time, limited risk and strong social support. Time is a key by academic, user & employee innovators. Research Policy, 43, 1109–1133.
Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations:
resource when undertaking a venture; consumers need time to focus on Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33.
many challenging tasks. Limited risk is significant, since neither ex- Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., & von Hippel, E. (2006). How user innovations become com-
students nor retirees will by jeopardizing their professional careers. mercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study. Research Policy, 35,
1291–1313.
This is not to suggest that they are not courageous or adventurous; it is Baldwin, C. Y., & von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer in-
more that they can leave themselves a way out. User innovators derive novation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22,
satisfaction from being self-employed and benefit from their work being 1399–1417.
Bardin, L. (2003). L'analyse de contenu. Paris: PUF.
Berthon, P. R., Pitt, L. F., McCarthy, I., & Kates, S. M. (2007). When customers get clever:
Managerial approaches to dealing with creative consumers. Business Horizons, 50,
12 39–47.
Based on a sample of 176 innovations developed by users, only 19% were
Bogers, M., Afuah, A., & Bastian, B. (2010). Users as innovators: A review, critique, and
diffused.

8
L. Hamdi-Kidar, C. Vellera Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

future research directions. Journal of Management, 36, 857–875. Le Masson, P., Weil, B., & Hatchuel, A. (2010). Strategic management of design and in-
Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. (2009). The nature and experience novation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
of entrepreneurial passion. Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 511–532. Lettl, C., & Gemünden, H. G. (2005). The entrepreneurial role of innovative users. Journal
Charrier, B. (2008). Les Pages bleues des inventeurs. Dictionnaire de la recherche et de la of Business & Industrial Marketing, 20(7), 339–346.
connaissance. Paris: Scali. Lüthje, C., & Herstatt, C. (2004). The lead user method: An outline of empirical findings
Chatterji, A. L. (2009). Spawned with a silver spoon? Entrepreneurial performance and and issues for future research. R&D Management, 34(5), 553–568.
innovation in the medical device industry. Strategic Management Journal, 30, Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C., & von Hippel, E. (2005). User-innovators and “local” information:
185–206. The case of mountain biking. Research Policy, 34, 951–965.
Churchill, G. (1999). Marketing research: Mythological foundations (7th edition). Dryden: Martin, D. M., & Schouten, J. W. (2014). Consumption-driven market emergence. Journal
Orlando. FL. of Consumer Research, 40(5), 855–870.
Cova, B. (2008). Consumer made: Quand le consommateur devient producteur. Décisions Mody, C. (2006). Corporations, communities and instrumental communities:
Marketing, 50, 19–27. Commercializing probe microscopy, 1981–1996. Working paper. Philadelphia:
Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, C. P. (2007). Thinking inside the box: Why consumers enjoy Chemical Heritage Foundation.
constrained creative experiences. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 357–369. Novick, G. (2008). Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research?
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Research in Nursing and Health, 31, 391–398.
Management Review, 14, 532–550. Ogawa, S., & Pongtanalert, K. (2011). Visualizing invisible innovation content: Evidence
Franke, N., Schirg, F., & Reinsberger, K. (2016). The frequency of end-user innovation: A from global consumer innovation surveys. Working paper. Available at SSRN http://
re-estimation of extant. Research Policy, 45, 1684–1689. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1876186.
Franz, K. (2005). Tinkering: Customers reinvent the early automobile. Philadelphia, PA: Shah, S., & Tripsas, M. (2016). When do user-innovators start firms? A theory of user
University of Pennsylvania Press. entrepreneurship. In D. Harhoff, & K. Lakhani (Eds.). Revolutionizing innovation: Users,
Füller, J., Jawecki, G., & Mühlbacher, H. (2007). Développement de produits et services communities and open innovation (pp. 285–307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
en coopération avec des communautés en ligne. Décisions Marketing, 48, 47–58. Shah, S. K. (2005). Open beyond software. In C. Dibona, D. Cooper, & M. Stone (Eds.).
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies in qualitative Open sources 2: The continuing evolution (pp. 339–360). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly
research. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Media.
Guercini, S., & Ranfagni, S. (2016). Conviviality behavior in entrepreneurial communities Shah, S. K., & Mody, C. C. M. (2014). Creating a context for entrepreneurship: Examining how
and business networks. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 770–776. users' technological and organizational innovations set the stage for entrepreneurial ac-
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An ex- tivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
periment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59–82. Shah, S. K., & Tripsas, M. (2007). The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and col-
Haefliger, S., Jaeger, P., & von Krogh, G. (2010). Under the radar: Industry entry by user lective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1,
entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 39, 1198–1213. 123–140.
Hienerth, C., & Lettl, C. (2011). Exploring how peer communities enable lead user in- Shah, S. K., Winston Smith, S., & Reedy, E. J. (2011). Who are user entrepreneurs?
novations to become standard equipment in the industry: Community pull effects. Findings on innovation, founder characteristics and firm characteristics. Kauffman
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(S1), 175–195. Foundation Report. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman.
von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1988). Understanding and conducting qualitative research.
Science, 32, 791–805. IA, Kendall/Hunt: Dubuque.
von Hippel, E., de Jong, J. P. J., & Flowers, S. (2012). Comparing business and household Tripsas, M. (2008). Customer preference discontinuities: A trigger for radical technolo-
sector innovation in consumer products: Findings from a representative study in the gical change. Managerial and Decision Economics, 29, 79–93.
United Kingdom. Management Science, 58, 1669–1681. Trott, P., Van Der Duin, P., & Hartmann, D. (2013). Users as innovators? Exploring the
de Jong, J. P., von Hippel, E., Gault, F., Kuusisto, J., & Raasch, C. (2015). Market failure limitations of user-driven innovation. Prometheus, 31(2), 125–138.
in the diffusion of consumer-developed innovations: Patterns in Finland. Research Utterback, J. M. (1994). Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Policy, 44, 1856–1865. University Press.
de Jong, J. P. J. (2011). Uitvinders in Nederland (inventors in the Netherlands), EIM research Vernette, E., & Hamdi-Kidar, L. (2013). Co-creation with consumers: who has the com-
report A201105. Zoetermeer: EIM Business and Policy Research. petence and wants to cooperate? International Journal of Market Research, 55(4),
von Krogh, G., Rossi Lamastra, C., & Haefliger, S. (2012). Phenomenon-based research in 539–561.
management and organization science: When is it rigorous and does it matter? Long Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Range Planning, 45, 277–298. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Langlois, R. N., & Robertson, P. L. (1992). Networks and innovation in a modular system: Winston Smith, S., & Shah, S. (2014). Do innovative users generate more useful insights?
Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries. Research Policy, An analysis of corporate venture capital investment in the medical device industry.
21, 297–313. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 7, 151–167.