Harnessing the Creative Potential among Users

By Per Ola Kristensson, Anders Gustafsson, Trevor Archer. 2004

535 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Communication, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2560bbcaae3468ed6b010eabe8e851ec6f535afb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Communication

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Impacts of Hedonic and Utilitarian User Motives on the Innovativeness of User-Developed Solutions: Motives for User-Developed Solutions (2015, unknown): “…to which producers involve their consumers during the development of new products (Carbonell, Rodríguez-Escudero, and Pujari, 2009; Fang, 2008; Kristensson, Gustafsson, and Archer, 2004), researchers revealed that consumers are largely driven by extrinsic motives, ranging from expected…”
The Wisdom of Consumer Crowds (2008, background): “…article is one of a few recent attempts to change this view and shed light on creative consumer behavior by studying the consumer as a creative/productive force (e.g., F¸rat and Venkatesh 1995; Patton 2002; Burroughs and Mick 2004; Kristensson, Gustafsson, and Archer 2004; Dahl and Moreau 2007).”
Finding commercially attractive user innovations: A test of lead user theory (2006, unknown): “In conclusion, reliability of measurement seems to be reasonable for such evaluations (see similar studies such as Kristensson, Gustafsson, and Archer, 2004).”
Extending Lead User Theory: Antecedents and Consequences of Consumers' Lead Userness (2008, unknown): “…is not only being discussed increasingly among innovation management scholars (e.g., Enkel et al. 2005; Hienerth and Pötz 2005; Kaulio 1998, Kristensson et al. 2004; Lüthje and Herstatt 2004; Pitta et al. 1997), the idea is also spreading rapidly in the business world (e.g., Coyne 2000,…”
Idea generation: customer co‐creation versus traditional market research techniques (2011, methodology): “This paper concurs with several other researchers (Alam, 2002, 2000; Kristensson et al., 2004; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2000) that customers should play an important role in the service innovation process.”
Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation (2007, background): “It helps in embedding user perspectives in medical device technologies to the benefit of users (51) as well as bringing benefits to the manufacturer through the development of successful products, thereby attracting higher sales and profits (39;40;59).”
Exploring the Contributions of Involving Ordinary Users in Ideation of Technology‐Based Services* (2009, background): “In one of the few studies of the involvement of ordinary users in innovation, Kristensson, Gustafsson, and Archer (2004) found that such users tended to produce ideas which, on average, were judged to be both more valuable and more original (but significantly less realizable) than the ideas of…”
The Value of Crowdsourcing: Can Users Really Compete with Professionals in Generating New Product Ideas? (2012, methodology): “Following previous research (e.g., Amabile et al., 2005; Franke et al., 2006; Kristensson et al., 2004; Moreau and Dahl, 2005), the quality of the ideas was measured using three key variables: (1) the novelty of the idea compared with existing target market products; (2) the value of the idea in ter”
Utilizing customer knowledge in innovation: antecedents and impact of customer involvement on new product performance (2015, unknown): “While NPD employees may be constrained by past experiences, customers tend to have different perspectives and are likely to find new approaches that expand the solution space (Hienerth et al 2014; Kristensson et al. 2004).”