Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 552–560

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

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

A service ecosystem perspective on the diffusion of sustainability-oriented T

user innovations
⁎
Jakob Trischler , Mikael Johnson, Per Kristensson
CTF Service Research Center, Karlstad University, Universitetsgatan 2, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden

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

Keywords: This article conceptualizes the diffusion of user innovations from a service ecosystem perspective. With the focus
User innovation on sustainable innovations, the service ecosystem is evaluated, along with other systemic innovation concepts, as
Diffusion a possible theoretical basis for explaining the first adoption and diffusion of user innovations. It is proposed that
Service ecosystem an ecosystem perspective contributes three assumptions that help to better understand the (non)diffusion of
Innovation ecosystem
sustainability-oriented user innovations: (1) innovation diffusion is a multi-level and -actor phenomenon; (2) an
Sustainability
actor-to-actor orientation integrates user innovators into the ecosystem; (3) the service perspective defines in-
novation diffusion as an evolving co-created process. The assumptions are translated into policy implications and
future research requirements for moving towards an innovation infrastructure that considers the role and
contribution of users in sustainable innovation.

1. Introduction approximately 80–90% of user innovations within developed econo-

Innovation has been long thought of as a producer-centered process
based on the assumption that profit-seeking incentives are the main
driver of innovation. A producer (e.g., a firm) invests in innovation
activities with the expectation of generating profits from sales. It comes
naturally that the same producer takes the initiative in diffusing its
innovations into different market segments, where consumers will,
hopefully, adopt these innovations. However, this producer innovation
model has been increasingly questioned due to research findings
showing that users are also a major source of innovation when they
innovate for-use rather than for-sale (Baldwin & von Hippel, 2011). With
user innovation, we refer to an activity conducted by users (e.g., in-
dividual consumers, end-users, and citizens) who spend their unpaid
discretionary time developing innovative solutions to address their
personal needs (Gambardella, Raasch, & von Hippel, 2016). These users
are also willing to share or give away their innovation as a ‘free good’
for others to use, typically in the form of a set of instructions specifying
how to reproduce the novel solution (von Hippel, 2016).
While the user innovation paradigm presents a successful departure
from the conventional producer-centric model of innovation, it suffers
from problems regarding diffusion. Studies show that user innovations
with the potential to enhance social welfare do not diffuse (de Jong,
Gillert, & Stock, 2018; de Jong, von Hippel, Gault, Kuusisto, & Raasch,
2015). National surveys suggest that non-diffusion applies to
mies (de Jong, 2016). This lack-of-diffusion phenomenon is also evident
in the sustainable innovation field. While studies provide numerous
examples of novel sustainability-oriented innovations stemming from
end-users, they also point out that users often end up innovating in
isolation because they lack the tools, skills, and resources needed to
share their solutions beyond a small local community (e.g., Nielsen,
Reisch, & Thøgersen, 2016).
The term sustainability-oriented innovations refers to solutions that
ensure “a social structure can be maintained profitably and indefinitely,
without degrading the systems on which it depends” (Newton, 2003, p.
5). Many sustainability-oriented innovation initiatives are currently
directed towards achieving the 17 sustainable development goals
(SDGs) defined in the United Nations (UN) Agenda 2030 action plan
(United Nations, 2015). To reach these goals, however, it is not suffi-
cient to rely solely on producers; a radical rethinking is required re-
garding who innovates and for what purpose, as well as how innovation
practice is supported by policymaking (Behnam, Cagliano, & Grijalvo,
2018; von Weizsäcker & Wijkman, 2018). In line with this argument,
we propose that the roles and contributions of users need to be con-
sidered in driving sustainable innovation. This does not mean that all
user innovations are socially important or contribute to a more sus-
tainable future, but that sustainability-oriented user innovations should
be identified and supported.
The user’s role in sustainable innovation activities is often defined

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jakob.trischler@kau.se (J. Trischler), mikael.johnson@kau.se (M. Johnson), per.kristensson@kau.se (P. Kristensson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.011
Received 27 November 2018; Received in revised form 7 January 2020; Accepted 9 January 2020
Available online 22 January 2020
0148-2963/ © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
J. Trischler, et al.
as passive or even completely neglected (Nielsen et al., 2016). This
position is problematic for two reasons. First, top-down producer-
driven innovations often fail to break unsustainable consumer patterns
because the provided alternatives are too distant from what consumers
actually need to change their behavior (e.g., Block et al., 2016;
Scheurenbrand, Parsons, Cappellini, & Patterson, 2018). User innova-
tions can help to bridge this distance because their solutions are directly
built on problems related to their everyday practices and needs
(Kristensson, Gustafsson, & Archer, 2004; Trischler, Pervan, Kelly, &
Scott, 2018). Second, sustainable innovations compete, in many cases,
against incumbent regimes (e.g., fossil fuel-based technologies), which
means diffusion depends on users not only being adopters but also
playing a part in adaptation, reconfiguration, and intermediation
(Hyysalo, Juntunen, & Martiskainen, 2018). Exploring the roles of users
in innovation and diffusion is, therefore, a key research priority, espe-
cially in the field of sustainable innovation (Nielsen et al., 2016), and
new perspectives on this matter are called for by de Jong et al. (2018).
The present article responds to this research priority by in-
vestigating the diffusion of user innovations, or the lack of thereof, from
a service ecosystem perspective. The service ecosystem is a key concept
of service-dominant (S-D) logic and is defined as “a relatively self-
contained, self-adjusting system of resource-integrating actors con-
nected by shared institutional arrangements and mutual value creation
through service exchange” (Vargo & Lusch, 2016, p. 10–11). In this
article, we evaluate the service ecosystem, along with other systemic
approaches to innovation, and as a result, develop a theoretical basis for
designing an innovation infrastructure that helps to overcome the first
adoption and diffusion problem of sustainability-oriented user innova-
tions. Three assumptions underpin our proposed theoretical basis: (1)
innovation diffusion is a multi-level and -actor phenomenon; (2) an
actor-to-actor orientation can help to integrate user innovators into the
ecosystem; and (3) the service perspective defines innovation diffusion
as an evolving process that relies on ecosystem actors’ resource in-
tegration and value co-creation activities. The article thereby con-
tributes a more expansive and inclusive theoretical departure, which, as
highlighted by Nielsen et al. (2016), is lacking yet urgently needed to
better inform the role of users within the sustainable innovation field.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. Next, we re-
view user innovation and diffusion research to explore the non-diffu-
sion phenomenon more deeply. We then integrate the service ecosystem
concept, along with other systemic perspectives on innovation, and
evaluate its potential in better explaining the diffusion of sustainability-
oriented user innovations. We discuss our evaluation with links to two
illustrative user innovations that aim to contribute to Sweden’s current
efforts to address the SDGs as defined in Agenda 2030. We conclude the
article by outlining the requirements for moving towards an innovation
infrastructure that considers not only producers but also users as having
the potential to make relevant contributions to sustainable innovation
activities.
2. The (non)diffusion of user innovation
Recent studies indicate that user innovations often do not diffuse
despite having general use value (i.e., useful to others in the social
system; Svensson & Hartmann, 2018; von Hippel, 2016; von Hippel, de
Jong, & Flowers, 2012). The lack of diffusion is linked to the motivation
driving the user to innovate: users primarily innovate to address a
personal need and, hence, gain benefits from using rather than selling
their innovations. Conversely, firms are highly motivated to commer-
cialize their solutions and profit from their innovation-related invest-
ments. This incentive is further leveraged by intellectual property rights
(IPRs), which give firms a temporary monopoly on their innovation.
However, only a few users protect their innovations via IPRs, and most
do not make any effort to or invest resources in making their solution
available to others (de Jong et al., 2018; von Hippel, 2016). When user
innovations diffuse, they do so via peer-to-peer transfers, spillover to
553
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 552–560
producers, or entrepreneurial pathways (de Jong et al., 2018;
Gambardella et al., 2016). Thereby, a necessary step in the diffusion
process is first adoption, which refers to the act of other people start
using a user innovation (de Jong et al., 2018).
2.1. Peer-to-peer diffusion
Peer-to-peer diffusion requires first adopters to have the capability
to produce copies of a user innovation for themselves since there is no
producer mediating the process of production and consumption. First
adoption is, therefore, typically limited to a set of instructions or a
‘recipe’ specifying how to reproduce the solution for self-provision
purposes (Baldwin & von Hippel, 2011). One illustrative example of
peer-to-peer diffusion is the ‘Patient Innovation’ platform, where pa-
tients and caregivers around the world connect to share solutions they
have developed themselves (DeMonaco, Oliveira, Torrance, von Hippel,
& von Hippel, 2019).
Despite digitalization, public ‘makerspaces,’ and 3-D printing
making it increasingly simple for non-innovating peers to adopt user
innovations without producer intermediation, many designs remain
underdeveloped because users often do not develop their innovations
beyond a barely functioning prototype (Svensson & Hartmann, 2018).
In addition, since limited efforts are put into making user innovations
accessible to others (e.g., by translating instructions into different lan-
guages or simplifying a software code), peer-to-peer diffusion often
remains limited to a small user base (Gambardella et al., 2016) or a
local niche (Hossain, 2016). Understanding the mechanisms might in-
hibit or support first adoption, and the diffusion of socially valuable
user innovations is, therefore, important to innovation policymaking.
2.2. Customer co-creation
Unlike peer-to-peer diffusion, customer co-creation refers to the
transfer of user innovations to firms for commercialization (Fuchs &
Schreier, 2011; Gemser & Perks, 2015; Mahr, Lievens, & Blazevic,
2014). Studies in this domain show that the commercialization of user-
generated designs can have a number of benefits for the focal firm, such
as solutions that are more novel and better aligned with user needs
(Kristensson et al., 2004; Poetz & Schreier, 2012; Trischler et al., 2018),
higher sales revenues (Nishikawa, Schreier, Fuchs, & Ogawa, 2017),
and the firm being perceived as more innovative (Schreier, Fuchs, &
Dahl, 2012). This stream of literature is also in line with the open in-
novation paradigm, specifically the ‘outside-in’ process, where new
ideas and offerings are co-developed with actors outside the focal or-
ganization’s boundaries (West, Salter, Vanhaverbeke, & Chesbrough,
2014; Chesbrough, Lettl, & Ritter, 2018).
With the aim of leveraging their innovation efforts, many firms have
begun to actively involve their users in the innovation process through,
for example, innovation toolkits, innovation contests, or lead-user
workshops (Boudreau & Lakhani, 2013; Nishikawa et al., 2017; Russo-
Spena & Mele, 2012). While these developments may seem promising
for supporting the diffusion of valuable user innovations, these depend
on the firm making its innovation process available to users, as well as
users taking the initiative to share their innovations. This might not
always be the case as sustainable innovation studies in healthcare,
transportation, and energy suggest that organizations, especially those
in the public sector, lack the structural conditions and resources re-
quired to move towards an innovation model that integrates user in-
novation activities (Snyder & Engström, 2016; Trischler, Dietrich, &
Rundle-Thiele, 2019).
2.3. User entrepreneurs
Finally, users might bring their innovations to the market by be-
coming entrepreneurs. Before commercialization, these user en-
trepreneurs typically operate under the radar of incumbent firms to
J. Trischler, et al.
gain sufficient experience and attract an initial customer base
(Haefliger, Jäger, & Von Krogh, 2010). Thus, these users innovate so-
lutions based on their personal needs and, while using and sharing their
innovation with a community of fellow users, recognize the potential
for commercialization (Shah & Tripsas, 2007). User entrepreneurs
might also include institutional entrepreneurs referring to marginalized
consumers who seek social justice or equality without an underlying
profit motive (Maguire, Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004). In fact, these en-
trepreneurs can play a key role in mobilizing consumers with similar
needs to collectively change markets (Scaraboto & Fischer, 2012).
Examples of user entrepreneurship include extreme sports (Lüthje,
Herstatt, & von Hippel, 2005), juvenile products (Shah & Tripsas,
2007), video gaming (Haefliger et al., 2010), and renewable energy
technologies (Hyysalo et al., 2018), among others. Collectively these
studies show that user entrepreneurs rely heavily on a community of
fellow users as a knowledge pool for skills development, feedback and
(financial) support, experimentation with different commercialization
paths, and first adoption. However, it also needs to be noted that dif-
fusion via users becoming entrepreneurs only applies to a fraction of
innovations because users often lack the necessary time and resources
or interest in becoming entrepreneurs (de Jong et al., 2015; Hamdi-
Kidar & Vellera, 2018). Six national user innovation surveys confirm
this by finding that less than 10% of user innovators are interested in
becoming entrepreneurs or selling their innovations to producers (von
Hippel, 2016).
Despite the availability of different diffusion pathways, only
10–20% of innovations developed by users are adopted by others (de
Jong, 2016; de Jong et al., 2015, 2018). One reason for the non-diffu-
sion phenomenon is conventional innovation policies and practices
built on an assumption that individual firms spread isolated offerings to
aggregate markets and, thus, inappropriately considering the roles and
motivations of other actors within the social system (Kivimaa, Boon,
Hyysalo, & Klerkx, 2019; Muller & Peres, 2018). The implication is that
policymakers underestimate the importance of users as sources of in-
novation and, hence, underinvest in initiatives supporting user in-
novation activities (Bradonjic, Franke, & Lüthje, 2019). The result is an
innovation infrastructure that hinders the diffusion of sustainability-
oriented user innovations because users rely on an ecosystem of actors,
including so-called ‘sponsors’ (Bogers, Sims, & West, 2019), ‘keystones’
(Iansiti & Levien, 2004), or ‘transition intermediaries’ (Kivimaa et al.,
2019), to scale beyond a local niche. Therefore, with the aim of de-
veloping an alternative approach to conceptualizing the diffusion of
user innovations, next, we will evaluate the potential of the service
ecosystem, along with other systemic innovation perspectives.
3. Innovation from a service ecosystem perspective
The service ecosystem has become a key concept in S-D logic, where
it provides the unit of analysis for value co-creation activities among
actors integrating resources and exchanging services within dynamic
networks, which are facilitated by institutional arrangements (Vargo &
Lusch, 2017). In contrast to networks, systems are assumed to be nested
within or part of a larger system, and these systems influence each other
(Kast & Rosenzweig, 1972). Furthermore, a service ecosystem has the
ability to self-adjust to changes resulting from, for example, resources
integrated from nested subsystems or overlapping systems, which
means that actors, with each instance of value co-creation, influence
how service ecosystems evolve (Wieland, Polese, Vargo, & Lusch,
2012). In turn, institutional arrangements refer to interrelated sets of
institutions, and when combined, they constitute a relatively coherent
assemblage that facilitates the coordination of activity in value co-
creating service ecosystems. Specifically, they provide “the building
blocks for increasingly complex and interrelated resource-integration
and service-exchange activities in nested and overlapping ecosystems
organized around shared purposes” (Vargo & Lusch, 2016, p.18).
Applying the systemic lens to innovation is not new. Innovation
554
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 552–560
clusters (Audretsch & Feldman, 1996; Baptista & Swann, 1998; Cooke,
2001), innovation networks (Freeman, 1991; Håkansson, Havila, &
Pedersen, 1999; Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996), innovation sys-
tems (Cooke, Gomez Uranga, & Etxebarria, 1997; Edquist, 2013), the
multi-level perspective on transitions (Geels & Schot, 2007), and the
triple helix model (Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017; Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz,
1998) all emphasize the networked and systemic nature of innovation.
Of these concepts, the triple helix model depicts an innovation infra-
structure as overlapping institutional spheres between academia, state,
and industry and proposes hybrid organizations emerging as a result
(Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). The model also considers the dynamic
and complex nature of innovation processes, including sub-dynamics,
such as market forces, political power, institutional control, and social
movements (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). More recently, the triple
helix model has been extended to the quadruple helix to more directly
consider the ‘public’ (i.e., media-based and culture-based public’) and
the civil society (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009), in which the knowl-
edge economy and knowledge society coevolve (Dubina, Carayannis, &
Campbell, 2012).
A concept that also seems closely related to the service ecosystem is
the innovation ecosystem. The ecosystem concept has been introduced
to the management literature as an “economic community supported by
a foundation of interacting organizations – the organisms of the busi-
ness world” (Moore, 1996, p. 26). The ‘eco’ prefix and, thus, biological
analogy, asserts that like individual species in a biological ecosystem,
members of an innovation ecosystem, despite being largely autono-
mous, depend on one another for their effectiveness and survival
(Iansiti & Levien, 2004). More specifically, and unlike other systemic
conceptualizations, organizations in an ecosystem are not seen as for-
mally connected to each other (e.g., via contractual arrangements) or
fully hierarchically controlled (e.g., supply networks), yet they still
share strong interdependency in terms of whether value is created or a
market can emerge (Adner, 2006; Iansiti & Levien, 2004). Moreover, in
contrast with network approaches, which focus on patterns of con-
nectivity and define the network according to actor ties, the innovation
ecosystem sets the boundaries around the set of actors that need to
interact for a value proposition to materialize (Adner, 2017). Hence, the
innovation ecosystem covers both vertical and horizontal relationships
between actors for the purpose of joint value creation (Autio & Thomas,
2014).
The innovation ecosystem concept has also faced criticism, parti-
cular for its original focus on market-driven systems and commerciali-
zation, thus leading to policies emphasizing for-profit firms over market
forces (Oh, Phillips, Park, & Lee, 2016; Ritala & Almpanopoulou, 2017).
This is problematic since the ongoing underestimation of users as a
source of innovation results in a lack of support for them (Bradonjic
et al., 2019). Therefore, recent developments have moved beyond this
narrow conceptualization to consider the roles of different actors, such
as research institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and
individuals. For example, Bogers et al. (2019, p.2) define an innovation
ecosystem as “an interdependent network of self-interested actors
jointly creating value.” The same authors propose that while actors are
interdependent and, therefore, work towards advancing the success of
the overall ecosystem (i.e., the joint creation of value that could not be
achieved by a single actor), pursuing their personal interests is still a
priority (i.e., individual determination of value). In turn, the way value
is co-created and determined by the individual actor depends on the
respective actors’ role (e.g., sponsor, keystone, hub, member, follower,
or niche player), the nature of the interdependence between actors (i.e.,
cooperative, competitive, or coopetitive), and the form of governance
(e.g., self-regulation, contracts, or standards; Adner, 2017; Jacobides,
Cennamo, & Gawer, 2018; Bogers et al., 2019).
We propose that the service ecosystem, complemented by the in-
novation ecosystem concept, can contribute a theoretical basis for in-
vestigating the user innovation phenomenon, in general, and the dif-
fusion of sustainability-oriented user innovations in particular. Three
J. Trischler, et al.
arguments underpin our proposition. First, the service ecosystem con-
siders individual actors’ activities on the micro-level to be nested in and
influenced by activities on the meso- and macro-level (Lusch & Vargo,
2014; Vargo, Wieland, & Akaka, 2015). In innovation ecosystem re-
search, this multi-level orientation is described by means of the system
structure or architecture, including modularity (Jacobides et al., 2018),
embeddedness (Venkatraman & Lee, 2004), and network governance
(Tiwana, Konsynski, & Bush, 2010). For example, radical innovations
and the shaping of new markets depend on cooperating members’
adoption and processing times within the ecosystem, which, in turn, are
affected by the members’ form of governance or government inter-
ventions (Adner, 2006; Jacobides et al., 2018). In a similar vein, Autio
and Thomas (2014, p. 206) suggest that the innovation ecosystem is
“one of the few constructs that explicitly covers conceptually both
upstream (production side) and downstream (user side) activities.”
Therefore, both ecosystem concepts move beyond the firm-consumer
dyad or value chain and, as such, help in conceptualizing user in-
novations as a multi-level phenomenon.
Second, the service ecosystem does not pre-assign specific roles to
the system’s actors but defines all actors as resource-integrating ‘en-
terprises’ with the common purpose of value co-creation (Vargo &
Lusch, 2016). This generalization encourages moving beyond thinking
of consumers as mere adopters and toward playing roles in innovation
and diffusion. However, innovation ecosystem studies emphasize that
actors’ roles cannot be kept completely general; instead, actors have
defined positions and activity flows among them based on their specific
interests. For example, a sponsor or keystone integrates resources with
the aim of improving the ecosystem as a whole by connecting new
actors for joint value creation or by supporting the creation of new
niches (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014; Iansiti & Levien, 2004). Niche
players, in turn, apply and utilize resources in cooperation with other
ecosystem actors to innovate and diffuse new value propositions (Iansiti
& Levien, 2004). Further, members of an ecosystem need to arrange
themselves around constraints and dependencies, which are typically
governed by the sponsoring actor (Jacobides et al., 2018; Nambisan &
Baron, 2013). This means a defined set of actor roles is required to
ensure the coordination of joint value creation among interdependent
but largely autonomous actors across the systems levels. We propose
that the actor-to-actor orientation, along with the consideration of de-
fined roles, can provide a starting point for integrating users into in-
novation ecosystems.
Third, the service ecosystem has a service orientation, which means
goods and services are not seen as alternative forms of products but as
resources (i.e., operand and operant) that, in constellation rather than
in isolation, support the adopter/user in integrating and operating their
resources for the purpose of value creation (Ordanini & Parasuraman,
2011). Innovation, from this perspective, is less concerned about new
features and focuses more on changes in value creation through re-
source integration (e.g., commercial offerings or resources already in
possession; Edvardsson, Kleinaltenkamp, Tronvoll, McHugh, &
Windahl, 2014; Koskela-Huotari, Edvardsson, Jonas, Sörhammar, &
Witell, 2016), new practices (i.e., diverse kinds of activities; Schau,
Muniz, & Arnould, 2009; Scheurenbrand et al., 2018), and a redefini-
tion of consumer and producer roles (e.g., new ways of using; Michel,
Brown, & Gallan, 2008). Similarly, the innovation ecosystem literature
focuses on the structure and activities required for a value proposition
to materialize (Adner, 2017; Autio & Thomas, 2014). Importantly, this
focus concerns not only joint value creation but also value realization
where a beneficiary actor deploys resources to achieve a personal goal
(Chesbrough et al., 2018). Both ecosystem perspectives, as such, are in
line with the for-use focus of user innovations.
The next section builds on the propositions described above and
evaluates the applicability of the service ecosystem to provide an al-
ternative theoretical basis for investigating the diffusion of sustain-
ability-oriented user innovations.
555
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 552–560
4. The service ecosystem as a basis for sustainability-oriented user
innovation diffusion
4.1. A multi-level approach to user innovation diffusion
Traditionally, diffusion has been defined as a linear process where
an innovation (i.e., a new product or service) spreads, over time, among
actors within a social system (Rogers, 2010). A basic requirement is first
adoption, which is typically initiated by an actor or mediator investing
in the diffusion process. This might be a firm with commercial motives
or a government agency aiming to address the needs of the public
through public procurement. However, since users primarily innovate
to address a personal need, they often do not take the necessary steps to
make their innovations available to others in the social system (de Jong
et al., 2018; von Hippel, 2016). As a result, and as we have highlighted
above, first adoption does not occur, and innovations with high po-
tential use value may never become available to others.
The non-diffusion of valuable user innovations has been described
as a market failure owing to the disconnection between first adopter
benefits and the efforts required to diffuse innovations (de Jong et al.,
2018). The reasons for this market failure vary, including micro-level
factors (e.g., the innovating user lacking motivation or capabilities) and
macro-level factors (e.g., producer-oriented innovation policies and
funding schemes; Svensson & Hartmann, 2018; Bradonjic et al., 2019).
The same is true for the context of sustainable innovations; studies
highlight that the main barrier to user innovation diffusion is less about
the user lacking motivation and more about the skepticism of decision-
makers (Nielsen et al., 2016). Studies have, therefore, called for new
insights that better inform policymaking, with the goal of providing a
more supportive user innovation infrastructure (Strandburg, 2009;
Svensson & Hartmann, 2018; von Hippel, 2016).
We propose that the service ecosystem perspective can contribute to
the design of such an innovation infrastructure by providing a struc-
tural analysis that considers individual user activities on the micro-level
to be nested in and influenced by activities on the meso- and macro-
level ((Trischler and Charles, 2019)). Such a multi-level approach can
help to map the structure, actors, and interdependencies affecting the
diffusion of user innovations within the ecosystem. The micro-level
provides insights into how an individual actor (e.g., a user) integrates
and operates on resources from various sources to serve his or her
specific needs. It thereby accounts for versatility among individual ac-
tors, including their specific positions and motivations to engage in
innovation and diffusion efforts. Based on this in-depth understanding,
the analysis then zooms out to consider higher-level influences, such as
connection to like-minded users, access to resources, competing in-
dustries, regulations and IPRs, and the form of ecosystem governance.
The consideration of these macro-level influences is underlined by re-
search on transition pathways asserting that the break through of a
niche innovation relies on a network of actors putting pressure and
destabilizing the existing regime (Geels & Schot, 2007; Geels, 2002).
The following example illustrates the importance of taking a multi-
level approach to understanding the factors affecting the diffusion of
user innovations. Adam (name has been changed to assure the user’s
anonymity) is an elementary school teacher, active member of the
Scout Association, and a hobbyist game designer. Driven by the strong
belief that reducing his own individual footprint is not enough to save
the world, he used his game design skills to develop a prototype of an
application during his spare time. Labeled ‘Green Leaf,’ this application
encourages an online community to share ideas and challenge each
other to adopt a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle. Each effort
made to reduce one’s personal footprint is documented in the form of a
leaf on a personal, virtual tree that grows with each new completed
sustainability challenge. Green Leaf, as such, provides an open platform
where a user community can invite new members, challenge each
other, and share ideas on how to positively contribute to a more sus-
tainable future.
J. Trischler, et al.
However, the innovation might not have been diffused if it were not
supported by sponsoring keystone actors, which in this case involved
the Scout Association and a Swedish business cluster within the forest
bio-economy called ‘Paper Province.’ Adam states following regarding
his experience with Green Leaf,
I cannot do it myself; I am not a businessman. I can build a
minimum version, a skeleton of the game […], but then I want this to
be given to someone who can make this into a 2–3-year project and do
the funding for it.
The Scout Association agreed to diffuse the platform through its
worldwide network of more than 32 million registered scouts. In turn,
Paper Province supported the development of the platform through a
small-scale funding scheme reserved for sustainability-oriented user
innovation ideas. However, it is not primarily the monetary reward that
motivated Adam to take his idea further, but the recognition that his
idea is socially valuable: “You get encouragement. It is very helpful to
hear someone say, ‘Hey, this is a very good idea. I believe in your idea;
go for it!’”
On the macro level, the allocation of innovation-related resources
by policymakers was important for the integration of user innovation
activities into the bio-economy cluster, Paper Province. The Swedish
Innovation Agency, Vinnova, granted Paper Province SEK 130 million
over a 10-year period to drive sustainability-oriented research and de-
velopment within the region. In spring 2019, the focus was set on four
Agenda 2030 goals, including SDG 12 (i.e., responsible consumption
and production). Since changing consumption practices requires a deep
understanding of its context (Scheurenbrand et al., 2018), Paper Pro-
vince applied a bottom-up approach to address this goal. This included
two initiatives aimed at supporting user innovations (i.e., an ‘idea
platform’ linked with a support scheme for selected user innovations,
and an incubator to help start-ups within the region). Green Leaf is one
of 81 user innovations submitted over a one-year period to Paper Pro-
vince’s funding scheme, which explicitly excludes research projects or
firm-driven ideas.
4.2. Defining actor roles in user innovation diffusion
User innovation research has widely evidenced the importance and
capabilities of users driving innovation (Bradonjic et al., 2019; von
Hippel, 2016). Likewise, studies in market system dynamics and
transformative service research provide examples of consumers col-
lectively attempting to change markets (Giesler & Fischer, 2017;
Scaraboto & Fischer, 2012; Skålén, Aal, & Edvardsson, 2015). Both
streams of research point out that users often need to compete against
incumbent regimes or contest dominant structures, and the same is true
for sustainability-oriented user innovations (Nielsen et al., 2016;
Hyysalo et al., 2018). Thus, a rethinking of the users’ role is required,
along with an examination of the roles other actors can play in the
ecosystem to foster the diffusion of sustainability-oriented user in-
novations.
As we have described above, the service ecosystem does not dis-
tinguish between producers and consumers; instead, it has an actor-to-
actor orientation. Vargo et al. (2015, p. 63) highlight that “the study of
innovation, in general, has been developed from a view of value crea-
tion that separates firms as producers (e.g., innovators) and customers
as consumers (e.g., adopters) of market offerings.” The actor-to-actor
orientation thus removes presumed labels and opens new possibilities
for defining who innovates and diffuses based on what purpose. We
propose that the actor-to-actor orientation, as well as insights con-
cerning the set of actor roles required for an ecosystem to function, can
provide guidance on how users can become an integrated part of an
innovation ecosystem.
Within an innovation ecosystem, user innovations can be viewed as
niches that contribute radical new solutions and add diversity to the
innovation ecosystem. As a niche player, users are dependent on col-
laboration with other actors (Geels & Schot, 2007; Iansiti & Levien,
556
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 552–560
2004). A collaborative environment can be facilitated through online
knowledge platforms (Baruch, May, & Yu, 2016; Hyysalo et al., 2018),
innovation toolkits (Thomke & von Hippel, 2002), or design competi-
tions (Hienerth, Lettl, & Keinz, 2014). In turn, a keystone or hub, for
example, in the form of an innovation cluster, government agency, or
sponsoring firm, can support users or other actors to further develop
and scale their innovations. Beyond that, government interventions
may be required to increase the probability of users taking the step from
innovation to diffusion by, for example, introducing policies that reduce
the costs of sharing or launching open collaborative innovation projects
(Strandburg, 2009; Svensson & Hartmann, 2018). One such an inter-
vention may be public procurements that are inclusive of users. While
public procurement for innovation has been discussed as a policy in-
strument effective for mitigating sustainability challenges, it still pri-
marily focuses on producers and suppliers (Edquist & Zabala-
Iturriagagoitia, 2012). Thus, and as highlighted by the quadruple helix
model (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009), the government can take a
central role not only as a customer of innovations but also in creating an
innovation environment that acknowledges the ‘public’ as a con-
tributing actor in the innovation ecosystem.
One example that illustrates the potential effect of facilitating an
environment supportive of user innovations is the introduction of ma-
kerspaces in Swedish hospitals (Svensson & Hartmann, 2018). Based on
the request from the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation, the Swedish
Innovation Agency VINNOVA invested a total of MSEK 78.2 in the
development and operation of makerspaces in Swedish hospitals. The
funding ran for three years from April 2010 to April 2013 and involved
the setting up of makerspaces at six hospitals, the employment of as-
sistance staff, and the provision of prototyping equipment. In an eva-
luation of this policy initiative, Svensson and Hartmann (2018) find
that with annual operating costs of approx. 9 MSEK the makerspaces
resulted in 56 user innovations out of 754 suggested solutions within
one year. The productivity gain of these 56 innovations is estimated to
1.138 MSEK per year if they were diffused through the Swedish public
healthcare system. Yet the authors also find that the innovations were
only developed to a functioning minimum, which means that despite
they allowed the respective innovator to solve a particular problem,
they were not developed well enough to be recognizably valuable to
others. While this example illustrates that users, if enabled, can
meaningfully contribute to addressing sustainability challenges (in this
case SDG 3 – Good health and well-being), a question that arises is how
the underdevelopment and subsequent under-diffusion of their in-
novations can be overcome.
One actor that can play an important role in supporting the devel-
opment and diffusion of sustainability-oriented user innovations is a so-
called boundary organization (Nielsen et al., 2016) or transition inter-
mediary (Kivimaa et al., 2019). This actor is a ‘facilitator of innovation’
who engages in network and system-building activities in situations
“where direct interaction is difficult due to high transaction costs (e.g.
locating a suitable partner to collaborate with, disincentives to colla-
borate) or communication problems resulting from differences in cul-
ture, interests, and capacity to absorb or exchange knowledge”
(Kivimaa et al., 1063, 2019). In addition, such an actor can, in form of a
competence center, support users in obtaining funding and managing
IPRs, and in so doing, give them more confidence to engage in in-
novation activities (Meyer et al., 2019), and prevent the unfair ex-
ploitation of new ideas and knowledge (Päällysaho & Kuusisto, 2011).
Moreover, a transition intermediator can act as a funnel for user in-
novation activities since not all users may engage in activities that are
beneficial in addressing sustainability goals or are socially valuable
(Nielsen et al., 2016). The importance of such a role is illustrated by
outlaw innovation studies providing insights into cases where users
individually or collaboratively attack software systems, develop pro-
ducts beyond its intended use, or illegally share digital content
(Flowers, 2008; Mollick, 2005).
J. Trischler, et al.
4.3. User innovation diffusion through value co-creation
The service ecosystem is built on the fundamental premise of S-D
logic by asserting that value is not created via exchange, but during use
(Vargo & Lusch, 2008). The latter is also central to user innovation
since users innovate for-use rather than for-sale (Baldwin & von Hippel,
2011). Users do fundamentally the same as producers, namely in-
tegrating resources from various sources to benefit their own and other
actors’ lives (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). In fact, it may be well argued that
firms also innovate for-use since the purpose of their innovations is to
(better) support customers’ value creation activities (Patrício,
Gustafsson, & Fisk, 2018). Importantly, however, the for-use focus of
innovation suggests that its diffusion cannot be limited to isolated
market offerings disseminated to the social system. Instead, innovation
diffusion may be better described as a value proposition that con-
tinuously evolves through resource integration activities between var-
ious actors within the ecosystem.
We illustrate the evolving nature of an innovation by means of the
example of Go Climate Neutral, which started as a user initiative before
recently turning to a defined business model due to its strong growth
rate. The information presented here originates from an in-depth in-
terview with a volunteer who helped in the design of the Go Climate
Neutral platform. During a hiking trip in the Alps, a young couple ex-
perienced first-hand the significant demise of glacier ice. This experi-
ence motivated the couple, who graduated with degrees in information
technology and business economics and are employed full-time, to live
a climate neutral life by reducing their personal footprint and offsetting
for things they cannot reduce. However, the couple was frustrated by
the lack of transparency about the many existing climate projects.
Consequently, the couple started a list of UN-certified and transparent
climate offset projects. After they shared their initiative within their
community, the couple receives support from two agile software de-
velopers, a user experience (UX) designer and a political scientist, to
transform their idea into a fully integrated subscription platform called
Go Climate Neutral. In their spare time, the team analyzed climate
offset policies, developed a business plan, designed the platform in-
terface, and disseminated their idea on social media.
Launched in 2017, Go Climate Neutral enables people to estimate
their individual carbon footprint and offset their surplus to various
climate projects. Linked to the platform is a blog where members can
post and discuss ways to reduce their personal footprint and help slow
down climate change in a meaningful way (e.g., alternatives to flying
on unavoidable long-distance travels). In the first months, and mostly
through peer-to-peer diffusion, the platform reached 300 subscribers
and increased to more than 2700 subscribers after one year. A key
reason for this strong increase was a respected agile team mentor and
strong climate advocate who contributed to the platform design and
shared the idea within his social network of 25,000 Twitter followers
and 9600 YouTube subscribers.
The example illustrates how a user innovation initiative con-
tinuously evolves through resource integration and value co-creation
activities between multiple actors. Users often do not have the cap-
abilities, resources, or motivation to fully develop their solutions ‘in-
house’ or invest in innovation diffusion (de Jong et al., 2015). However,
both the Green Leaf and Go Climate Neutral examples show that user
innovators use their personal network to gain access to the required
resources for scaling their solution. In fact, both cases did not invest in
the diffusion process per se but relied on the support of organizations,
interest groups, or influentials. This illustrative insight aligns with re-
search on grassroots innovation, showing the reliance on networks for
scaling innovations beyond a niche (Hossain, 2016; Ornetzeder &
Rohracher, 2013), as well as the central role of transition intermediaries
(Kivimaa et al., 2019) or influentials (Watts & Dodds, 2007) in the
diffusion process. The latter, as highlighted in the Go Climate Neutral
example, is especially important for diffusion via social media because
the network position and social influence of the content sharer
557
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 552–560
determine the magnitude of innovation diffusion in an increasingly
hyper-networked society (Susarla, Oh, & Tan, 2012).
5. Discussion and implications
Although the importance of user innovations in enhancing social
welfare and addressing current sustainability challenges has been ex-
tensively evidenced (e.g., Gambardella et al., 2016; Nielsen et al., 2016;
Svensson & Hartmann, 2018), decision-makers continue to under-
estimate the impact users can make (Bradonjic et al., 2019). The con-
sequences are innovation policies, regulations, and a funding structure
that hinder rather than support the diffusion of sustainability-oriented
user innovation activities. Against this backdrop, the present article
investigated the (non)diffusion of user innovations from a service eco-
system perspective. Through the integration of diffusion, innovation
ecosystem, and user innovation research, viewed in light of two sus-
tainability-oriented user innovations examples, we propose that the
service ecosystem may provide an alternative to the conventional
producer-centric model of innovation. Specifically, we propose that the
service ecosystem, in combination with insights from innovation eco-
system research, can provide a theoretical basis that guides the design
of an innovation infrastructure inclusive of users. We base this con-
clusion on the following:
1. Rather than a firm-driven linear process, the activities underpinning
innovation and diffusion are conceptualized as a multi-actor and
multi-level phenomenon, thus providing a basis for understanding
how individual users and their innovation activities are affected by
the actors and structure of the ecosystem.
2. Unlike the conventional innovation model, no presumed distinction
is made between producers and consumers, but an actor-to-actor
orientation is taken as a starting point for defining the user’s role
within the ecosystem.
3. The for-use focus of both user innovations and the service ecosystem
concept implies that diffusion is not about distributing isolated
market offerings but is, instead, an ongoing process that relies on
ecosystem actors integrating resources into a constantly evolving
value proposition.
We conclude the article by elaborating on these assumptions and
discuss the implications for moving towards an innovation infra-
structure that is inclusive of user innovators and can help to overcome
the non-diffusion of sustainability-oriented user innovations.
Diffusion, when conceptualized from an ecosystem perspective,
does not solely take place at the micro-level, where an innovation is
produced and distributed by one party and consumed by another.
Instead, we propose that diffusion takes place across systems levels and
involves multiple actors who create value jointly. This proposition has
several implications for an innovation infrastructure that aims to
overcome the first adoption and diffusion problem of sustainability-
oriented user innovations. Firstly, innovation policies should not solely
focus on profit incentives driving first adoption and diffusion but also
non-monetary drivers, such as altruism (Baruch et al., 2016), fun and
enjoyment of innovation challenges (Frey, Lüthje, & Haag, 2011), re-
putation gains, engagement and community identity (Füller, Matzler, &
Hoppe, 2008), or reduced development costs and learning (Baldwin &
von Hippel, 2011). In fact, not only are these drivers central to users
taking a step towards sharing their innovations; they can also increase
the chance of adoption by others in the social system (e.g., Venkatesh,
Thong, & Xu, 2012; Wunderlich, Veit, & Sarker, 2019).
Secondly, it needs to become easier for users to conduct and scale
sustainable innovations. Directly related to enabling sustainability-or-
iented user innovations are education initiatives, supportive inter-
mediaries, micro-loans, and open data access (Hossain, 2016; Nielsen
et al., 2016; Seyfang, 2007). For example, open education courses that
increase technical literacy and knowledge in design thinking, rapid
J. Trischler, et al.
prototyping, and idea management, or recognition rewards to ac-
knowledge valuable user contributions can help to counteract the cur-
rent under-diffusion problem of socially valuable user innovations
(Nielsen et al., 2016). In addition, government authorities should de-
sign innovation policies and provide funding schemes that incentivize
not only producers but also users to develop and share their innovations
(Bradonjic et al., 2019).
Thirdly, user innovations need to be more effectively integrated into
innovation ecosystems by providing advice to firms and communities
on how they can benefit from user-driven initiatives. In this regard,
Nielsen et al. (2016) and Gambardella et al. (2016) propose policy
actions that instigate collaboration between users and firms by facil-
itating firms’ investment in activities that are synergistic with user in-
novation. Possible examples are living labs, legal opportunities to
modify existing products or services, and more flexible funding
schemes. Moreover, investment in makerspaces, along with pathways
for self-production (Svensson & Hartmann, 2018) or the provision of
free and easy-to-use platforms, can support user communities in sharing
design information (von Hippel, 2016).
Moreover, our proposed actor-to-actor orientation challenges the
conventional assumption that the firm produces and the consumer re-
ceives. This rethinking of the users’ role sets a starting point for de-
signing an innovation infrastructure that gives users access to the re-
sources required to collaboratively develop and share novel solutions.
Our perspective is in line with recent developments in the innovation
ecosystem literature moving beyond the narrow focus on for-profit
firms to consider that “in some ecosystems, some or all of the value is
created by individuals who are not employees or otherwise part of an
incorporated organization” (Bogers et al., 2019, p. 9).
Within the innovation ecosystem user innovators may be compared
with niches that are dependent on other actors, especially on those who
play the role of a supporting or enabling function, such as a keystone
(Iansiti & Levien, 2004), platform leader (Gawer & Cusumano, 2002),
or transition intermediary (Kivimaa et al., 2019). In turn, these sup-
porting actors can benefit from the diversity and radicalness of user
innovations, which is a key element of innovation ecosystem health and
growth (Autio & Thomas, 2014; Iansiti & Levien, 2004). We argue that
this actor interdependency specifically applies to scaling sustainability-
oriented user innovations because, within this context, users often end
up innovating in isolation or must compete against incumbent regimes
(Nielsen et al., 2016). Our actor-to-actor orientation, complemented by
insights into actor roles from innovation ecosystem research, sets a
starting point for repositioning users from receivers of outputs to active
value co-creating actors. Beyond this repositioning, the actor inter-
dependency within the ecosystem can be analyzed to inform the design
of interventions aimed at counteracting the non-diffusion of sustain-
ability-oriented user innovations.
Finally, the proposed for-use focus of user innovations implies that
innovation diffusion is not the distribution of isolated market offerings
but an evolving process relying on ecosystem actors’ resource integra-
tion and value co-creation activities. It results in a co-created process of
innovation development and diffusion, which might be especially ap-
plicable to sustainability-oriented user innovations because, in this
context, users often lack the resources to fully develop solutions
themselves (Hossain, 2016; Nielsen et al., 2016). Co-creation can also
allow user innovators to build internal momentum which is required for
niche innovations to compete with existing regimes and transit to
mainstream markets (Geels & Schot, 2007). Here, the multi-level and
–actor approach of the service ecosystem can set a basis for recognizing
the nature of user innovations and designing an infrastructure that
supports users to collaboratively develop and share sustainable in-
novations through the integration of new resources and rebundling of
existing resources.
In summary, given the first adoption failure and non-diffusion of
user innovations, we propose the service ecosystem as a theoretical
alternative to the conventional innovation model because it successfully
558
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 552–560
considers that today’s innovation challenges cannot be tackled by single
organizations and requires a systemic multi-actor approach. Our per-
spective is in line with recent developments in the innovation eco-
system and sustainable innovation literature, both emphasizing the
importance of moving beyond a producer-consumer standpoint to re-
consider the role of users in innovation and the interdependency be-
tween actors affecting the development and diffusion of sustainability-
oriented user innovations. This article, as such, offers a more expansive
and inclusive basis for designing an innovation infrastructure that is
suitable for tackling current sustainability challenges.
We conclude this article with a call for future research. Since this
article is conceptual in nature, future research is needed to apply the
service ecosystem concept, including its assumptions regarding the
diffusion of sustainability-oriented user innovations. Future studies are
also required to investigate the effects of new resources, regulations,
and actor roles on user innovation activities. For example, one may
argue that advancements in information technology, and social media
platforms, in particular, increase access to resources and make it easier
for users to co-create, share and distribute their innovations. However,
what counteracts these developments is that globally, laws governing
IPRs and online content copyrights are more strict (von Hippel, 2016).
Here, an important aspect is the evaluation of policy interventions
aimed at encouraging the collaborative development and sharing of
user innovations through, for example, the provision of ‘safe havens’ or
easily accessible knowledge protection methods. Directly related to
sustainable innovations, more insights are required on how users can be
incentivized to co-create innovations beyond their own personal needs
and address higher-order social benefits. Such an investigation requires
the systematic identification of suitable users, as well as the type of
innovation infrastructure, incentives, and resources needed for them to
engage in innovation activities. Research on these matters is urgent
because, within the current regulatory framework, many socially va-
luable user innovations remain underdeveloped and do not diffuse
(Bradonjic et al., 2019; de Jong et al., 2018; Svensson & Hartmann,
2018).
Finally, future research is needed on the question of whether user
innovations do actually meaningfully contribute to sustainable in-
novations. In an attempt to address this question, Gambardella et al.
(2016) find that adopting a mixed user and producer innovation
economy yields a superior outcome, from a social welfare viewpoint,
than relying solely on producer innovation. However, it also needs to be
considered that not all users might be interested in making a positive
contribution to social welfare or sustainability goals. Innovations can
have both positive and negative effects, and some users might address
needs that are in conflict with sustainability goals or have (unintended)
negative consequences for the broader society (Nielsen et al., 2016). For
example, users may not be concerned with legal liability, corporate
reputation, or societal consequences in the same way producers are
(DeMonaco et al., 2019; Flowers, 2008). However, studies exploring
possible negative effects stemming from user innovation activities are
lacking, and we call for future research into this matter. As highlighted
by de Jong et al. (2018, p. 496), “[r]esearch into the diffusion of con-
sumer innovations has only just started.” We hope that this article spurs
further exploration in this important topic and increases awareness of
the roles users can play in the sustainable innovation field.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the special issue editorial team and the
anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and feedback on
earlier versions of this article. This research was funded by VINNVÄXT
Paper Province 2.0 (Vinnova), Sweden—En storskalig demonstrator för
skogsbaserad bioekonomi, grant #2016-04227.
J. Trischler, et al.
References
Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard
Business Review, 84(4), 98–107.
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of
Management, 43(1), 39–58.
Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of in-
novation and production. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.
Autio, E., & Thomas, L. (2014). Innovation ecosystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baldwin, C., & von Hippel, E. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer in-
novation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6),
1399–1417.
Baptista, R., & Swann, P. (1998). Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy,
27(5), 525–540.
Baruch, A., May, A., & Yu, D. (2016). The motivations, enablers and barriers for voluntary
participation in an online crowdsourcing platform. Computers in Human Behavior, 64,
923–931.
Behnam, S., Cagliano, R., & Grijalvo, M. (2018). How should firms reconcile their open
innovation capabilities for incorporating external actors in innovations aimed at
sustainable development? Journal of Cleaner Production, 170, 950–965.
Block, L. G., Keller, P. A., Vallen, B., Williamson, S., Birau, M. M., Grinstein, A., ... Moore,
E. S. (2016). The squander sequence: Understanding food waste at each stage of the
consumer decision-making process. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2),
292–304.
Bogers, M., Sims, J., & West, J. (2019). What is an ecosystem? Incorporating 25 years of
ecosystem research. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Academy of Management,
August 9–13, Boston.
Boudreau, K. J., & Lakhani, K. R. (2013). Using the crowd as an innovation partner.
Harvard Business Review, 91(4), 60–69.
Bradonjic, P., Franke, N., & Lüthje, C. (2019). Decision-makers’ underestimation of user
innovation. Research Policy, 48(6), 1354–1361.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). 'Mode 3' and 'Quadruple Helix': Toward a
21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology
Management, 46(3–4), 201–234.
Chesbrough, H., Lettl, C., & Ritter, T. (2018). Value creation and value capture in open
innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 930–938.
Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 945–974.
Cooke, P., Gomez Uranga, M., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems:
Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4/5), 475–491.
de Jong, J. P. (2016). The empirical scope of user innovation. In D. Harhoff, & K. Lakhani
(Eds.). Revolutionizing innovation: Users, communities and open innovation (pp. 67–87).
Cambridge: MIT Press.
de Jong, J. P., Gillert, N. L., & Stock, R. M. (2018). First adoption of consumer innova-
tions: Exploring market failure and alleviating factors. Research Policy, 47(2),
487–497.
de Jong, J. P., von Hippel, E., Gault, F., Kuusisto, J., & Raasch, C. (2015). Market failure
in the diffusion of consumer-developed innovations: Patterns in Finland. Research
Policy, 44(10), 1856–1865.
DeMonaco, H. J., Oliveira, P., Torrance, A. W., von Hippel, E. A., & von Hippel, C. (2019).
When patients become innovators. MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring, 81–88.
Dubina, I. N., Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). Creativity economy and a crisis
of the economy? Coevolution of knowledge, innovation, and creativity, and of the
knowledge economy and knowledge society. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1),
1–24.
Edquist, C. (2013). Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations.
London: Routledge.
Edquist, C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2012). Public procurement for innovation as
mission-oriented innovation policy. Research Policy, 41(10), 1757–1769.
Edvardsson, B., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Tronvoll, B., McHugh, P., & Windahl, C. (2014).
Institutional logics matter when coordinating resource integration. Marketing Theory,
14(3), 291–309.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National
Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations.
Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.
Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2017). The triple helix: University–industry–government innova-
tion and entrepreneurship. London: Routledge.
Flowers, S. (2008). Harnessing the hackers: The emergence and exploitation of Outlaw
Innovation. Research Policy, 37(2), 177–193.
Freeman, C. (1991). Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues. Research
Policy, 20(5), 499–514.
Frey, K., Lüthje, C., & Haag, S. (2011). Whom should firms attract to open innovation
platforms? The role of knowledge diversity and motivation. Long Range Planning,
44(5–6), 397–420.
Fuchs, C., & Schreier, M. (2011). Customer empowerment in new product development.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(1), 17–32.
Füller, J., Matzler, K., & Hoppe, M. (2008). Brand community members as a source of
innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 608–619.
Gambardella, A., Raasch, C., & von Hippel, E. (2016). The user innovation paradigm:
Impacts on markets and welfare. Management Science, 63(5), 1450–1468.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco
drive industry innovation. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433.
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes:
559
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 552–560
A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274.
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research
Policy, 36(3), 399–417.
Gemser, G., & Perks, H. (2015). Co-creation with customers: An evolving innovation re-
search field. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(5), 660–665.
Giesler, M., & Fischer, E. (2017). Market system dynamics. Marketing Theory, 17(1), 3–8.
Haefliger, S., Jäger, P., & Von Krogh, G. (2010). Under the radar: Industry entry by user
entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 39(9), 1198–1213.
Håkansson, H., Havila, V., & Pedersen, A.-C. (1999). Learning in networks. Industrial
Marketing Management, 28(5), 443–452.
Hamdi-Kidar, L., & Vellera, C. (2018). Triggers entrepreneurship among creative con-
sumers. Journal of Business Research, 92, 465–473.
Hienerth, C., Lettl, C., & Keinz, P. (2014). Synergies among producer firms, lead users,
and user communities: The case of the LEGO producer–user ecosystem. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 848–866.
Hossain, M. (2016). Grassroots innovation: A systematic review of two decades of re-
search. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 973–981.
Hyysalo, S., Juntunen, J. K., & Martiskainen, M. (2018). Energy Internet forums as ac-
celeration phase transition intermediaries. Research Policy, 47(5), 872–885.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business
ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Boston: Harvard Business
Press.
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems.
Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276.
Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1972). General systems theory: Applications for orga-
nization and management. Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 447–465.
Kivimaa, P., Boon, W., Hyysalo, S., & Klerkx, L. (2019). Towards a typology of inter-
mediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda.
Research Policy, 48(4), 1062–1075.
Koskela-Huotari, K., Edvardsson, B., Jonas, J. M., Sörhammar, D., & Witell, L. (2016).
Innovation in service ecosystems—Breaking, making, and maintaining in-
stitutionalized rules of resource integration. Journal of Business Research, 69(8),
2964–2971.
Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A., & Archer, T. (2004). Harnessing the creative potential
among users. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(1), 4–14.
Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The triple helix as a model for innovation studies.
Science and Public Policy, 25(3), 195–203.
Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-Dominant Logic: Premises, perspectives, possibi-
lities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C., & von Hippel, E. (2005). User-innovators and “local” information:
The case of mountain biking. Research Policy, 34, 951–965.
Maguire, S., Hardy, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2004). Institutional entrepreneurship in
emerging fields: HIV/AIDS treatment advocacy in Canada. Academy of Management
Journal, 47(5), 657–679.
Mahr, D., Lievens, A., & Blazevic, V. (2014). The value of customer co-created knowledge
during the innovation process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3),
599–615.
Meyer, M., Kuusisto, J., Grant, K., De Silva, M., Flowers, S., & Choksy, U. (2019). Towards
new Triple Helix organisations? A comparative study of competence centres as
knowledge, consensus and innovation spaces. R&D Management, 49(4), 555–573.
Michel, S., Brown, S. W., & Gallan, A. S. (2008). An expanded and strategic view of
discontinuous innovations: Deploying a service-dominant logic. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 54–66.
Mollick, E. (2005). Tapping into the underground. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(4),
21–24.
Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business
ecosystems. New York: HarperBusiness.
Muller, E., & Peres, R. (2018). The effect of social networks structure on innovation
performance: A review and directions for research. International Journal of Research in
Marketing in press.
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2013). Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems:
Entrepreneurs’ self–regulatory processes and their implications for new venture
success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1071–1097.
Newton, L. H. (2003). Ethics and sustainability: Sustainable development and the moral life.
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Nielsen, K. R., Reisch, L. A., & Thøgersen, J. (2016). Sustainable user innovation from a
policy perspective: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133,
65–77.
Nishikawa, H., Schreier, M., Fuchs, C., & Ogawa, S. (2017). The value of marketing
crowdsourced new products as such: Evidence from two randomized field experi-
ments. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(4), 525–539.
Oh, D.-S., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical ex-
amination. Technovation, 54, 1–6.
Ordanini, A., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Service innovation viewed through a service-
dominant logic lens: A conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Journal of
Service Research, 14(1), 3–23.
Ornetzeder, M., & Rohracher, H. (2013). Of solar collectors, wind power, and car sharing:
Comparing and understanding successful cases of grassroots innovations. Global
Environmental Change, 23(5), 856–867.
Päällysaho, S., & Kuusisto, J. (2011). Informal ways to protect intellectual property (IP) in
KIBS businesses. Innovation, 13(1), 62–76.
Patrício, L., Gustafsson, A., & Fisk, R. (2018). Upframing service design and innovation
for research impact. Journal of Service Research, 21(1), 3–16.
Poetz, M. K., & Schreier, M. (2012). The value of crowdsourcing: Can users really compete
with professionals in generating new product ideas? Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 29(2), 245–256.
J. Trischler, et al.
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration
and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.
Ritala, P., & Almpanopoulou, A. (2017). In defense of ‘eco’in innovation ecosystem.
Technovation, 60, 39–42.
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Russo-Spena, T., & Mele, C. (2012). “Five Co-s” in innovating: A practice-based view.
Journal of Service Management, 23(4), 527–553.
Scaraboto, D., & Fischer, E. (2012). Frustrated fatshionistas: An institutional theory
perspective on consumer quests for greater choice in mainstream markets. Journal of
Consumer Research, 39(6), 1234–1257.
Schau, H. J., Muniz, A. M., Jr, & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices
create value. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 30–51.
Scheurenbrand, K., Parsons, E., Cappellini, B., & Patterson, A. (2018). Cycling into
Headwinds: Analysing mobility practices that inhibit sustainability. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 37(2), 227–244.
Schreier, M., Fuchs, C., & Dahl, D. W. (2012). The innovation effect of user design:
Exploring consumers' innovation perceptions of firms selling products designed by
users. Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 18–32.
Shah, S. K., & Tripsas, M. (2007). The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and col-
lective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2),
123–140.
Seyfang, G. (2007). Growing sustainable consumption communities: The case of local
organic food networks. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27(3/4),
120–134.
Skålén, P., Aal, K. A., & Edvardsson, B. (2015). Cocreating the Arab Spring:
Understanding transformation of service systems in contention. Journal of Service
Research, 18(3), 250–264.
Snyder, H., & Engström, J. (2016). The antecedents, forms and consequences of patient
involvement: A narrative review of the literature. International Journal of Nursing
Studies, 53, 351–378.
Strandburg, K. J. (2009). Evolving innovation paradigms and the global intellectual
property regime. Connecticut Law Review, 41(3), 861–920.
Susarla, A., Oh, J.-H., & Tan, Y. (2012). Social networks and the diffusion of user-gen-
erated content: Evidence from YouTube. Information Systems Research, 23(1), 23–41.
Svensson, P. O., & Hartmann, R. K. (2018). Policies to promote user innovation:
Makerspaces and clinician innovation in Swedish hospitals. Research Policy, 47(1),
277–288.
Thomke, S., & von Hippel, E. (2002). Customers as innovators: A new way to create value.
Harvard Business Review, 80(4), 74–81.
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Research commentary - Platform evo-
lution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental
560
Journal of Business Research 116 (2020) 552–560
dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675–687.
Trischler, J., & Charles, M. (2019). The application of a service ecosystems lens to public
policy analysis and design: Exploring the frontiers. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 38(1), 19–35.
Trischler, J., Dietrich, T., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2019). Co-design: From expert- to user-
driven ideas in public service design. Public Management Review, 21(11), 1595–1619.
Trischler, J., Pervan, S. J., Kelly, S. J., & Scott, D. R. (2018). The value of codesign: The
effect of customer involvement in service design teams. Journal of Service Research,
21(1), 75–100.
United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable de-
velopment. Retrieved on 18 September 2018 from https://sustainabledevelopment.
un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of
service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67.
Vargo, S. L., Wieland, H., & Akaka, M. A. (2015). Innovation through institutionalization:
A service ecosystems perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 63–72.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information
technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS
Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Venkatraman, N., & Lee, C.-H. (2004). Preferential linkage and network evolution: A
conceptual model and empirical test in the US video game sector. Academy of
Management Journal, 47(6), 876–892.
von Weizsäcker, E. U., & Wijkman, A. (2018). Come on! Capitalism, short-termism, popu-
lation and the destruction of the planet. New York: Springer.
Watts, D. J., & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 441–458.
West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2014). Open innovation: The
next decade. Research Policy, 43(5), 805–811.
Wieland, H., Polese, F., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2012). Toward a service (eco) systems
perspective on value creation. International Journal of Service Science, Management,
Engineering, and Technology, 3(3), 12–25.
Wunderlich, P., Veit, D. J., & Sarker, S. (2019). Adoption of sustainable technologies: A
mixed-methods study of German households. MIS Quarterly, 43(2), 673–692.
von Hippel, E. (2016). Free innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
von Hippel, E., de Jong, J. P., & Flowers, S. (2012). Comparing business and household
sector innovation in consumer products: Findings from a representative study in the
United Kingdom. Management Science, 58(9), 1669–1681.