Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism

ISSN: 1528-008X (Print) 1528-0098 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wqah20

User-driven Innovation in Tourism—A Review of

Methodologies

Anne-Mette Hjalager & Sara Nordin

To cite this article: Anne-Mette Hjalager & Sara Nordin (2011) User-driven Innovation in
Tourism—A Review of Methodologies, Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 12:4,
289-315, DOI: 10.1080/1528008X.2011.541837

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2011.541837

Published online: 14 Oct 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2739

View related articles

Citing articles: 41 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wqah20
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 12:289–315, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1528-008X print/1528-0098 online
DOI: 10.1080/1528008X.2011.541837

RESEARCH NOTE

User-driven Innovation in Tourism—A Review

of Methodologies

ANNE-METTE HJALAGER
Danish Center for Rural Research, Esbjerg, Denmark

SARA NORDIN
ETOUR, University of Uppsala, Ostersund, Sweden

This literature study reviews user-driven innovation and estab-

lishes a typology of its forms in a tourism context. Sixteen methods
are distinguishable. They comprise situations where users are
actively involved and methods where information is collected
without direct user involvement. The nature and intensity of the
dialogue between companies and their customers are addressed.
Drawing on this existing research, the article concludes that there
is still little comprehensive follow-up on user-driven innovation in
tourism and its impact on quality improvements and assurance.
Key areas for future studies are identified.

KEYWORDS user-driven innovation, knowledge, new products,

quality improvement, innovation management

INTRODUCTION

To a large extent, the innovative capacity of firms and entrepreneurs relies on

access to accumulated internal knowledge and competencies. The creative-
ness of proprietors and staff as well as dedicated research and development
(R&D) efforts may be crucial in paving the way to new products, services
and quality improvements (Bessant & Tidd, 2007; Buckman, 2004; Tether,

Address correspondence to Anne-Mette Hjalager, PhD, Professor and Head of Center,

Danish Center for Rural Research, Niels Bohrsvej 9, 6700 Esbjerg, Denmark. E-mail:
hjalager@sam.sdu.dk

289
290 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin

2005). In restaurants, for example, trimming of menus may occur in con-

nection with employment of a new chef (Svejenova et al., 2010). Successful
entrepreneurs are constantly alert to new ideas that can refine the product,
raise productivity, or solve operational problems. However, it is an equally
well-established fact that innovations arise as a consequence of external
challenges. This supports Drucker’s observations (1985) that responding to
changes in the economic environment, demographics, tastes and prefer-
ences is essential for most organizations. The active exchange of ideas and
resources with external partners such as suppliers and stakeholders in the
local area may facilitate and benefit the learning process, enhance innovation
capacities and ultimately increase competitiveness.
Innovation researchers specifically and consistently address the poten-
tial impact of relations with customers and users which concern innovative-
ness (von Hippel, 2005; Rosenberg, 1982). Under the right circumstances,
users may be in a position to affect or improve a firms’ innovation perfor-
mance by close cooperation in the innovation process, or by inspiring it
through exposure to specific situational attitudes and behaviors (Urban &
von Hippel, 1998). With increased global competition, a broader approach
to the innovation process has become necessary. In order to remain ahead of
developments, it is necessary for firms to offer customers higher value than
that offered by competitors, and focus on understanding their customers,
current and emerging needs is a key factor. Today, user input plays a central
role as a driving force determining the direction and extent of innovative
activity.
Mainly inspired by von Hippels’ work, our definition of user-driven
innovation is as follows:

Definition: User-driven innovation is the phenomenon where new

products, services, concepts, processes, distribution systems, marketing
methods, etc are inspired by or are the results of needs, ideas and opin-
ions derived from external purchasers or users. User-driven innovation
involves existing and/or potential users, and the processes rely on sys-
tematic activities that search for, acknowledge, tap, and understand the
users’ explicit, as well as implicit, knowledge and ideas. Methods in user-
driven innovation span from superficial observations, to consultations
and intensive involvement of the users in co-creation processes.

Customer-driven or customer-centric innovation is a term which is

almost synonymous with, and in fact overlaps with user-driven innovation,
although the latter usually has a more narrow focus. Users may be pur-
chasers, but are not necessarily so, as is the case when services are delivered
in a public welfare package. von Hippel (2005) widens the issue by calling
the phenomenon “democratic innovation,” while Chesbrough (2007) calls it
“open innovation” and Kozinets, Hemetsberger, & Schau (2008) “collective
 Research Note 291

innovation.” This suggests that contributing to innovation processes can

almost be considered a civil right, unconstrained by customer relations.
The role of committed key and lead users in development processes is
particularly emphasized by these authors.

PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this article is to provide a literature review of the phe-

nomenon of user-driven innovation and to establish a typology which
embraces its forms. This article provides a framework for understanding
user-driven innovation in tourism and illustrates this with examples from the
literature. In addition, the aim is to identify areas in need of further research
and which specifically address the peculiarities of the tourism sector.
Relationships with customers have always played a central role in
tourism. The practice of listening to and learning from the customers when
delivering a service is extensive claimed in hospitality and tourism (Laws,
2004; Orfila-Sintes, Crespi-Cladera, & Martinez-Ros, 2005; Pechlaner, Fischer,
& Hammann, 2005). However, the involvement of customers as informants
often seems to be coincidental and unsystematic, and may also be contested.
Numerous tourism companies and organizations do not employ distinctive
and methodically organized approaches to tap ideas and inspiration from
their customers, and this article might introduce them to a broader portfolio
of approaches.
User-driven innovation is one of many approaches for pro-active firms
and destinations. Responses from tourists can be a goldmine of information
that can lead to changes in products, services, processes and information
layout, etc. They can be of significant importance for the profitability and
success of an enterprise. In this respect, users serve as extended innovation
staff.

TABLE 1 Bibliographic Search of Key Words. General search/Combined with Tourism Terms
(Accessed November 2009)

Variable Social Science Citation Index Scopus

Co-design 1466/0 2010/0

Open innovation 266/1 340/13
Lead users 90/0 181/2
Collaborative innovation 76/0 99/1
User-driven innovation 23/0 35/0
Participatory innovation 4/0 2/0
Customer-centric innovation 4/0 4/0
Customer-driven innovation 3/0 5/0
Note. The Social Science Citation Index can be found at www.thomsonscientific.com and Scopus is
located at www.scopus.com
292 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin

The purpose of this article is not to quantify the occurrence of user-

driven innovation; nor evaluate its effectiveness. Such an endeavor, which is
necessary for a fuller and deeper understanding of the phenomenon, would
be a natural subject for follow-up research but requires specific practice.
In order to investigate the penetration of user-driven innovation in the
research literature, the authors first embarked on a bibliographic search. The
general key words selected have been based on search terms derived from
the Social Science Citation Index and Scopus. These key words were added
to tourism-related terms such as tourism, travel and hospitality.
The table shows that the concept of co-design has been researched most
frequently and that open and collaborative innovation are also terms which
surface in the indexed research literature. Most of the titles are from literature
appearing after 2006, with the number of contributions rapidly increasing
from 2006 onwards. North American and Northern European countries fea-
ture most extensively and Scandinavia in particular. Studies where the object
of the research is tourism business are rare..
Seen in a broader perspective, the concept of user-driven innovation
is rather new to tourism, and its academic treatment is very limited (Hall
& Shaw, 2008; Hjalager, 2010a). Although there are a number of stud-
ies on innovation in tourism and on obstacles in the innovation process
(Hjalager, 2002; Mattson, Sundbo, & Fussing-Jensen, 2005; Pechlaner et al.,
2005; Pikkemaat & Peters, 2005; Sørensen, 2007), focus on a more systematic
and intentional approach to potential inclusion of users in the development
processes in tourism has been marginal.
The basic analytical typology which forms the framework for this review
is inspired by Bason (2007), Kelley (2005), Kulturministeriet (2009) and Wise
& Høgenhaven (2008), who also envisage customer involvement along two
axes. Horizontally, the table operates with the size of the population that

TABLE 2 Sixteen Approaches to User-Driven Innovation

Involvement of a limited
Variable Involvement of many users number of users

Users as passive Tapping data Interpreting information

suppliers of Customer surveys Customer interviews
information Complaints collections and analysis Critical incidents interviews
Guest/visitor books analysis Focus groups
Blog mining Observation of user behavior
Product ratings User panels
Dairies
Users as active Nurturing creativity Experimenting and testing
co-developers Communities of users Lead user communities
Open calls for product development Innovation camps
and configuration
Co-production and tool-kits
Note. Adapted from Bason (2007), Kelley (2005), Kulturministeriet (2009), and Wise & Høgenhaven
(2008).
 Research Note 293

contributes to the innovation process. In the left column, a large number

of users can have a say relying on their own discretion or invitation, in the
right column a more limited number are invited to participate. The table is
conceptual, exact numbers are not given and the axis represents a contin-
uum. The vertical axis describes assumptions about the users and the nature
of their contribution to the knowledge that leads to innovation. In the upper
level, users passively deliver information—possibly without always being
aware of it. In the lower level, users are invited into the innovation course
of action as co-developers in some sense. Once again the scale of the vertical
axes is a continuum.
Findings from this review of tourism experience led to some amend-
ment of the 16 methods as proposed by Bason (2007) in particular.

TAPPING DATA—MANY PASSIVE USERS

The upper-left field of the table shows that there are several methods that
alone, or in combination, can help to tap information from existing and
potential pools of users. This group of methods is characterized by the fact
that “many” users are likely to contribute, but on average with a limited and,
at times, untargeted effort.

Customer and User Surveys

Customer satisfaction measurement is widely used by companies in tourism
and hospitality and in destination management and marketing organizations
(DMOs) (Ritchie & Ritchie, 2002). Most travellers have stayed in hotels,
where they were asked to fill in guest surveys about the experienced quality
of service. Typically, guests are asked to rate a range of simple statements
in terms of cleaning standards, the variety at the breakfast buffet, the recep-
tion’s help and efficiency, the décor, etc. Such questionnaires usually invite
the guests to leave suggestions for service improvements. There is a long
tradition for the development of surveys that may not only be of value for
minor adjustments and improvements to the product or service, but that also
aim at identifying future needs and demands.
Many attempts to quantify the feedback made by companies as well as
DMO’s are quite unsophisticated. Brief questionnaires which are distributed
and collected more or less at random are often used. Surveys are frequently
designed to serve many information purposes, and innovation is seldom
the dominant aim, and only indirectly and with some uncertainty they can
influence innovation processes (Obenour et al., 2006; Weiermair & Fuchs,
1999).
However, over the years, specific instruments have been developed
to assist the measurement of consumer perception of service quality, most
prominently being the SERVQUAL instrument (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, &
294 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin

Leonard, 1990). SERVQUAL has been widely adopted and further refined
since its introduction (Saleh & Ryan, 1991). The merits of the SEVQUAL are
that it identifies specifically different types of service gaps, some of which
might be helped with the introduction of new innovations (Home, 2005;
Pikkemaat & Peters, 2005).

Example: Smith & Puczkó (2009) address the wellness sector referring to
a representative survey undertaken by the organization “Small Luxury
Hotels.” It includes an identification of facilities that are much appre-
ciated by the customers, for example various massages and therapy
facilities. The customer survey also reveals a number of disliked expe-
riences, which might inspire the proprietors’ own product development.
Important information touches, for instance, on hygiene, privacy, hard-
sales tactics, crowding, particular therapy ingredients etc. Inspiration was
also collected about the preferred attitudes of staff and other managerial
issues.

Example: Skistar, which is one of the leading operators of European alpine

destinations, is another successful example, where the company has
developed its own systematic evaluation instrument—Maaltavlan (which
translates into Target)—for measuring customer satisfaction. In combi-
nation with the annual problem detection study, Skistar has increased its
knowledge of customer needs significantly. The general aim is to increase
the number of overall, as well as returning, visitors but the information
gained has helped the firm to improve and develop products and ser-
vices. These procedures have now become closely integrated in ongoing
innovation activities.

Example: Caldwell (n. d.) reports from a small museum that has installed
a combined comment card and time-clock punch system, which offers
visitors an extra entertainment activity and a small gift when they hand
in the card after their visit. This approach ensures feedback that is fairly
broad, representative and quantitative, obtained in a practical way for a
small tourism provider.

Surveys have limitations, particularly when used to support ongoing

development processes and innovation. According to Home (2005) cus-
tomers are influenced by what they perceive to be feasible, and their
suggestions most often represent only minor improvements to the service
or product. Latent desires are seldom revealed in this way (Füller, Hanlan,
& Wilde, 2007). In addition, interpretive mismatches may arise. The litera-
ture on service quality in tourism recognizes a gap between the managers’
perception of the quality delivered and customer experiences, which is, of
course, crucial to acceptance of user Gaps may also exist between current
customer needs and emerging ones. Such disharmonies may sometimes be
easier to track by trend spotting or by lead user studies.
 Research Note 295

Complaint Collection and Analysis

In the service management literature there is a large volume of research,
and evidence, about the interpretation and handling of customer complaints.
Most of the literature addresses the call for quality of service and the concern
for emerging loyalty gaps and image decline, which should be prevented at
any cost. There are repeated mentions of failure to document and categorize
complaints in most firms. However, reading the complaint log and systemati-
zation of its content can be an additional source of inspiration for innovation
(Laws, 2004; Tax & Brown, 1998).

Example: A major hotel chain deciding an upgrade strategy went through

housekeepers’ records of common complaints from the guests. Instead of
installing televisions in the bathrooms, it was decided instead to pro-
vide all rooms with ironing facilities. This removed a bottleneck and
workload for the housekeepers, and put new emphasis on the role of the
housekeeping function as information collectors.

Example: When having cause for complaint, a guest will often turn to the
first visible staff member. In Disneyland this is often the garbage collec-
tors. These frontline staff must be equipped to handle the most common
complaints, but they are also—as in Disneyland—important to gather-
ing valuable information embedded in these complaints. ( Tax & Brown,
1998)

Innovation-oriented complaint handling includes the following:

● Establishment of a systematic approach to complaint handling.

● Recognition of the importance of customer complaints at a strategic level
in the organization.
● Organization of systems and processes for logging and processing
complaints, etc.
● Exclusion of negative cultures where “blame and reprimand” are
managerial practices and from which mistakes provide no lessons learned.

Some large corporations with many outlets possess an advantage in

terms of accumulation of strategic information in joint costumer depart-
ments, where a more comprehensive view can be obtained through filed
e-complaints (Mattila & Mount, 2003).
An imperative obstacle for the collection and use of complaints for
innovation purposes is that only 5% to 10% percent of dissatisfied customers
choose to file a complaint following an experienced service failure (Bitner,
Brown, & Meuter, 2000). The rest just choose to find another supplier next
time.
296 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin

Guest/Visitor Book Analysis

Comments delivered in open guest books placed at hotels, museums,
national parks, etc may contain valuable information about visitors’ views
and experiences of the services or products (Pearce & Moscardo, 1984).
Most analysis of guest books is concentrated on providing better insight into
the composition and attitudes of audiences (Noy, 2008), while further steps
to use the information for innovative purposes are less frequently reported
in the literature.

Example: According to Macdonald (2005), semiotic and interpretive

analysis of comments to museums provides a clear insight into how quests
understand and interpret an exhibition at the Documentation Centre
of the former Nazi Party Rally Ground in Nuremberg. Her analysis is
performed in an ethically and emotionally sensitive environment. What
visitors see and feel is crucial to future developments and amendments to
the exhibits. This institution is willing to accommodate the type of knowl-
edge, insights and experiences that visitors are demanding. Macdonald’s
analysis uncovers issues about the exhibits displayed and the tone of
respect contra the balance of historical data. It was also important for
the visitors to find references to other interesting museums in this context.

Many restaurants have an electronic guestbook which is part of the

home page, and such facilities are also frequently seen on homepages of for
example spa and wellness facilities and natural parks. Appraisals in these
e-guest books are largely used for marketing purposes; they seldom include
critical issues and suggestions to the proprietors. There is no agreement in
the literature about the usefulness of these guest books. Many comments are
found to be superficial and only appreciative, while unsatisfied customers
do not bother to write. If they are to have any value for innovation, it is
recommended that guest books be used in combination with other methods
of investigation, for example interviews, focus groups or surveys.

Blog Mining
The number of weblogs (blogs) is increasing very rapidly, and they repre-
sent a new consumer power vis-à-vis service producers. In blogs provided
by independent or commercial organizations, customers have the opportu-
nity to leave (nearly) uncensored comments regarding any service provider.
A significant number of blog contributions are tourism related, and they may
be of importance for the development of products and services. As noted
by Akehurst (2009) tourism organizations and individual enterprises cannot
afford to ignore the development of user-generated content, peer-to-peer
web applications and virtual communities.
 Research Note 297

In fact, blogging about tourism and travel is not new: Lonely Planet has
been around for a long time with facilities where travellers can share their
experiences about destinations and travel supplies (Litvin, Goldsmith, & Pan,
2008). Travel pages such as tripadvisor.com and travelblog.org encourage
travellers to recommend facilities to others. Usually these word-of-mouth
services are regarded as rather anti-corporate, given the critique (valid or
not) which finds its way to these blogs. On the whole, the blogs constitute
an immense resource providing insights which may be fed into innovation
processes, but it is also difficult and costly to extract relevant information
from the immense number of contributions. Akehurst (2009) draws attention
to efforts to develop artificial intelligence systems, information retrieval and
natural language processing as a way of content trawling, analyzing and
generalization. Such systems are not yet in place.

Example: One of the most comprehensive analyses of travel blogs is

undertaken by Pan, MacLaurin, and Crotts, (2007) on the Charleston
destination. For them the analysis process 1) identifies the relevant ques-
tions; 2) generates key words; 3) searches blogs or aggregate through RSS;
4) filters and downloads relevant blogs; 5) automates semantic network
analysis or manual content analysis; and 6) reports.

The literature shows that blog analysis is predominantly regarded as a

tool for market intelligence, including customer segmentation, and less as
a means to harvest information for innovation and business development
(Carson, 2008). Carson’s study concludes that there is generally a limited
amount of content which is of use to enterprises, and that much either has
to be filtered away, or the process has to be narrowed down from the start.
Blog mining is an emerging analysis specialty and methods are developing.
Wenger (2008), for example, describes how she used only a few carefully
selected blogs for her analysis. Pekar and Ou (2008) test a comprehensive
language analysis to identify significant quality features in a hotel product.
As with other knowledge sources, blogging has its obvious draw-
backs in terms of fostering innovation in tourism and has not yet become
widespread. Visitor attractions and museums in particular, seem to be faster
to adopt these new methods which utilize the social media in a broad sense,
including the analysis of blogs compared than other categories of tourism
enterprises (Dawson, 2008).

Product Ratings, Reviews and Benchmarks

Reviews are not novel, but occur regularly in the media authored by profes-
sional travel writers. As a new development, popular travel websites such as
hotels.com and booking.com include possibilities for any customer to deliver
298 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin

and instantly publish verbal and/or quantitative ratings on, for example,
accommodation facilities.
From a constructive perspective, such ratings represent a chance for
owners of facilities to benchmark themselves against others, and closer
investigation may reveal what the best service providers do better than
others. Jeong and Jeon, (2008) study New York hotels using the IT-based
analysis of variance (ANOVA) in their research processes. Their research
confirms that location is a decisive factor for customers, and a comparison
of chains and independent hotels finds reviews of the former to be better
performers on average. The authors recommend that hotel owners include
findings from such analyses in their strategic planning.

Example: ‘s Baggers Restaurant in Nuremberg, Germany is an example

of a new restaurant concept. There are no waiters at the tables and ser-
vice takes place on tracks elevated overhead. Guests place their orders on
computer screens available in front of all seats. After the meal it is possi-
ble to use the screen to comment on the food and the restaurant concept.
(www.sbaggers.de)

INTERPRETING KNOWLEDGE—FEW PASSIVE USERS

The next box in the analytical table of user-driven innovation methods also
assumes that customers are passive providers of information and not par-
ticularly active in innovation per se. However, as consumers are fewer in
number, interaction with them may become closer. In these situations, it is
possible to work with other interpretation approaches in the analysis. This
category of methods might supplement those previously described which
mainly tap information for statistical analysis. Here the emphasis is on greater
understanding of consumer motivation and behavior that could eventually
lead to the advancement of products and services.

Consumer Interviews
Listening to customers is widely advocated as a precondition for success-
ful development of services (Zeithaml et al., 1990). Some tourism facilities
adopt distinct procedures for how to ask the customers about their satis-
faction when they leave the premises as a way of maintaining a positive
relationship with the market (Blichfeldt & Kessler, 2009). In professional
“exit interviewing,” the personnel are instructed to inquire in an open and
polite way and to report in an organized and comparable way on any details
that could influence operations and strategies.
 Research Note 299

Jeppesen (2005) claims that listening to customers is a fairly weak form

of consumer involvement, as prior expectations determine consumers’ views
on the importance of particular product or service attributes.

Critical Incident Interviews

This method, described for example by Callan (1998), includes interviews
with selected customers, who have shown a willingness to contribute, and
who might or might not have experienced extraordinary situations while vis-
iting. Inquiries concern, on the one hand, superior service experience, and
on the other hand, poor services. Critical incident interviews are a very open
data collection method, which can provide richness of detail. Interviewees
are encouraged to give their own version of their experiences with as many
details as possible. These interviews may take place on site where the
interviewees can point out, for example, physical objects of importance to
the critical incident.
The data treatment comprises systematic classification of the incidents.
If the number of interviews allows this, results are quantified and given
scores. This exercise may then lead to a reformulation of service attributes
and possibly emergence of new one.

Example: A critical incident study for an airline led to the surprising

finding that passengers were less bothered by delays than by the lack
of sufficient information about their causes ( Knutson, 2001). Diffuse
anxiety and irritation could be reduced by targeting the information
given to passengers, including for example information about connect-
ing flights and other issues of importance. Most transportation companies
now work with wider, situation-conditioned communication strategies.
Increasingly, the Internet and mobile communication are also used
as innovative means in the effort to ensure a high level of relevant
information.

Pritchard and Havitz (2006) examine the critical incidents method as a

tool for destination appraisal, and support its use if statements are just prop-
erly filtered through a qualitative content analysis. However, they find it to
be a challenge to undertake critical incidence interviews at tourist destina-
tions, where there are numerous suppliers, some of whom are not likely to
support the activity on their own premises and learn from the evidence.

Focus Group Interviews

Focus groups are a well-known method for obtaining information from
guests in a more systematic manner. Focus groups can be employed to
pre-test new services or products, but are also relevant for feedback on
300 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin

planned image campaigns, slogans, websites and other marketing innova-

tions. Knutson’s (2001) study points to the fact that hotels and attractions,
gained new perspectives on security issues by involving focus groups and
informants at an early stage of development processes.

Example: Hudson and Shephard (1998) outline how focus groups were
used prior to recognition and measurement of performance, and evalu-
ation of importance of attributes at an Alpine ski destination. The study
led to identification of distinct areas where service providers were under-
performing, and where a (potentially innovative) effort was needed. The
study also revealed “wasted efforts” on services which customers did not
appreciate.

The advantage of the focus group compared with the individual inter-
views is that group members inspire one another during the process, and
the outcome is enhanced compared with that produced by an individual.
There are also a number of limitations with focus group research, for exam-
ple in obtaining commitment from group members, and in enabling them to
envisage products and services that are still “abstract” or not yet materialized
(Edmunds, 2000).

Observations
Observations are well-known from ethnological research, and methods are
also applied in a variety of business studies, where the aim is to determine
satisfaction or dissatisfaction. How consumers use products and services in
practice—intentionally or unintentionally—and how they compensate for
deficiencies or lack of facilities may be investigated. Practice is often not
consistent with the verbal explanations of the customers, and observations
therefore may provide important additional information.
Observations can be made with pen and paper, cameras and/or video.
There are ethical and legal issues to be taken into account, particularly if
using photographs as a means of documentation. Decrop (1999) outlines the
issues connected with planning, performing and documenting observations.
A key concern with this method is to envisage the many categories of infor-
mation that might be important for the interpretation of observations of
human behavior:

● Verbal communication: Tone, duration, content, silences.

● Non-verbal communication: Kinesics, proxemics, physical appearance
● Audience reaction: Distraction, engagement, feedback, interruption
● Macro behavior: Group behavior, male/female relations.
 Research Note 301

Observations may also include the gadgets and equipments that people
bring and how they use them, the use of facilities provided by the tourism
company, how facilities are filled up, etc.

Example: Observations are also possible even when tourists are not
around. Knutson (2001) suggests that in order to get a better insight into
customer preferences, managers and developers in restaurants should fol-
low at the heels of dishwashers and observe what is left over on the plates.
Likewise, information from housekeepers on how people move hotel fur-
niture around to obtain greater comfort can guide decorators in new
directions.

Example: The open air agricultural museum (Frilandsmuseet) outside

Copenhagen organized a pilot version of a new interactive service where
the audience played a part in a theatrical play. Classes of school children
were asked to test and work with the first versions of this new interpreta-
tion medium and discuss it in focus groups. The museum gained input
which was import for technological simplification. The most significant
input was that the youngsters took no particular interest in the “normal
citizen” of the 18th Century, but were more interested with the living
conditions of the most socially disadvantaged, criminal elements, etc.
( Kulturministeriet, 2009)

Tourist Observation movements may provide extremely important

information for interpretation of the use of products such as spa-
facilities, airports, nature trails, shopping areas, exhibitions, ski resorts, etc.
Brown and Weilenmann (n. d.), Nielsen and Liburd (2008), and Shoval and
Isaacson (2007) address the use of PDAs, GPS, geo-tagging, mobile phone
positioning (Ahas et al., 2008) and other instruments in data collection and
interpretation.

Example: Technology is increasingly used to provide information of

tourist movements in geographical locations. A case in point is a study
about customers visiting the traditional ski resort at the Swedish moun-
tain destination of Aare in the snow-free seasons. GPS technology was
used to find out where visitors spent their time. The study also aimed at
developing new concepts with input from customers.

User Panels
Some service enterprises attempt to set up small panels, boards of users,
committees of friends and club members, which, over a longer period, com-
mit themselves to providing simple feedback about the services or aspects
hereof. Naturally, user panels are only applicable if there are a significant
number of repeat visits, which allow consumers to follow changes in the
302 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin

product or service over time. Tourist enterprises develop clubs, member-

ships or loyalty programs, which may be a base for setting up user panels
consisting of selected, dedicated persons. Under such circumstances, sur-
veys can be submitted, and relevant compensation given to the participants,
for example bonus points for free access to certain fringes. The informa-
tion provided may be valid for innovation purposes, if the questions raised
seek user critique, but also as experience of other service providers. As in
many previous types of user interaction, there is a risk that responses may
be superficial.

Diaries
Behavioral studies based on tourist diaries are widespread in ethnographic
tourism research (Markwell & Basche, 1998), and the method is considered
a suitable way of collecting factual as well as emotional data, and con-
solidating knowledge about travel routes and spending patterns. In more
recent decades, diaries have been replaced or supplemented by photographs
or videos (Scarles, 2004). Information providers deliver their material to
researchers for analysis, but are also often invited to participate in follow-up
interviews in order to enhance interpretation.
While diaries offer richness of detail and registration of modes and
temperaments, their use is also problematic if not produced under thematic
guidance. Photographs for example mainly show co-travellers and less often
artefacts or situations that could help to understand or interpret behaviors
and eventually provide information for innovation processes.

Example: Zillinger (2007) studies the behavior of German tourists

through extensive diaries. Conclusion relate primarily to marketing, and
suggestions are provided for new marketing channels in the form of
guidebooks.

The diary method is popular in academic research, but there is lit-

tle evidence as to how information may be interpreted and transformed
into useful inputs for more practical product and service assessments and
developments.

NURTURING CREATIVITY—MANY ACTIVE USERS

The Internet and the Web 2.0 have significantly changed the relationship
between firms and their customers. Examples are emerging of enhanced
relationships where consumers take part in distinct innovation activities
which are recognized as mutually beneficial. Distributed innovation (Lakhani
& Panetta, 2007) and crowdsourcing (Howe, 2006) are names used for these
 Research Note 303

inexpensive ways to mobilise pools of skilled persons with a special interest

in the products or services and to feed their input into dedicated product
development in firms and organizations. These consumers create knowledge
and information, solve problems and contribute to or even replace corporate
R&D.

User Communities
Not all products can rely on a large group of web-based input suppliers.
Only products with some kind of “hype” or special feature attract user
groups with a dedication beyond the ordinary. IT-software, popular toys,
apparel, and gadgets are therefore particularly relevant as sites for user com-
munities. Füller et al. (2006) name NIKE and Audi as examples. The software
company Linux is probably the most prominent example of establishment
of a thriving innovation community. A collective enthusiasm to find better
solutions and an eagerness to contribute to alternatives to “monopolistic”
corporations such as Microsoft are driving forces. Brand loyalty and demon-
strable emotions in favour of the brand are also crucial (Füller el al 2008),
and may be determinant for the user’s willingness to spend time and effort
in communities. The outcome of the process depends on the intensity of
interaction, the level of multimedia richness, the communication style, the
applied tools, and the incentives offered (Füller et al, 2006).

Example: Lego produces popular toys for all age groups. Robotics are being
included in some of the products. In order to pre-test a new series of
products, Lego set up a group of dedicated users who were eager to help.
An Internet community was created to allow users to share ideas and help
one another to solve problems together with Lego’s development staff. This
closed internet community was hacked and Lego considered legal action.
However, it was soon discovered that a larger and more open community
of users alerted and expanded inputs to the company’s innovation pro-
cess dramatically. It was decided to open up the site, and it has turned
out to be a lively discussion forum for robotics enthusiasts, and a pool of
information and ideas for Lego’s development. ( Birkingshaw, Bessant, &
Delbridge, 2008)

The establishment of virtual communities of tourists with special

interests and preferences is emerging at great speed. As noted by Wang,
Yu, and Fesenmaier (2002), Veloutsou and Moutinho (2009), dedicated com-
munities have the potential of redefining both ideas and the practice of
tourism marketing and branding entirely. The branding community is a tribe,
an enduring, self-selected group of consumers sharing a system of values,
standards and preferred representations, which motivates each other to ded-
icated consumption patterns. Evidence of how these communities may be
304 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin

used for innovation purposes is, however, still somewhat lacking in the field
of tourism (Baglieri & Consoli, 2009).

Example: The closest one can come to the creation of an interaction

between tourists and the development of the products occurs in the fields of
voluntary tourism, eco-tourism, pro-poor, sports and other special interest
categories of tourism. Smith and Puczkó (2008) describe the Yoga com-
munities in the Netherlands as powerful in the sense that they actively
share ideas, review facilities etc. There is, however, no evidence that this
online community affects and interacts with service providers.

Open Calls for Internet Participation in Product Development and

Configuration
Enterprises are often very secretive about their R&D activities. However,
closed R&D environments are not always the best forums for idea creation
and solution of extraordinary problems. Outsourcing R&D tasks is a pos-
sibility, even if it might reveal the future direction for planned products
or services to competitors. However, the rise of “crowdsourcing” suggests
that innovation practice can be powered by knowledge and competence
mediated through cyberspace.
The organization “Innocentive” is an example of a unique meeting place
for enterprises with so called “development challenges” and anyone who
might be capable of solving these problems, with particular, but not exclu-
sive, focus on scientific topics. Tourism is not (yet) well represented. There
is generally some compensation for workable ideas. Lakhani and Panetta
(2007) suggest that, if there are no particular social status advantages or
other benefits, it will be necessary to provide an incentive. They also find
that in order to obtain a relevant response, problems and tasks have to
be “granulated” to become specific and focused enough to rouse useful
suggestions from these freelance scientists.
From time to time, tourist destinations invite local residents and others
to come up with ideas to develop a location, or open competitions to bring
in new ideas. But generally, the use of wider audiences to foster innovation
is found only to a very limited extent, and is more symbolic than real.

EXPERIMENTING AND TESTING—FEW ACTIVE USERS

The last group of user-drivers for innovation to be reviewed are those

involved in experimenting and testing activities, where a “few” users and
customers are invited into a more intensive collaboration and co-creation
process.
 Research Note 305

Lead User Communities

Many people cannot buy an item without wanting to modify it to fit their
own special needs. Not least in the field of sports equipment, a significant
amount of adaptation or co-production occurs, most of which the manufac-
turers are completely unaware of. Manufacturers can benefit from studying
the outcomes to gain information about new and emerging user needs. This
information might also be difficult to obtain in other ways, but because lead
users are proud of their achievements, they are sometimes ready to reveal
their innovations freely.

The sports equipment sector provides many examples of user involvement

in production. von Hippel (2007) outlines rodeo, kayaking and kite surf-
ing as examples. Performance in terms of speed and manoeuvrability
are crucial in kite surfing and are a powerful incentive for users to
modify their equipment themselves. They also share in “horizontal net-
works” where many people build products for their own use, and where
others replicate and improve their innovations. The feet straps that are
now standard on all boards were first added on an experimental basis by
surfers, and later taken on board by the industry. The joint (and initially
somewhat uncoordinated and asynchronous development) effort made
kite surfing more enjoyable and accessible. When eventually included
in industrial production, these innovations widened the potential user
group, reducing the time and training required before a new user can
perform at an acceptable amateur level. For trained enthusiasts, the
technological amendment created a foundation for other performance
elements in the sport.

Henkel & von Hippel (2005) defines lead users as “First, those having a
leading edge of important trends, and they are currently experiencing needs
that will not yet be experienced by many user in that marketplace. Secondly,
they anticipate obtaining relatively high benefits from obtaining a solution
to their needs, and so they may innovate” (p. 75). In other words, the inno-
vators who seriously choose to participate in the development processes act
to a large extent in their own interests.
Inviting lead users with ideas for modifications into the innovation pro-
cesses is a way of enhancing the speed and quality of innovation processes.
If products are targeted towards selected user groups and these groups are
well organized, for example in clubs and associations, finding and obtain-
ing collaborator commitment might be simple. Limburg (2009) outlines a
seven-step process for working with lead users in festival co-creation.
Knowledge in this field is “sticky,” tacit and embodied in practice.
In order to make it explicit and transferable, an interpreting body must exist
that is able to assess, modify and adapt lead users ideas. Someone needs to
turn vague ideas or unfinished prototypes into robust products or services.
306 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin

Innovation Camps
Innovation camps and sessions/workshops are types of events that are orga-
nized in order to work with solution of specific problems. These are events
where users may be invited to participate and contribute, on the assump-
tion that it will be beneficial for developers to get an instant response to
their ideas. Nonetheless, service innovation may require a rich human-to-
human interaction between users and developers. Magnusson, Matthing, and
Kristensson (2003) claim that, even if such processes are common, there is
not much evidence of systematic procedures and impacts. However, their
empirical studies suggest that consumer contributions do make a positive
difference in terms of product quality, but that the process has to be carefully
managed.
A review of user involvement in service product development by Alam
(2002) lists a range of involvement modes. At their most active, costumers
can act as contributors to idea generation by stating needs and problems,
criticizing existing services, elaborating on wish lists and stating criteria
for service adoption. Customers can also be asked to participate in mock
or simulated delivery processes for new services. There are many specific
tools to enhance idea creation, mostly developed in ethnographical science
and research approaches, where users participate. The following are often
mentioned:

● Body storming. Addressing and testing products or services and “feeling”

how it works on the body—temperatures, sounds, smells, tastes. Walking
distances, space feelings, body fit, etc. The exercise invokes systematic
response from various parts of the body, leading to the identification of
areas for product amendment.
● Cultural probes. Selected volunteers are given probe packs, for example
with a camera, sketch block and other items. Participants use the items
in the pack over a period of a few weeks and then return the pack. The
items in the selected pack depend upon the circumstances, but are all
designed to stimulate thought as well as to capture external experiences,
which may be useful in connection with the development challenge. The
users may, for example, register favourite places and be asked about what
makes these places special for them. Cultural probes are one way to access
environments that are difficult to observe directly and also to capture more
of this ‘felt life.’
● Extreme user trial sessions: This is about letting very inexperienced
user/inappropriate user groups test a product and discuss its content.
Registering what is difficult and what holds them back can lead to new
ideas. Extreme users can be anybody who has no prerequisites for the par-
ticular tourist activity—for example, disabled persons in a mountaineering
environment.
 Research Note 307

● Photo safaris are situations which borrow the eyes of the users. The meth-
ods consist of supplying users with cameras to register events and facilities
that could need improvements and changes. Users will be asked to explain
their pictures in individual or focus group interviews.
● Mock-up of physical facilities. Construction of a quick and unfinished
model for example of a building, room, furnishing or equipment. During
the events, users test and change the item, commenting on what they see
and how they experience the product.
● Mock-up of services, service provisions and service encounters. This
involves design of a play script for services, acting it out, interacting,
and changing the script during the play. Depending on the nature of
the service, the task can be to add adventurous elements or other extra
ingredients. The task could also be to remove superfluous movements or
elements in order to accelerate and rationalize services.
● Cognitive walkthroughs are mostly used for testing computer programs
(Wharton et al., 1994). The method identifies places where customers get
lost, make mistakes, spend too much time trying to find their way, etc.
● Workshops and brainstorming represent more traditional techniques
and include for example lateral thinking, mind-mapping, thinking hats,
morphology, etc.

There are many reservations with the use of innovation camps. Users
are often found to be too unaware of technical or market issues to be able
to generate ideas that are original, can be produced, and may create value
for future customers.

Toolkits and Co-production

Toolkits are a method which transfers certain limited development tasks
to the users thereby empowering them to create their own desired prod-
uct features (Jeppesen, 2005). A technical capability for product design is
transferred, so that users can meet their own needs (von Hippel & Katz,
2002). One effect is that users will invent forms of use that the developers
could hardly have thought of, and feedback from the users is very valuable
for future development. von Hippel and Katz (2002) talk about the provi-
sion of relevant—in their cases IT- platforms for the users. Users must have
toolboxes readily available. However, they also have to be provided with
“solution space”—a place to communicate their achievements to others and
to the provider. The whole setup must be user-friendly and welcoming, as
the users are not necessarily technical specialists.
Kohler et al. (2008) suggest that Second Life’s virtual open access sim-
ulation environment can generate specific ideas for the First Life, and they
308 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin

recognize that companies such as Coca Cola, Siemens, and Toyota rely on
avatars to influence their R&D processes and marketing.

Example: The Starwood Hotel worked in Second Life with a laboratory to

evolve a prototype hotel concept. The idea was to study the avatars’ use of
the hotel, for example what furniture they use, and what they ignore. The
location on Second Life is also a means of collecting ideas for improve-
ments, some of which have been lifted into the First Life hotel concept.
( Kohler, Matzler, & Füller 2008; www.virtualaloft.com)

In many respects tourists are co-producers of their own experiences, and

that is being recognized as essential in marketing and customer satis-
faction ( Mossberg, 2007). There is, however, less focus on innovative
development aspects. When taking cooking classes as travel experiences,
tourists may not only be given chances to learn through imitation and
repetition, but they can also contribute to the development of culinary
artefacts and social circumstances around the production and the meal
( Hjalager, 2002). All of the tools are provided: well-selected kitchen
equipment, vegetable gardens, ingredients, etc.

Jeppesen’s (2005) study of computer game products raises questions

about the need for an increased customer support in these cases where
many unexpected incidents may arise, because products are put on the
market before they are thoroughly tested. He notes that some enterprises
create solutions to this challenge by setting up user communities. He finds
that users willingly assist one another and that open communication spreads
ideas and nurtures new applications.

THE APPLICATION OF USERS’ MESSAGES

Using input and feedback from users and customers in product and service
development is an explicitly or implicitly recognized mode of acquiring valu-
able knowledge and information. A number of different methodologies have
been outlined in previous sections without any assessment of their reliability
or the validity of the data. There is considerable uncertainty about the qual-
ity of the information provided through user-driven innovation. Research on
this issue is very scarce and anecdotal.
Pearce and Moscardo (1984) emphasize the sometimes seriously biased
information delivered in user complaints and criticisms. These users are
described as noisier than the majority of customers who are satisfied with
the product. Adaptation and amendment to subjective demands may be
financially unsustainable, and offer too little in terms of general satisfaction.
Pearce and Moscardo (1984) and Luria et al. (2009) find it useful to look
 Research Note 309

into the events and situations behind the complaints and assess whether the
persons are entirely mismatched with the service provided and whether crit-
icism is caused by distress because the proprietor fails to provide adequate
action to other problems.
Despite this concern, attempts to interpret customer reactions in exter-
nal and internal contexts are valid enough as a basis for everyday managerial
adjustments, although they might be less useful if innovations are on the
agenda. Innovation processes may suffer, if the same validity and gen-
eralization standards are applied. In user-driven innovation procedures,
management will invite and pay tribute to extreme opinions. Attempts are
made to capture forms of use and demands which are not yet mainstream.
Users are given a voice with the aim of bringing the company’s thinking out
of the groove.
As shown in this inventory of methods, user-driven innovation is gen-
erally experiential in its set-up. Innovating organizations need to accept a
high level of risk, since it is hardly possible to establish the value of the
information that the processes generate in advance. In practice, it will often
be necessary to combine user inputs with other types of knowledge acquisi-
tion, and integrate these in a more comprehensive strategic process, where
the ideas are carefully assessed before implementation (Kelley, 2005).

ECONOMIC AND MANAGERIAL DIMENSIONS

In contrast to growing levels of interest in user-driven innovation there is

very little evidence about its impacts on innovation efforts. Kozinets et al.
(2008) assume that inviting users in some cases can reduce R&D costs. Other
worthwhile benefits are also identified, for example the improvement of
product image and the effect of word-of-mouth. However, the economic
implications are mostly dealt with by anecdotal evidence, and there is as yet
hardly any systematic verification of which circumstances should exist for
user-driven innovation (and subcategories of methodologies) to be compa-
rable with other modes of knowledge and idea-generation in terms of effects
and efficiency. In addition there is poor insight into the innovation intensity
of the outputs. Desouza et al. (2008) presume in a conceptual article that
customers may come up with useful and far more diverse and radical ideas,
but that many of them will be extremely difficult to commercialize.
The methods in this inventory may be part of a managerial innovation
strategy, and employed either in episodic strategic makeovers or in continu-
ous change processes (Hjalager, 2010). However, user feedback is a critical
raw material for management although further reflection, investigation,
development and implementation is necessary. It is usually a key manage-
ment task to draw conclusions and come up with solutions. However, the
innovation process is never-ending, as seen for example in Lego Mindstorms
310 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin

and Linux. On their release, new versions are already objects of comment
and amendment. Payne, Storbacka, and Frow (2008) address how the co-
creation of value may be managed. They affirm that comprehension of the
user’s role is fragmented and that there is a need for further research in
this area. In a model describing interaction with users, they envisage that
managerial processes are more complicated than with in-house staff, as less-
controllable emotional, cognitive and behavioral dimensions are brought
into play. It is important to obtain a correct understanding of what is in this
for the user. Their collaboration is a crucial encounter, which the company
staff will have to interpret or use relevant intermediaries to do so. In many
constrained tourism organizations there is no time nor space to cultivate cus-
tomer relations to any depth, neither on a daily basis nor on selected project
occasions. It is doubtful whether staff skills are sufficient to undertake the
somewhat complex ethnological research tasks, which, to be done properly,
demand a considerable amount of skill and judgment.

USER-DRIVEN INNOVATION IN TOURISM—CONCLUSIONS AND

PROSPECTS

This article has demonstrated that a range of methods exist which can be
constructively exploited to harvest valuable ideas and inspiration from cus-
tomers. The range of methods is so wide that there are probably techniques
that would fit most company cultures, purposes and budget. The typology
in the paper shows that there are many degrees of user involvement, from
relatively passive cooperation to direct co-production. It also demonstrates
that some methods are based on the screening of numerous user opinions
while others rely on in-depth learning from a limited number of leading user
attitudes, behaviors and proposals.
This study delivers no more than a review of the literature and a use-
ful framework model. Although there is a growing interest for user-driven
innovation in tourism and beyond, there is still very little comprehensive
follow-up research. There is a vast lack of evidence on the following topics,
and a need for further research:

● To what extent do companies, DMOs and other tourism actors work with
user-driven innovation practices?
● What methods are preferred in which situations and categories of
organizations?
● What is the user’s role in innovation compared to other sources of knowl-
edge and inspiration, for example suppliers, employees, competitors,
colleagues, authorities, etc.?
 Research Note 311

● What difficulties occur when involving users in the innovation process,

and how are they solved?
● What is the quality of the outcome of user-driven innovation processes?
● Under what circumstances are user-driven innovation processes particu-
larly feasible, and when are other methods preferable?
● To what extent are user contributions implemented in practice?
● What managerial measures and processes are adopted when working with
users, and how is the activity coordinated into a full innovation cycle?
● What motivates users to participate?

Research on user-driven innovation mainly refers to the IT-sector, par-

ticularly software development, games, etc. However, its applicability to
development challenges in other sectors is becoming more evident, and
museums and attractions that depend on rapid renewal of products in order
to achieve repeat visits, are paying particular attention to the opportunities it
represents. A museum director interviewed after an innovation session with
16-year-old visitors found that it was hard not to patronize and impose an
expertise and tradition on these users. Withholding judgment for a while
turned out to be the essence of the challenge for the museum management.
Users do not deliver sophisticated and producible designs, but they can con-
tribute with inspiration to radical innovation as well as incremental quality
improvements (Wise & Høgenhaven, 2008).
Tourism, hospitality and the experience sector in general are all areas
where the value of user contributions could be exploited to a greater extent.
Tourism is more often than not a hedonistic activity, and a good deal of
the methods described in this paper appeal to tourists who like to play,
experiment and expose themselves to new experiences. In addition, while
on holiday, people usually have more time available than in their harassed
daily lives. In the end, the opportunity for adding an extra dimension
and increased social contact may be of importance for tourists who accept
involvement in user-driven innovation activities.

REFERENCES

Ahas, R., Aasa, A., Roose, A., Mark, Ü., & Silm, S. (2008). Evaluating passive mobile
positioning date for tourism surveys. Tourism Management, 29, 469–486.
Akehurst, G. (2009). User generated content: the use of blogs for tourism
organizations and tourism consumers. Service Business, 3, 51–61.
Alam, I. (2002). An exploratory investigation of user involvement in new service
development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 250–261.
Baglieri, D., & Consoli, R. (2009). Collaborative innovation in tourism: Managing
virtual communities. The TQM Journal, 21(4), 353–364.
Bason, C. (2007). Velfærdsinnovation. [Welfare innovation]. København, Denmark
Børsen.
312 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin

Bessant, J. R., & Tidd, J (2007). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Chichester, UK:
Wiley & Sons.
Birkingshaw, J., Bessant, J., & Delbridge, R. (2008). Finding, forming, and perform-
ing. Creating networks for discontinuous innovation. California Management
Review, 51(1), 6–23.
Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., & Meuter, M. L. (2000). Technology infusion in service
encounters. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 28(1), 138–149.
Blichfeldt, B. S., & Kessler, I. (2009). Interpretive consumer research: Uncovering the
‘whys’ underlying tourist behavior. In M. Kozak & A. Decrop (Eds.), Handbook
of tourist behavior: Theory and practice (pp. 2–15). New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, B., & Weilenmann, A. (n. d.). Designing through exploration: Using observa-
tional methods in ubiquitous technology research. Retrieved from http://www.
dcs.gla.ac.uk/~barry/papers/exploration.pdf
Buckman, R. H. (2004). Building a knowledge-driven organization. Blacklick, OH:
McGraw-Hill.
Callan, R. J. (1998). The critical incident technique in hospitality research: An
illustration from the UK lodge sector. Tourism Management, 19(1), 93–98.
Carson, D. (2008). The blogosphere as a market research for tourism destinations.
Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 111–119.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2007). Open business models. How to thrive in the new innova-
tion landscape. London, UK: McGraw Hill.
Dawson, B. (2008). Facilitating innovation: Opportunity in times of change.
Museums Management and Curatorship, 23(4), 313–331.
Decrop, A. (1999). Qualitative research methods for the study of tourist behavior.
In A. Pizam and Y. Mansfeld (Eds.), Consumer behavior in travel and tourism.
(pp. 335–365). Binghamton, NY: Haworth.
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Practice and principles.
London, UK: Heinemann.
Edmunds, H. (2000). The focus group research handbook. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Füller, D., Hanlan, J., & Wilde, S. (2007). The identification and implementation
of key competitive factors for tourism based firms. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 8(3), 73–90.
Füller, J., Bartl, M., Ernst, H., & Mühlbacker, H. (2006). Community-based inno-
vation. How to integrate member of virtual communities into new product
development. Electronic Commerce Research, 6, 57–73.
Füller, J., Matzler, K., & Hoppe, M. (2008). Brand community members as a source
of innovation. Product Innovation Management, 25, 608–619.
Hall, C. M., & Shaw, G. (2008). Tourism and innovation. London, UK: Routledge.
Henkel, J., & von Hippel, E. (2005). Welfare implications of user innovation. Journal
of Technology Transfer, 30(1/2), 73–87.
Hjalager, A. -M. (2002). Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism
Management, 23(5), 465–474.
Hjalager, A. -M. (2010a). A review of the innovation research in tourism. Tourism
Management, 31(1), 1–12.
Hjalager, A. -M. (2010b). Strategic innovation in tourism businesses. In L. Moutinho
(Ed.), Strategic management in tourism (pp. 127–140). Wallingsford, UK: CABI.
 Research Note 313

Home, R. A. (2005). A new tune form an old instrument: The application of

SERVQUAL to a tourism service business. Journal of Quality Assurance in
Hospitality & Tourism, 6(3/4), 185–202.
Howe, J. (2006). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired, 6, 177–183.
Hudson, S., & Shephard, G. W. H. (1998). Measuring service quality at tourist
destinations. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 7(3), 61–77.
Jeppesen, L. B. (2005). User toolkits for innovation: Consumers support each other.
Product Innovation Management, 22, 347–362.
Jeong, M., & Jeon, M. M. (2008). Customer reviews of hotel experiences through
consumer generated media. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management,
17(1/2), 121–138.
Kelley, T. (2005). The art of innovation—Lessons in creativity from IDEO. London,
UK: Currency Books, Random House.
Knutson, B. J. (2001). Service quality monitoring and feedback systems. In J.
Kandampully, C. Mok & B. Sparks (Eds.), Service quality management in
hospitality, tourism and leisure (pp. 143–158). Binghamton, NY: Haworth.
Kohler, T, Matzler, K., & Füller, J. (2008). Avatar-based innovation: Using virtual
worlds for real-world innovation. Technovation, 29, 395–407.
Kozinets, R. V., Hemetsberger, A. & Schau. F. J. (2008). The wisdom of consumer
crowds. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(4), 339–354.
Kulturministeriet. (2009). Reach Out. Inspiration til brugerinddragelse og
innovation in kulturens verden [Reach out: Inspiration for partic-
ipation and innovation in cultural activities]. København, Denmark:
Kulturministeriet. Retrieved from http://www.kum.dk/graphics/kum/Netpub/
Reach%20Out/Reach_Out/pdf/ReachOut_Web.pdf
Lakhani, K. R., & Panetta, J. A. (2007). The principles of distributed innovation.
Innovations, 2(3), 97–112.
Laws, E. (2004). Improving tourism and hospitality services. Wallingsford, UK: CABI.
Limburg, B. van (2009). Innovation in pop festivals by cocreation. Event
Management, 12(2), 105–117.
Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in
hospitality and tourism management. Tourism Management, 29, 458–468.
Macdonald, S. (2005). Assessing audiences. Visiting visitor books. Museum and
Society, 3(3), 119–136.
Magnusson, P. R., Matthing, J., & Kristensson, P. (2003). Managing user involvement
in service innovation. Journal of Service Research, 6(2), 111–124.
Markwell, K., & Basche, C. (1998). Using personal diaries to collect data. Annals of
Tourism Research, 25(1), 228–245.
Mattila, A. S., & Mount, D. J. (2003). The impact of selected customer characteristics
and response time on E-complaint satisfaction and return intent. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 22, 135–145.
Mossberg, L. (2007). A marketing approach to the tourist experience. Scandinavian
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 7(1), 59–74.
Nielsen, N. C., & Liburd, J. J. (2008). Geographical information and landscape history
in tourism communication in the in age of web 2.0. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 25(3/4), 282–298.
Noy, C. (2008). Pages as stages: A performance approach to visitor books. Annals
of Tourism Research, 35(2), 509–528.
314 A.-M. Hjalager and S. Nordin

Obenour, W., Patterson, M., Pedersen, P., & Pearson, L. (2006). Conceptualisation of
a meaning-based research approach for tourism service experiences. Tourism
Management, 27, 34–41.
Orfila-Sintes, F., Crespi-Cladera, R., & Martinez-Ros, E. (2005). Innovation activity
in the hotel industry: Evidence from Balearic Hotels. Tourism Management,
26(6), 851–865.
Pan, B., MacLaurin, T., & Crotts, J. (2007). Travel blogs and the implications for
destination marketing. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 35–45.
Payne, A. D., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 83–98.
Pearce, P. L., & Moscardo, G. M. (1984). Making sense of tourists’ complaints.
Tourism Management, 5(1), 20–23.
Pekar, V., & Ou, S. (2008). Discovery of subjective evaluations of product features
in hotel reviews. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 15–155.
Pechlaner, H. Fischer, E., & Hammann, E. M. (2005). Leadership and innovation
processes—development of products and services based on core competencies.
Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 6(3/4), 31–57.
Pikkemaat, B., & Peters, M. (2005). Towards the measurement of innovation—A
pilot study in the small and medium sized hotel industry. Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 6(3/4), 89–112.
Pritchard, M. P., & Havitz, M. E. (2006). Destination appraisal. Annals of Tourism
Research, 33(1), 25–46.
Ritchie, R. J. B., & Ritchie, J. R. B. (2002). A framework for an industry supported
destination marketing information system. Tourism Management, 23, 439–454.
Rosenberg, N. (1982). Inside the black box. Technology and economics. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Saleh, R., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry
using SERVQUAL The Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 209–221.
Scarles, C. (2004). Mediating landscapes: The practices and processes of image
construction in tourist brochures of Scotland.” Tourist Studies, 4(1), 43–67.
Shoval, N., & Isaacson, M. (2007). Tracking tourists in the digital age. Annals of
Tourism Research, 34(1), 141–159.
Smith, M., & Puczkó, L. (Eds.). (2009). Health and wellness tourism, Oxford, UK:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Svejenova, S., Planellas, M. & Vives, L. (2010). An individual business model in the
making: chef’s quest for creative freedom. Long Range Planning, 43, 408–430.
Sørensen, F. (2007). The geographies of social networks and innovation in tourism.
Tourism Geographies, 9(1), 22–48.
Tax, S., & Brown, S. (1998). Recovering and learning from service failure. Sloan
Management Review, 40(1), 75–88.
Tether, B. S. (2005). Do services innovate (differently)? Industry and Innovation,
12(2), 153–184.
Urban, G. L., & von Hippel, E. (1998). Lead user analyses for the development of
new industrial products. Management Science, 34(5), 569–582.
Veloutsou, C., & Moutinho, L. (2009). Brand relationships through brand reputation
and brand tribalism. Journal of Business Research, 62, 314–322.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
 Research Note 315

von Hippel, E. (2007). Horizontal innovation networks—by and for user. Industrial
and Corporate Change, 18(4), 1–23.
von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits.
Management Science, 48(7), 821–833.
Wang, Y., Yu, Q., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2002). Defining the virtual tourist community:
Implications for tourism marketing. Tourism Management, 23, 407–417.
Weiermair, K., & Fuchs, M. (1999). Measuring tourist judgment on service quality.
Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 1004–1021.
Wenger, A. (2008). Analysis of travel bloggers’ characteristics and their communi-
cation about Austria as a tourism destination. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
14(2), 169–176.
Wise, E., & Høgenhaven, D. (2008). User-driven innovation. Context and cases in
the Nordic region. Oslo, Norway: NICe.
Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A., & Leonard, B. (1990). Delivering quality service.
Balancing customer perceptions and expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Zillinger, M. (2007). Guided tourism—The role of guidebooks in German tourist
behavior in Sweden. Österund & Umeå, Sweden: ETOUR/Universitetstryckeriet.