Creating Major Innovations with Customers: Insights from Small and Young Technology Firms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The marketing literature typically argues that customers cannot easily be involved with, and contribute to, the creation of major innovation (MI). This article finds otherwise. The authors use an inductive process method to study how six MIs were developed for business-to-business markets by small and young technology firms. Three of the MIs were successful, and three failed. The firms with MI success are distinguished by a nonconventional new product development process that includes five iterative and overlapping activities and up to ten different customer roles. These activities and roles are captured in a multifaceted taxonomy of customer participation. The analysis also uncovers three capabilities relevant to the development of successful MI—capabilities that are effectual rather than adaptive in nature. These findings and the propositions derived from them offer a more complete understanding of customer participation, new product development across contexts, and marketing capabilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it