Benefits of Customer Codevelopment of New Products: The Moderating Effects of Utilitarian and Hedonic Radicalness
There is growing belief in the value of actively involving customers in innovation, commonly referred to as customer codevelopment or cocreation. These strategies are generally believed to be beneficial, although contingent views are prevalent. A widely espoused contingent view is that the positive contribution of customer codevelopment is dependent on the degree of radicalness (or innovativeness) of the products being developed. Some work argues that customer codevelopment is more useful for incremental innovation, whereas other work claims that customer codevelopment is more valuable when innovation is radical. This research makes an important contribution to this discourse by making a distinction between utilitarian radicalness and hedonic radicalness. Utilitarian radicalness refers to the degree to which an innovation is novel in terms of technology and functionality, whereas hedonic radicalness refers to the degree to which an innovation is novel in terms of sensorial, emotional, or symbolic aspects. Hypotheses about the contribution of customer codevelopment to market success depending on levels of utilitarian and hedonic radicalness are tested using dual-respondent data about a large sample of innovation projects. The findings suggest that the contribution of customer codevelopment to market success is positively moderated by utilitarian radicalness and negatively moderated by hedonic radicalness. This underlines the importance of taking not only the level, but also the nature, of radicalness into account when making decisions about customer codevelopment.
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12286, hdl.handle.net/1765/85030|
|Series||ERIM Top-Core Articles|
|Journal||Journal of Product Innovation Management|
Candi, M, van den Ende, J.C.M, & Gemser, G. (2016). Benefits of Customer Codevelopment of New Products: The Moderating Effects of Utilitarian and Hedonic Radicalness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(4), 418–434. doi:10.1111/jpim.12286