No abstract

This study aims to help professionals in the field of running and running-related technology (i.e., sports watches and smartphone applications) to address the needs of runners. It investigates the various runner types—in terms of their attitudes, interests, and opinions (AIOs) with regard to running—and studies how they differ in the technology they use. Data used in this study were drawn from the standardized online Eindhoven Running Survey 2016 (ERS2016). In total, 3723 participants completed the questionnaire. Principal component analysis and cluster analysis were used to identify the different running types, and crosstabs obtained insights into the use of technology between different typologies. Based on the AIOs, four distinct runner types were identified: casual individual, social competitive, individual competitive, and devoted runners. Subsequently, we related the types to their use of sports watches and apps. Our results show a difference in the kinds of technology used by different runner types. Differentiation between types of runners can be useful for health professionals, policymakers involved in public health, engineers, and trainers or coaches to adapt their services to specific segments, in order to make use of the full potential of running-related systems to support runners to stay active and injury-free and contribute to a healthy lifestyle.

No abstract

No abstract

While previous studies have shed light on the benefits and antecedents of platform‐based product development, there is still much to be learned on the subject, particularly through an empirical approach. Based on the literature, this study proposes the concept of product platform competency and identifies four antecedents related to the development process, knowledge sharing, and the organization of development. The study hypothesizes that such competency directly affects the performance of platform‐based product development. To test these hypotheses, a large‐scale survey was conducted in the United States with 242 firms. The study found empirical evidence to support the existence of the concept of product platform competency, which comprises the reusability of subsystems, the compatibility of subsystem interfaces, and the extensibility of platform‐based products. The results show that a formalized development process, knowledge sharing across platform‐based products, continuity of platform‐based product development teams, and the existence of a champion in platform‐based product development will significantly enhance product platform competency. More interestingly, the results show that factors which have a significant effect on platform development cost are statistically different from those that have a significant effect on platform development time. For example, while formalized product development process and continuity of development team play a very significant role in shortening development time, they are less crucial in reducing development costs. In contrast, the presence of a product champion is a significant factor in achieving cost efficiency, but it has relatively lower impact on development time. Knowledge sharing was found to affect both development time and cost. In sum, this study makes three main contributions to the existing literature. The first contribution is the empirical‐tested concept of product platform competence based on key elements suggested by Robertson and Ulrich. The second contribution is the development of constructs specifically for platform development based on previous studies. Relating to this is the third contribution: the development and validation of measurement items related to key drivers to platform development, the three aspects of platform development competence, and the performance measurements. These measurement items can be used by practitioners as guidelines to identify areas for improvement as well as the level of capability in platform development.