This research analyzes the effects of common method variance (CMV) on parameter estimates in bivariate linear, multivariate linear, quadratic, and interaction regression models. The authors demonstrate that CMV can either inflate or deflate bivariate linear relationships, depending on the degree of symmetry with which CMV affects the observed measures. With respect to multivariate linear relationships, they show that common method bias generally decreases when additional independent variables suffering from CMV are included in a regression equation. Finally, they demonstrate that quadratic and interaction effects cannot be artifacts of CMV. On the contrary, both quadratic and interaction terms can be severely deflated through CMV, making them more difficult to detect through statistical means.

Many services can be self-provided. An individual user or a user firm can, for example, choose to do its own accounting -choose to self-provide that service -instead of hiring an accounting firm to provide it. Since users can 'serve themselves' in many cases, it is also possible for users to innovate with respect to the services they self-provide. In this paper, we explore the histories of 47 functionally novel and important commercial and retail banking services. We find that, in 85% of these cases, users self-provided the service before any bank offered it.Our empirical findings differ significantly from prevalent producer-centered views of service development. We speculate that the patterns we have observed in banking with respect to the dominant role of users in service development will prove to be quite general.If so, this will be an important matter: on the order of 75% of GDP in advanced economies today is derived from services. We discuss the implications of our findings for research and practice in service development.

We explore the role and relevance of resource scarcity in product innovation. The literature tends to assume that the development of new products requires resource sufficiency for the process to be conducted systematically. But we are also taught that necessity is the mother of invention and that resource scarcity may be a trigger of innovation in adverse contexts. In this discussion, we organize the literature on product innovation in resource‐poor contexts in three streams. The paper contributes to a finer‐grained understanding of the role of scarcity in product innovation and suggests that creative approaches to scarcity may contribute to knowledge enrichment of product innovation theory and practice.

No abstract

When individual consumers develop products for their own use, they in part expect to be rewarded by the use value of what they are creating (utilitarian user motives), and in part expect to be rewarded intrinsically by such things as the fun and learning experience derived from creating it (hedonic user motives). In this paper, we conduct first-of-type studies to understand the relationship between individual consumers' motives to innovate and the novelty and utility of the solutions they develop. The theoretical framework integrates self-determination theory and goal setting theory.The major findings of this study are that utilitarian user motives positively affect the utility of user-developed innovations. In addition, we find that a strong utility motive is associated with reduced solution novelty-perhaps because if individual users really need something to function well, it may be wise to go with tried and true solutions. In contrast, hedonic user motives drive solution novelty; the more an innovator is "in it for fun," the more novel the solution developed. However, hedonic user motives also have an inverted U-shaped relationship with solution utility. When the dominant motive for developing an innovation is the joy of the creative process rather than use value, the utility of what is developed is negatively affected. The levels of utility and hedonic user motives driving innovators are variables that can be adjusted by the innovators themselves, and/or by third parties seeking to motivate individual innovators and affect the rate and direction of inventive activities.