Assessing multifunctional innovation adoption via an integrative model

Abstract

This study proposes and tests an integrative model that incorporates the mental resources framework (MOA: motivation, opportunity, and ability) alongside traditional innovation adoption predictors for assessing the adoption of dual-functionality innovations (DFI), a special case of multifunctional innovations (MFI). The multifunctional nature of an increasing number of new products demands the use of mental resources in evaluating new offers, as the comprehension of MFIs is more demanding (i.e., requires more mental resources) than singlefunctionality (SF) products. The proposed model also recognizes the role of MFI categorization as a critical link in the process, because an MFI, and within the context of our study a DFI, helps consumers achieve multiple goals if they realize its dual functionality. Our model demonstrates that mental resources play a significant role in consumers' adoption decisions and should be included in studies of MFI adoption. Further, our integrative model offers a significant improvement over rival alternatives that use only traditional innovation adoption predictors. Thus, the model offers a new approach for estimating MFI adoption with a superior predictive power and facilitates the development of appropriate marketing strategies for such products.

Technology readiness: a meta-analysis of conceptualizations of the construct and its impact on technology usage

“…Despite increased diffusion of these technologies, marketing research still stresses that customers' use of technology is not a given (Claudy et al 2015;Parasuraman and Colby 2015;Westjohn et al 2009). Studies have frequently examined factors that potentially influence technology usage (Collier and Sherrell 2010;Dabholkar and Bagozzi 2002;Sääksjärvi and Samiee 2011). These factors relate to the technology, including ease of use and usefulness, and to the consumer, such as sociodemographics (Giebelhausen et al 2014;Homburg et al 2010;Meuter et al 2005;Montoya-Weiss et al 2003;Nysveen et al 2005).…”

Contingent cross-selling and up-selling relationships with performance and job satisfaction: an MOA-theoretic examination

“…MOA theory is applied to explain behaviour in consumer (e.g., MacInnis, Moorman, and Jaworski 1991) and organizational (e.g., Johnson and Sohi 2003) contexts and is useful for explaining the strength of the impact of cross-selling and up-selling. Consistent with extant research (e.g., Wu, Balasubramanian, and Mahajan 2004;Sääksjärvi and Samiee 2011), the included variables are not explicitly MOA; rather, they are a type of MOA possessed by salespeople.…”

“…Number of products/product levels as opportunities Opportunity represents the degree to which a context is conducive to enable action (Rothschild 1999;Siemsen, Roth, and Balasubramanian 2008;Sääksjärvi and Samiee 2011). Due to the espoused benefits of cross-selling and up-selling to the organization, firms take many approaches to facilitate the opportunity of the salesperson to cross-sell and up-sell their products.…”

“…This is because cross-selling and up-selling require salespeople to offer the right products to their customers. The salesperson's opportunity to cross-sell and up-sell products reflects how much they are enabled in these actions (Rothschild 1999;Sääksjärvi and Samiee 2011). Carrying a plethora of products aids salespeople, as this opportunity provides a robust set of offerings from which to create synergies (Anderson 1985).…”

How do consumers categorize new hybrid products?

“…Similar modeling is proposed by Viswanathan and Childers (), and revisited by Rajagopal and Burnkant (), who use Zadeh's fuzzy set theory (), which models the uncertainty and imprecision of some object classes. More recently, the model presented by Sääksjärvi and Samiee () shows that the categorization of hybrid products is positively influenced by knowledge of primary categories.…”