The Lead User method: an outline of empirical findings and issues for future research

Abstract

In order to reduce the risks of failure usually associated with NPD, leading companies such as 3M, HILTI, or Johnson&Johnson are increasingly working with so‐called Lead Users. Their identification and involvement is supported by the Lead User method – a multi stage approach aiming to generate innovative new product concepts and to enhance the effectiveness of cross‐functional innovation teams. While the Lead User method is frequently cited in the literature, yet, there are only limited attempts to comprehensively discuss how this approach is embedded in theories and empirical findings of innovation and marketing research. Therefore the Lead User method is in the focus of the present paper, both with respect to its theoretical foundation and its implementation into the innovation management system. First, empirical research on user innovations is reviewed to clarify the theoretical foundation of the Lead User method. Second the attention is drawn to the Lead User practice by discussing the various process steps of this specific approach on the basis of two applications of the method. Based on this discussion, we outline open questions related with the practical implementation of the Lead User method in order to start an agenda for future research.

Exploring the ideation patterns of ordinary users: the case of mobile telecommunications services

“…An alternative is to invite the users to create innovations themselves, with the lead user method probably being the most well-known (Lüthje and Herstatt 2004;von Hippel, Thomke and Sonnack 1999). However, this also has problems, mainly regarding the identification of lead users.…”

Collaborative futuring with and by makers

“…The final step is typically carried out by organising an lead-user workshop (see Chapter 7 in Churchill, von Hippel, and Sonnack 2009). The process has been further elaborated by Urban and von Hippel (1988), Lüthje and Herstatt (2004) and Churchill, von Hippel, and Sonnack (2009), yet the basic two-part structure of LUW has remained the same. The first part is spent on trend exploration, basically each lead user explaining the challenges and trends he or she is facing and then working in a group to iterate these.…”

User Orientation Through Experience: A Study of Hobbyist Knowing in Product Development

“…Much discussion recently has focused on user innovations and users as innovators (Jeppesen & Molin, 2003;Lüthje & Herstatt, 2004;Shah, 2005;von Hippel, 2005). The point is that not only do individual innovators and manufacturers innovate, but users have been the source of many innovations across a wide range of products.…”

“…It can, at its best, help in understanding the implicit user needs and requirements. Hobbyist knowing is not, however, a method among other user-centered methods for product development, or similar to the lead user method (Lüthje & Herstatt, 2004). Hobbyists are people who are voluntarily involved in the practices of users of a certain industry through their own long-term hobby activities and are working for the companies for years rather than for a few projects.…”