Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 60 71

Innovation creation by online basketball communities

Johann Fller , Gregor Jawecki 1 , Hans Mhlbacher 1
Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism; Innsbruck University School of Management, Universittsstrasse 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria Received 1 August 2006; received in revised form 1 September 2006; accepted 1 September 2006

Abstract This article investigates joint-development activities within online consumer groups. While research on user-innovations within communities exists for open source software as well as for emerging extreme sports like kite-surfing or rodeo kayaking in offline contexts, this study focuses on innovation activities within online consumer communities for basketball shoes, a physical consumer product in a mature market. The research shows that a small number of consumers are highly creative and possess sufficient domain specific skills and motivation to develop new innovative basketball shoes. While many community members state their experiences and problems with existing shoe models, those actively participating in joint-innovation activities tend to be driven by excitement rather than by pure need for product improvement. The high quality and variety of innovations, and general willingness of community members to share their ideas with producers, lead to the discussion of how to integrate creative online communities into a company's innovation process. 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Innovation; Online community; Consumer goods; Knowledge creation; Virtual consumer integration; New product development

1. Introduction Examples of commercially successful consumer goods like the snowboard (Shah, 2000) and the rodeo kayak (Hienerth, 2004a) as well as numerous empirical studies (e.g., Von Hippel, 2005) demonstrate that consumers are highly innovative and often develop new products. Consumers rarely innovate in isolation, but rather in cooperation with like-minded people acquaintances, colleagues, and friends who bring in additional knowhow and offer active support necessary for transforming an idea into a product (Franke and Shah, 2003; Von Hippel, 2005). Online communities centering on common shared hobbies attract innovative consumers (e.g., Kozinets, 1999; Lynn et al., 1997; McAlexander et al., 2002; McWilliam, 2000; Sawhney and Prandelli, 2000; Verona et al., 2004). The consumers' motivation is to use the Internet to exchange use experiences with latest equipment and to share their ideas for product
The authors thank Eric von Hippel for his important and very helpful suggestions for improving earlier versions of this article. Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 512 507 7201; fax: +43 512 507 2842. E-mail addresses: johann.fueller@uibk.ac.at (J. Fller), gregor.jawecki@hyve.de (G. Jawecki), hans.muehlbacher@uibk.ac.at (H. Mhlbacher). 1 Tel.: +43 512 507 7201; fax: +43 512 507 2842.

modifications or entirely new developments. As online consumer groups represent a large pool of relating product know-how, such groups are a promising source of innovations (Morrison et al., 2004; Verona et al., 2004). While in-depth analyses of the development of open source software (OSS) (e.g., Butler et al., 2002; Hemetsberger and Pieters, 2001; Lakhani and Wolf, 2003; Von Krogh, 2003), computer games in online communities (e.g., Jeppesen and Molin, 2003; Prgl and Schreier, 2004), and the development of physical consumer goods in offline communities, especially for emerging sports without a dominant equipment design (Franke and Shah, 2003; Lthje, 2004; Lthje et al., 2002; Shah, 2000), already exist, to the authors knowledge, so far, no empirical study has considered physical product development in online communities as a subject for analysis. As innovation creation, like knowledge creation, depends on context, expanding on the possible differences is worthwhile. Offline innovation communities in the sporting goods industry and online communities developing software differ in two dimensions: the medium used (offline vs. online), and the product (tangible vs. intangible) that is created. In sports like windsurfing, enthusiasts jointly develop new or modify existing products and test their advanced products directly (Von Hippel, 2001). In OSS projects, users with different skill levels

0148-2963/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.019

J. Fller et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 6071

61

voluntarily contribute to collaborative software administered on the Internet. As software consists of intangible code, software is easy to produce and distribute via the Internet. Members of OSS communities benefit almost immediately from their innovation activities by using the newly developed software. In contrast, physical products can neither be produced nor distributed virtually. At best, joint development activities of tangible products on the Internet may result in animated virtual models, manuals and 3D-data that allow the members to make a physical product. Further, tangible products, especially in advanced markets (e.g., cars, mobile phones, TVs, basketball shoes, or skis), often consist of several components and incorporate complex technologies. Hence such products require investments in production capabilities which normally lie beyond the reach of consumer communities (Fller and Schmidt-Gabriel, 2003; Von Hippel, 2002). Consequently, creative members of online communities which develop physical products will hardly ever be able to immediately benefit from using their innovation. Despite the challenges, several scholars underline the innovative potential of online communities for consumer products (e.g., Kozinets, 2002; McWilliam, 2000; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Sawhney et al., 2003). For example, in the virtual caf alt.coffee, devoted coffee connoisseurs share their ideas and thoughts about how to improve coffee machines and bean roasters in order to enjoy the optimal coffee experience (Kozinets, 1999, 2002). Another popular example of an innovative online community is the Harley-Owners-Group www.hog.com. Members of this online community dedicated to Harley Davidson motorcycles discuss and demonstrate concepts for individualized motorbikes and accessories and the producer Harley Davidson later includes the users' ideas in the development process (McWilliam, 2000). For almost every product category (e.g., wines, cameras, and cars), hobby (e.g., rock climbing, music, and chess), or life situation (e.g., retirement, diseases, and pregnancy), online communities exist which represent a large pool of product know-how and consumption experience. Despite the recognition of the innovative potential of online consumer groups for new product development (Kozinets, 2002; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Verona et al., 2004), so far, little is known about the phenomenon of joint innovation creation in online consumer groups. Building from the promising examples found in literature, this study provides deeper insights into: (1) the quality and quantity of ideas innovated by consumers on the Internet, (2) the reasons that drive individuals to jointly innovate in online communities, (3) the process through which innovations emerge, and (4) the community members' willingness to share their ideas with inquiring companies. The next two sections are a review of relevant literature on innovation and knowledge creation in communities and a description of the research method applied for this study. Fol-

lowing this is a presentation of the findings on joint innovation creation activities in online basketball communities, a discussion of the findings and an outline of the possible implications on virtual integration of online community members into a company's innovation process. 2. Innovation creation in communities Insights into the process and motives of innovation creation within online communities derive from several streams of literature. 2.1. User innovation communities In user innovation communities, members actively discuss provided ideas, offer possible solutions, further elaborate and test them, or just give their opinion. User innovators get in contact with their friends, peer group members, relatives, and acquaintances to look for complimentary knowledge and skills needed to realize their new product ideas (Von Hippel, 2005, 2002). The confrontation with an innovator's new product, discussing the proposal, and providing feedback create a common understanding about the innovation new common knowledge emerges (Hienerth, 2004b; Sawhney and Prandelli, 2000). Through the ongoing dialogue the innovator is constantly challenged. The innovator may rethink the proposed idea with respect to the suggestions made by the community members and may be able to overcome previously unsolved problems. The innovator learns from the community and complements the common knowledge. In addition, the disseminated knowledge will encourage other community members to build upon this idea (Hemetsberger and Reinhardt, 2004). Through intense interactions, finally, a new product may result that is superior to a proposal innovated by a single user and that is superior to the sum of the individual outputs, because new knowledge is created through the emerging relationships (Sawhney and Prandelli, 2000). While explicit knowledge is codifiable and expressible in words and numbers and shareable in data forms, formula and manuals, tacit knowledge is highly personal, subject to automatic processing and, therefore, hard to formalize, difficult to communicate or to share with others (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). Hence, tacit knowledge is sticky (Andersen, 1999; Ogawa, 1998; Szulanski, 1996; Von Hippel, 1998, 1994). 2.2. Communities of practice Knowledge creation literature within communities of practice, which provides an interesting analogy to the development of innovations within communities, gives further insight into how innovation creation in communities works (Franke and Shah, 2003; Sawhney and Prandelli, 2000). Members of communities of practice continuously interact and communicate. This includes talking about their work, posing questions, raising problems, offering solutions, constructing answers, laughing at mistakes or discussing changes in their work (e.g., Brown and Duguid, 1991; Wenger, 2004). In

62

J. Fller et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 6071

all their activities, members keep each other up to date about their knowledge, their learnings, and their actions (Brown and Duguid, 2000). The community members develop a pool of collective knowledge which transcends any individual's knowledge and which is open accessible for all members. If community members confront an unfamiliar situation beyond their current know-how, the members conduct a series of alternating experimentation and improvisation stages, accompanied by sharing and reflecting stories of similar situations, which eventually leads to a solution for the problem. This process of improvisation resembles what Levi-Strauss (1966) calls bricolage: the ability to perform tasks and find solutions with whatever materials and tools are at hand, from odds and ends (Brown and Duguid, 1991). 2.3. Concept of ba Similarly, the concept of ba, which roughly means place, offers interesting insights into how people share, create and utilize knowledge physically, virtually, or mentally (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). According to ba, a spiraling process of interactions among individuals with different types and contents of knowledge creates new knowledge. Within several loops of interaction where community members share their experiences, ideals and ideas with others, new knowledge individual as well as collective emerges. According to Sawhney and Prandelli (2000), besides the generation of new knowledge, this process of deep and recurrent knowledge sharing explains the origins of every community. 2.4. Motives of free revealing Analyzing four different offline sports communities, Franke and Shah (2003) report that on average one third of the community members improve their sporting equipment or even design their own products. As users benefit from using and not from selling the product, most of the time, hiding the innovation does not represent an advantage. On the contrary, users look for ways to share their innovation with others users and manufacturers (Von Hippel, 2002). Users get in contact with manufacturers with the aim of finding professional support. Among others, Harhoff, Henkel, and von Hippel (2003) show that consumers may derive several benefits by freely revealing information about their developed product. Freely revealing means that the innovator voluntarily gives up all intellectual property rights to that information and gives access to all interested parties the information becomes public property (Von Hippel, 2005). This has a number of effects that explain the received benefits. These benefits are; network effects, reputational gains, revealing of related innovations by others, and the setting of an informal standard (Harhoff et al., 2003; Von Hippel, 2002). Following Franke and Shah (2003), another reason for consumers to participate in joint innovation activities is that doing so is fun and exciting. From this perspective, innovators do not view sharing of innovation-related information as a loss requiring compensation, but rather as enjoyable in and of itself. Studies in OSS contexts, provide similar findings,

but offer additional reasons why community members share their ideas and support each other, including e.g., communal norms, sense of belonging, friendship, intellectual stimulation, and gain of knowledge (e.g., Butler et al., 2002; Hemetsberger and Pieters, 2001; Hertel et al., 2003; Lakhani and Von Hippel, 2003; Lakhani and Wolf, 2003). 2.5. Constraints of the Internet While agreement exists on the fact that the Internet is capable of transferring information and explicit knowledge (Barrett et al., 2004; Carayannis, 1998; Descantis et al., 2004), scholars often considered the online environment as inadequate for user collaboration on highly complex tasks such as product innovation which require high levels of creativity and flexibility (Nemiro, 2002; Nonaka et al., 2000). However, Hemetsberger and Reinhardt (2004) show that virtual communities can also manage complex tasks and overcome the problems related to the transfer of tacit knowledge through technological tools, task related features, collective reflection, stories and usage scenarios. Thus, even more complex tasks of joint consumer product innovation may be realized on the Internet. Although, extensive research on user innovations in offline communities and for OSS exists, little is known about innovation creation in online communities in the field of consumer products. Further, no empirical study addresses how a company could systematically use the innovative potential of online consumer groups in the innovation process. This study sheds light on joint development activities in online basketball communities and gives ideas how companies could use the innovative potential of online communities. 3. Method This research focuses on the field of basketball sports, as a typical physical product of a mature market. The authors considered netnography (Kozinets, 2002) as adequate for the research as the methodology includes data from a host of different sources: observations of community behavior, qualitative analyses of the members' communication, and interviews with experts in the product field. 3.1. Research field Four considerations prompted this study's selection of online communities focusing on basketball shoes: first, a great number of people play and watch basketball. Thus, researchers may expect a high number of online communities. Second, as basketball is typically a team activity, players likely have tight relationships and share their experiences. Third, one of the authors was an enthusiastic basketball player for more than ten years and possesses profound knowledge in the field of basketball footwear, indispensable in understanding the conversation among community members. Fourth, the basketball shoe sector is an already established, highly competitive market with a variety of new models each year. Product innovations consist mainly of modifications in the optical appearance of

J. Fller et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 6071 Table 1 The five online basketball communities in the research sample Community Niketalk Members Posts/ Origin Operator day 34,000 5000 US Private Description

63

shoes whereas radical innovations are rare and often require a very long development time. For instance, the company Nike spent 16 years from conception to creation of the new cushioning technology Nike Shox (Von Wartburg, 2002). The focus on an already established major mass market with highly sophisticated and advanced products distinguishes this research from former studies on creative sports communities mainly focusing on product innovations in emerging sports. 3.2. Netnographic approach Netnography (Kozinets, 1999, 2002) originated from ethnography (e.g., Arnould and Wallendorf, 1994). Netnography uses information publicly available on the Internet to study the nature and behavior of online consumer groups (e.g., Muniz and Schau, 2005; Nelson, 2005). The netnography approach describes how to identify and contact online communities and how to analyze and check the trustworthiness of community insights. Further, netnography covers the question how to conduct online marketing research in an appropriate, ethical way. The method provides a grounded knowledge (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) concerning a certain research question. For this study, the netnography divides into four steps: (1) determination of user characteristics, (2) community identification and selection, (3) observation and data gathering, (4) data analysis and interpretation of findings. The first step comprised the compilation of a list of personal characteristics indicative of creative and innovative community members (Amabile, 1996). Such members behave in a similar way to lead users (Morrison et al., 2004; Von Hippel, 1986). The description of the user characteristics gave a fairly good picture of the most relevant individuals in the research scope: highly enthusiastic basketball players who are creative, have extensive use-experience and product-related knowledge in the field of basketball equipment, and are the most active members within online communities related to their interest. According to Kozinets (2002), these insiders and devotees represent the most important data sources for marketing research. Step two comprised the identification of more than 500 online communities dedicated to basketball-related topics. Extensive screening related to quality of content, posting frequency, professionalism (Kozinets, 2002), as well as member profile, identified five online communities, more precisely five basketball message boards, as most promising for this research: Niketalk, Basketballboards, Solecollector, Kickz101, Kicksology. Table 1 gives a brief description of the selected basketball communities. In step three, the researchers observed all five communities over a period of 6 months from October 2003 to March 2004, screening more than 240,000 posts in more than 18,000 discussions and filing all innovation-related content electronically. This approach is similar to purposive sampling in ethnography (Wallendorf and Belk, 1989). In step four, the researchers used QSR NVivo software (Paccagnella, 1997) to analyze and interpret 460 discussions including 11,000 posts (9000 of the posts were innovation-related). In accordance with the proposed guidelines of ethics in online research (Kozinets, 2002) the researchers asked for and the web administrators of

Basketballboards

11,600

1000

US

Solecollector 9000

3000

US

Kickz101

3300

2000

AUS

Kicksology

N/A

200

US

Based on number of members and content best community No official affiliation with Nike Inc. Clear preferences towards Nike footwear Private Members are of younger age Most topics are dedicated to professional players and leagues One forum specifically for apparel Official Often mentioned as forum of second best online Sole community Collector Members discuss all Magazine brands frequently Formerly called Instyleshoes Sporting Interesting because of apparel international perspective store Separate footwear and apparel sections Often early pictures of new models Private Reviews of more than 150 basketball shoes Reviews strongly influence purchase decisions Terminated in 2004 due to limited time of operator

the selected online communities gave their agreement to the analysis of the communication and interaction of their members. You certainly have my permission to utilize NikeTalk in your academic study. If you have any specific requests, please let us know. Otherwise, you're certainly more than welcome to analyze anything that's been posted to the community (Method Man, NikeTalk Staff, 2004). Following data analysis, four experienced product managers checked the trustworthiness of the findings and interpretations and evaluated the quality and variety of user ideas (Wallendorf and Belk, 1989). Several past examples and other publications found on the Internet helped to validate other aspects, like the assessment of the members' willingness to share their ideas with producers. 4. Findings The first part gives an overview of the selected basketball communities and their members followed by the findings

64

J. Fller et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 6071 Table 2 Categorization of members based on their posting frequency (numbers exemplary for Solecollector community) Absolute Percentage Behavior and role in community number of total members Lurkers 3605 58% Registered members who rarely contribute Passively observe communication to gather information and to read interesting discussions Do not hold social ties to other members Numerous unregistered lurkers can also be expected Contribute regularly to topics of interest Share shoe reviews with other members Are also members of other basketball communities Are interested in social interaction besides of footwear-related discussions Contribute frequently or even daily Hold strong social ties to other frequent posters Possess extensive product-related knowhow Most respected members of their communities Some take the role of opinion leaders

regarding the type of innovations, members' motivations for innovation creation, and the innovation creation process. Finally, the article gives evidence of community members' willingness to collaborate with producers. 4.1. Communities and their members From time to time participants start threads to introduce themselves and their basketball obsession (Schau and Gilly, 2003). This behavior provides a fairly good picture of the participants in the selected online basketball communities. Typically, members are between 15 and 25 years old and still go to school or university. Several members are employees of sporting goods stores, however, their contributions show that such employees do not participate with the intention of advertising their stores, but rather because of their passion for basketball footwear. Among other things, ownership of a high number of shoes demonstrates the members' high involvement in basketball footwear. Often, such collections include between twenty and fifty different pairs of basketball shoes. For the most enthusiastic members, the online community is like a virtual family. One member of the Niketalk community explains, Niketalk really has grown into a family, nationwide! Similar to offline relationships, the community provides a sense of belonging to members: it does feel like a community, even way out here in Tokyo. Social ties among the most active participants are so strong, that these members even organize so-called summits to meet and to get to know each other offline. The communication among members is typically marked by mutual respect. Members commonly accept different points of view and often use other opinions as a starting point for constructive discussions. While each of the selected communities has several thousands members, a much smaller group of users make the majority of postings. Table 2 illustrates the different categories of community members based on their frequency of contribution and describes their typical behavior and role within the community. At Solecollector for example, the 212 most active users make 80% of the postings (3.4% of total 6216 members). The top 50 contributors (0.8%) produce 50% of all messages. 2399 members (39%) are frequent posters, while 3600 members (58%) are lurkers (cf. Nonnecke et al., 2004). In each community a group of highly active, broadly respected, well-known, long-standing, and knowledgeable insiders exists. Most other members of the community immediately adopt what these opinion leaders express. This is how one community member experiences the special standing of the two opinion leaders ekin and airmax: I have been here since 2001. I don't really post I tend to just observe, but what I noticed is that whenever ekin or airmax puts up a post everyone magically does not ever affront him, says the shoes sucklike he or she is a god or something. Many community members are heavy users of equipment and thus have extensive use-experience with a variety of models

Posters

2399

39%

Frequent posters

212

3%

and brands. Members frequently share their experiences, thoughts, and opinions in detailed shoe reviews including detailed judgments of specific features e.g., cushioning and comfort. These product discussions do not only support others in their purchase decisions, but are also starting points for new innovative product ideas. 4.2. Joint innovation creation ideas, motives, and process Creative members conceptualize not only improvements of current models but also develop entirely new technologies and basketball shoes from scratch. Numerous innovative ideas exist for almost every shoe component, e.g., design, cushioning, lacing, and ventilation. In total, the analysis identified 24 components and attributes of a shoe to which community members make specific contributions, come up with modifications, and new ideas. Table 3 shows the number of innovationrelated passages identified and coded for each shoe component, differing between 10 and 307. These numbers give first indication of the popularity and importance of the respective shoe components for basketball players. For example, a lively discussion is going on about what makes the design of a basketball shoe attractive and what does not. Contributors use existing shoe models as a reference to point out which design elements are, in their opinion, desirable and which are overdone or unaesthetic. Members provide a lot of information as to the ideal design for a basketball shoe. A further example is sharing of shoe customization guidelines and manuals. In order to stand out from the crowd, many basketball shoe enthusiasts customize their footwear by applying paint, glitter, and even

J. Fller et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 6071 Table 3 Categories and number of text passages coded for each category Component/ attribute Design Cushioning Comfort Customization Ankle support Durability Imitations Insole Traction Quality Injury Weight Number of posts coded 307 206 167 162 152 122 115 106 89 87 81 72 Component/ attribute Lace cover Soles Shoe cleaning Material Shoe lacing Outdoor use Color Fit Courtfeel Laces Ventilation Responsiveness Number of posts coded 69 63 48 43 38 23 22 21 18 13 12 10

65

their experiences and give detailed advice as to how to achieve the best results e.g., for shoe painting; which acetone to use, the best ratio to mix acetone and paint, and how many coats of paint to apply. These examples, as well as the following expressions of gratitude demonstrate that typically, members freely share their innovations within the community either in form of verbal descriptions or self-made drawings: Continue producing your masterpieces and thank you for always sharing with the community. Members' motives for freely revealing their innovations are manifold: the perception that doing so is a community norm, the inner satisfaction when doing so, the desire to give back to the community, the need for recognition from other members, and the hope of feedback from a knowledgeable audience. As one member of the Niketalk community states his desire to give back: If I ever make it in shoe design (like 10 years from now) I will forever be indebted to this board and will give back to the Niketalk community. That will be a long time, but I am

denim. However, to do so community members have to overcome some difficulties, such as how to make the paint flexible and thin in order to avoid creases. Members who modify their shoes share

Table 4 Comparison of need-driven and excitement-driven innovators Criteria % of total number of ideas posted Motives that trigger innovation activities Need-driven innovators 20% Perception of so-far unsatisfied needs when using equipment Excitement-driven innovators 80% Fun and enjoyment from the innovation activity itself Desire to improve skills Aim to receive competent feedback Want recognition from other members and potentially companies Regularly Continuous innovation activities Highly respected members Commonly known members within their communities, so-called designers Opinion leaders Innovation activity is triggered by a design challenge stated by one of the designers or just by the desire to design a new basketball shoe Presentation of a sophisticated innovative idea with lengthy explanations of the proposed solution Besides a verbal descriptions, innovators visualize ideas in form of detailed designs or even 3-dimensional computer renderings Excitement-driven innovators make first attempts to realize their innovative ideas Advancement of innovations by incorporating the feedback from other members Driven by his interest in designing basketball shoes, the Niketalk Designer Vocaldigital23 develops an entirely new basketball shoe from scratch. Vocaldigital23 visualizes the new concept (see Fig. 2), including a new cushioning and lacing technology, in more than 50 designs which show the shoe as a whole and all key-components. The innovator then presents a selection of these designs to the members of the Niketalk community, who are astonished by the skills displayed: Thanks for the worthwhile critique. I did not go to school, man. This is just what I do. I worked on this project from sun up to sundown from July to November of 03 and created a 50 page book on its development. Almost drove me nuts. This is only 15 pages of it.

Frequency of innovation Role in online community

Infrequent Regular members

Form of sharing and advancing innovative ideas

Description of an experienced problem Present only a first rough idea how to improve the problem Typically do not make attempts to further advance the innovative idea

Example of typical contribution pattern

Several members report about serious ankle injuries when playing basketball. The injury is commonly attributed to insufficient ankle protection and cushioning in existing basketball shoes. Starting from this problem, members come up with the idea, that by taking out the insoles of one basketball shoe and inserting the insoles into another model, the cushioning could be drastically improved while, at the same time, guaranteeing ankle stability. What I do right now is go half a size big on shoes with zoom air and use that extra space to insert another insolewhich provides me with that great court feelbut better impact protection

66

J. Fller et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 6071

determined to make it happen. Thanks again guys, and continue to be honest with your opinions and impressions. Another member sees the community as a source of feedback from some of the most knowledgeable basketball shoe enthusiasts: Thank you very much for your kind feedback. It's nice to get critics and try to top my own limits. Consumer-innovators in the selected online basketball communities seem to be motivated either by the perception of a so-far unsatisfied need or by the inner satisfaction when engaging in the creative activity itself. Thus, this study labels creative community members as either (1) need-driven or (2) excitement-driven innovators. Table 4 shows the typical characteristics of the two groups of innovators. A search for excitement triggers approximately 80% of all ideas posted in the sample and need only 20%. Need-driven innovators become active because of a perception of needs which are as yet not satisfied by any existing product on the market. For instance, one member has the idea of protective equipment to play basketball more safely: I think basketball is a leading cause of injuries. I've hurt myself the most in ball. I've hurt my wrist, both my ankles, knees, and shoulders. I think it's because there's no protective equipment for the sport.

Excitement-driven innovators develop and pursue new ideas because of the fun, pleasure, and enjoyment from the activity itself and less because of a desired outcome (e.g., the protection from injury in the pervious example). In contrast to need-driven innovators for whom innovating is not part of their community routines and who typically express their ideas solely in a verbal manner, innovators driven by excitement regularly and consciously engage in innovation activities. Excitement-driven innovators contribute more sophisticated ideas which are usually translated into virtual prototypes in the form of drawings or even 3-D renderings. The community knows the most ambitious excitement-driven innovators as designers. The small group of designers (e.g., approximately 20 members of the total 34,000 members of Niketalk) contribute, by far, the highest number and quality of innovative ideas (see Figs. 1 and 2). Designers spend significant time making their own drawings of basketball shoes or shoe features and demonstrate impressive drawing and design skills. These members see sharing their work with the community as a way to gain recognition and feedback from a knowledgeable audience which in turn helps to further improve the designer's skills. Now, I begin to understand how important it s to get inputs from this community (which is made of truly kicks lovers as I am) to improve my skills and refine my technique. For many designers making own renderings is not simply a hobby, but their intended career. Designers dream of becoming

Fig. 1. Innovative basketball shoe designs by Archeever, Air Elijah, Archeever; and Zenith (Sources: Niketalk 2004).

J. Fller et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 6071

67

Fig. 2. Concept of an entirely new basketball shoe named Odonata by Vocaldigital23, including new lacing and cushioning technologies as well as a detailed construction plan (Source: Niketalk, 2004).

professional basketball footwear designers for one of the major brands. In order to achieve this goal, many study industrial design or go to art schools. Table 5 shows the typical characteristics of designers as well as their sources of inspiration. To increase the challenge and fun when making renderings, communities from time to time initiate so called Designer's Roll Calls (DRCs). In these friendly competitions a community member assigns a specific innovation task e.g., design the basketball shoe for the year 2050 and then the designers of the community try to creatively fulfill this task within the given deadline. Then, numerous members (not only the designers) give their feedback on the posted submissions. Table 6 illustrates

the pattern of innovation creation by means of an exemplary Designer's Roll Call. Feedback and comments of the knowledgeable audience indicate the quality of contributions. The following is just one example: WhoaI really think ALL the submissions from you guys are (read: wow!!) there ain't never gonna be a shortage of creative talent in here. The archive of Niketalk provided perhaps the most intriguing example illustrating the high innovative and creative potential of community members: Jason Petrie, known under the username

68

J. Fller et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 6071

Table 5 Typical characteristics of designers and their sources of inspiration Typical characteristics of designers Characteristics Play basketball and thus have extensive use experience with basketball shoes Typically between 20 and 25 years old Longtime members of their community Dream of becoming professional footwear designers for one of the major companies Often study design or go to art schools to pursue their career dream Demonstrate impressive drawing and design skills (e.g., former member Alphaproject is now working as a footwear designer for Nike) Combine their interest for basketball and design in their creative activities (e.g., although designing also other things such as running shoes from time to time, basketball shoes are their most favorite and most frequently addressed topic) Have a very profound knowledge about current and past basketball shoes Typically agree which basketball shoes are the best and worst in terms of design Are not the users with the highest number of posts but with the highest quality of innovative content Freely share their ideas as well as insights into their design techniques with other members who are eager for knowledge to improve their own design skills Highly acknowledged members of their community Organize friendly innovation competitions with self-stated tasks from time to time Honor the work of other designers and give advices how to improve their ideas Sources of The statements of the designers indicate that their ideas are inspiration stimulated by a variety of factors: Existing basketball shoes on the market (mainly high-end shoes of the major companies) Inspiration for new shoes from a variety of sources, such as cars, airplanes, animals (e.g., the basketball shoe Odonata by Vocaldigital23, shown in Fig. 2, is inspired by a shark) Pure phantasy stimulated by the challenge to come up with something new Problems stated by other members Feedback of other members to their posted designs Journals which are dedicated to basketball shoes Own usage experience when playing basketball

4.3. Community collaboration with producers Several statements indicated that community members are aware of the high potential value of their knowledge to companies in the sporting goods industry. As one member stated: Nike gains millions dollars worth of R&D information per year from this websiteOne thing that is very valuable to companies is unbiased, candid feedback, hey what do we have here?? DIRECT CANDID UNBIASED FEEDBACK HMMMMMMM it has to be worth something. Despite this knowledge, several observations indicate that community members are typically willing to share their thoughts with producers free of charge. In November 2003, one visitor of the Niketalk community claimed to work for Reebok and asked how the firm could improve their basketball equipment. Although the person who claimed to work for Reebok did not offer any rewards for those who contributed, the question initiated a
Table 6 The pattern of contribution in Designer's Roll Calls along the example of the Air Jordan XIX Air Jordan XIX Designer's Roll Call Total number of replies Innovation ideas Feedback to innovations 317 40 designs by 20 members 250 posts by 100 members

Alphaproject, continuously showcased his renderings in the Niketalk community, and improved his skills through the competent feedback from other shoe-enthusiasts. At that time, one member, amazed by one of his designs, predicted: One day I will hold your first designed Nike sneaker in my hands, telling myself that this one is from Alpha, who had his beginning at Niketalk. The prediction came true. Alphaproject was discovered by Fila and now works as basketball footwear designer at Nike (Kicksguide, 2003). Besides the impressive example of Alphaproject, in an interview, four experienced product managers of a leading sporting goods company confirmed the high quality of ideas and their attractiveness for manufacturers. As the managers did not want to reveal their identity for this paper, further explications regarding the company and their positions cannot be made at this point.

Pattern of participation Time Actions Start of Designer's One of the designers assigns the task to draw the Roll Call upcoming so-called Air Jordan XIX basketball shoe The designer asks the participants to submit their ideas within the next two weeks 1st week Most of the designers confirm their participation Interested members ask questions to the task and discuss their planned submissions Some designers submit their first drawings after two days Community members (not only designers) give their feedback to submissions Members start asking for designers who so-far did not confirm their participation 2nd week Number of new posts per day reaches peak in the first half of week 2 (approx. 20 per day) Some designers already submit their 2nd or 3rd renderings Designers incorporate feedback of members to advance their initial submissions Not so experienced designers ask for advice to improve their technique Numerous community members point out their favorite submission 3rd week Despite official deadline end new designs are submitted Number of new posts per day continuously drops during week 3 Designers Roll Call is revitalized by the week's end through new submissions of some of the most respected designers 4th week Number of new posts per day falls below five Last post 26 days after discussion started

J. Fller et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 6071

69

very productive discussion with more than 100 detailed replies within five days. Even when doubts about the author's identity arose, the discussion continued unaffected. Despite the lack of award, the contributors felt sufficiently rewarded by the challenge of the task and their participation in an interesting discussion: I for one couldn't care less if the guy was really from Reebok or not. It's still an interesting discussion and a lot of the comments make for interesting reading. On another occasion, the shoe manufacturing firm Nike approached Niketalk through one of the moderators with the invitation to share their experiences with basketball shoe imitations (fakes). Also in this case the participants had no guarantee for rewards and only the best submissions had the chance to be printed in the firm's official magazine. Still, more than 40 members reported about their experiences with fakes. One example which illustrates that innovative members even actively initiate contacts with sporting goods companies is a design contest on Kicksguide.com, a private user homepage dedicated to basketball shoes. Several creative basketball shoe enthusiasts contribute their drawings to each month's theme. The winning designs compete for the Artist Series Shoe Design of the Year and the site submits the artwork of the winner to various shoe manufacturers. Several of the designers in the observed online communities also take part in the Kicksguide design contest. Their hope is to become known as creative and innovative designers, get in touch with one of the major brands, get an opportunity to start working for a wellknown basketball company, and that one day their creative shoe designs become realized. 5. Discussion As the research shows, online gatherings of consumers at least in the field of basketball shoes participate in the development of tangible consumer goods. Similar to OSS and offline innovation communities, members of online basketball communities do not innovate in isolation but in interaction with like-minded people. The members consider sharing their productrelated knowledge and ideas for new products or product modifications as a fun and rewarding activity. The consumers' innovation experience generates value in itself (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Von Hippel, 2005). For many enthusiastic community members, the exchange of innovation-related product knowledge is one of the main reasons for belonging to the community. This is in line with scholars describing that task involvement combined with learning constitutes a self-sustaining system that helps to establish and maintain an online community (e.g., Hemetsberger and Pieters, 2001; Sawhney and Prandelli, 2000). The findings show that at least a small number of community members are very knowledgeable, highly skilled, and able to create their own virtual products with an impressively high quality and level of innovation. Hence, not only are software development communities (Franke and Von Hippel, 2003; Von Hippel and Von Krogh, 2003) and offline user innovation

communities (Franke and Shah, 2003; Shah, 2000) highly innovative, but also online consumer groups in mature markets, despite the fact that the designers of virtual basketball shoes will never benefit from wearing their own creations. In contrast to lead user innovations (Urban and Von Hippel, 1988; Von Hippel, 1986), excitement rather than pure need drives innovation creation in basketball communities. Lately, Shah (2005) identified similar motives as main drivers for most dedicated software developers of OSS. Further, similarly to OSS developers, highly skilled community members post their innovations in the hope of getting visibility helpful for future employment as professional shoe designers (Butler et al., 2002). The Designer's Roll Calls pattern that this study identifies is an interesting, new process of innovation generation. These friendly self-stated design competitions stimulate innovation creation and dissemination of highly complex knowledge. Further, such contests emphasize the playful element of innovation creation in online communities (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002; Mathwick and Rigdon, 2004), as Designer's Roll Calls can be interpreted as kind of games with self-defined roles. Regarding the effect of play on creative output, Csikszentmihalyi (1975) notes: Philosophers from Plato to Sartre have remarked that people are most human, whole, free and creative when they play. By posting pictures and drawings of self-created shoe designs and concepts, the so - called designers not only disclose their explicit but also implicit knowledge. In the design of an innovative shoe the consumers' implicit, non verbally articulated knowledge about basketball equipment such as values, feelings, perceptions of latest trends, and design preferences surface (Nonaka, 1994). Visual models help in transferring sticky knowledge to the community (Ogawa, 1998; Von Hippel, 1998). While only a few community members are capable of creating professional shoe designs, many less skilled members help to improve the innovation by giving their opinions, coming up with proposals for improvement, or asking challenging questions. The proposals of others may in turn inspire some to come up with even more radical innovations. Through intense interactions, numerous contributions, and countless loops of trial and error experimentations, finally, a new product results that is superior to that innovated by a single user. A sense of group efficacy emerges (Hemetsberger, 2001). The overall community can be seen as a dynamic system of adaptive learning that produces innovations from the ideas of community members (Hienerth, 2004b). Besides contributing their knowledge, another important function of less skilled community members is to admire the designers, to show recognition and to take on the role of fans (Schouten and McAlexander, 1995). While the study at hand gives initial insights into jointinnovation creation within online consumer groups and provides a lot of plausible evidence that online consumer groups are a promising source of innovation, further research is required to come up with more generalizable and quantifiable results. Based on the findings, interest arises to examine, whether online communities centering around physical consumer goods other than basketball footwear, e.g., mobile phones, cameras, or skis, demonstrate similar innovative potential and patterns of innovation.

70

J. Fller et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 6071

In addition, a quantitative study on what innovative communities expect from companies when sharing their ideas is overdue. This subject needs a variety of conceptual and empirical studies to explore the topic of virtual integration of communities in a company's innovation process in more detail. 6. Managerial implications In all of the five observed consumer online communities, very knowledgeable members think of innovative ways to modify existing or create new basketball footwear. In addition, these community members seem to be willing to share their ideas when approached by a sports equipment manufacturing company. Thus, the observable process fulfills two main preconditions for successful virtual integration of community members into a company's innovation process the community's innovative potential and the willingness to participate. Members of online consumer groups could provide valuable contributions information, knowledge, and assistance to various tasks when integrated in a company's innovation process (Dahan and Hauser, 2002; Nambisan, 2002). Managers, intending to actively integrate online community members into new product development, may ask how the interaction between community and producer works. Regarding this question, two basic forms of virtual community integration exist: (1) the virtual integration of community members for specific innovation tasks from time to time, and (2) the continuous collaboration with online communities as a permanent source of new ideas and co-developers of new products. For specific innovation tasks, a company could provide special interaction tools like toolkits (Von Hippel and Katz, 2002) or virtual customer tools (Dahan and Hauser, 2002) that facilitate participation and transfer of the community members' knowhow. Selected communities may serve as pools of qualified consumers that are invited to participate via postings and banners (Fller et al., 2006). For example, given that several members of the observed basketball communities discussed customizable cushioning systems which allow adjustment of the responsiveness of the shoe cushioning according to personal preference, the question about new, customizable cushioning technologies could become the topic of such a project. In contrast to punctual integration of community members for specific tasks, a company could aim to benefit from the ongoing knowledge exchange and innovation activities within online communities. Obviously, continuously monitoring the communication of thousands of community members for innovative ideas represents high efforts in terms of time and cost. Hence, community members with new ideas should become active themselves and contact the company of their choice. In the basketball community example, one possibility is to install a permanent link; which directly connects community members with the innovation team of a company of their choice; on basketball community websites such as Niketalk. The community itself could take on a central position by activating the link if and when the members think that a certain innovation should be introduced to and discussed with a company. Of course, issues regarding intellectual property and gratifications have to

be clarified before a company may collaborate with communities. At present, most of the time consumers have to accept the terms and conditions of the respective company and surrender their intellectual property rights (Chung and Grimes, 2005). With their community of creation model, Sawhney and Prandelli (2000) offer an alternative, far more cooperative approach for continuous interaction with online communities. In their community of creation model, a central firm acts as sponsor and defines the ground rules for participation. The entire community then owns the intellectual property rights arising from joint innovation activities. This permeable governance model acts to blend the benefits of hierarchies and markets. Effective and efficient interaction with online communities requires certain knowledge and skills which not every company may have, especially in reaching the right consumers, or creating a certain context of integration. Under such conditions, Sawhney et al. (2003) note that relying on innomediaries is advisable, that is, third-party actors who facilitate the mediating innovation and specialize in the virtual dialogue with communities. References
Amabile Teresa. Creativity in context. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press; 1996. Andersen Poul H. Organizing international technological collaboration in subcontractor relationships: an investigation of the knowledge-stickiness problem. Res Policy 1999;28:62542. Arnould Eric, Wallendorf Melanie. Market-oriented ethnography: interpretation building and marketing strategy formulation. J Mark Res 1994;31:484504 [November]. Barrett Michael, Cappleman Sam, Shoib Gamila, Walsham Geoff. Learning in knowledge communities: managing technology and context. Eur Manag J 2004;22(1):111. Brown John Seely, Duguid Paul. Organizational learning and communities-ofpractice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovating. Organ Sci 1991;2(1):4057. Brown John Seely, Duguid Paul. The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 2000. Butler Brian, Sproull Lee, Kiesler Sara. Community effort in online groups: who does the work and why? In: Weisband S, Atwater L, editors. Leadership at a distance; 2002. Carayannis Elias. The strategic management of technological learning in project/ program management: the role of extranets, intranets and intelligent agents in knowledge generation, diffusion and leveraging. Technovation 1998;18(11):697703. Chung Grace, Grimes Sara. Cool hunting the kids' digital playground: datamining and the privacy debates in children's online entertainment sites. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, Hawaii: IEEE; 2005. HICSS-38. Csikszentmihalyi Mihaly. Play and intrinsic rewards. J Humanist Psychol 1975;15(3):4163. Csikszentmihalyi Mihaly. Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Perennial; 2002. Dahan Ely, Hauser John R. The virtual customer. J Prod Innov Manag 2002;19 (5):33253. Descantis Gerardine, Fayard Anne-Laure, Roach Michael, Jiang Lu. Learning in online forums. Eur Manag J 2004;22(5):56577. Franke Nikolaus, Shah Sonali. How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among innovative users of sporting equipment. Res Policy 2003;32(1):15778. Franke Nikolaus, Von Hippel Eric. Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: the case of Apache security software. Res Policy 2003;32 (7):1199215. Fller Johann, Schmidt-Gabriel Michael. Vom Lead User zum Unternehmer Virtuelle Kundeneinbindung am Beispiel des DiGGiT Snowboard

J. Fller et al. / Journal of Business Research 60 (2007) 6071 Rucksacks. In: Piller Frank, Stotko Christof, editors. Mass Customization und Kundenintegration. Dsseldorf: Symposion; 2003. Fller Johann, Bartl Michael, Ernst Holger, Mhlbacher Hans. Community based innovation: how to integrate members of virtual communities into new product development. Electron Commer Rev J 2006;6(2):5773. Glaser Barney, Strauss Anselm. The discovery of grounded theory. New York: de Gruyter; 1967. Harhoff Dietmar, Henkel Joachim, Von Hippel Eric. Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Res Policy 2003;32(10):175369. Hemetsberger Andrea. Fostering cooperation on the Internet, social exchange processes in innovative virtual consumer communities. Adv Consum Res 2001;29:3546. Hemetsberger Andrea, Pieters Rick. When consumers produce on the Internet: an inquiry into motivational sources of contribution to joint-innovation. In: Derbaix Christian, et al, editors. Fourth International Research Seminar on Marketing Communications and Consumer Behavior. La Londe: LeopoldFranzens-Universitt Innsbruck; 2001. Hemetsberger Andrea, Reinhardt Christian. Sharing and creating knowledge in open-source communities the case of KDE. Fifth European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities. Innsbruck; 2004. Hertel Guido, Niedner Sven, Herrmann Stefanie. Motivation of software developers in Open source projects: an Internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Res Policy 2003;32:115977. Hienerth Christoph. The commercialization of user innovations: the development of the kayak rodeo industry. Vienna: Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration; 2004a. Hienerth Christoph. Impediments to the transfer of knowledge in innovative communities. In: Carayannis Elias, Campbell David, editors. Knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and clusters: a comparative systems approach across the U.S., Europe and Asia. Greenwood Publishing Books; 2004b. Jeppesen Lars Bo, Molin Mans J. Consumers as co-developers: learning and innovation outside the firm. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 2003;15(3):36383. Kicksguide. Alphaproject: http://www.kicksguide.com/articles/featured/alphaproject. asp. Accessed: 1 December, 2003. Kozinets Robert. E-tribalized marketing? The strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption. Eur Manag J 1999;17(3):25264. Kozinets Robert. The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communications. J Mark Res 2002;39(1):6172. Lakhani Karim, Von Hippel Eric. How open source software works: free userto-user assistance. Res Policy 2003;32(6):92342. Lakhani Karim, Wolf Robert. Why hackers do what they do: understanding motivation effort in free/open source software projects. Working Paper, vol. 4425-03; 2003. Levi-Strauss Claude. The savage mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1966. Lthje Christian. Characteristics of innovating users in a consumer goods field: an empirical study of sport-related product consumers. Technovation 2004;24(9):68395. Lthje Christian, Herstatt Cornelius, Von Hippel Eric. The dominant role of local information in user innovation: the case of mountain biking. Cambridge, MA: MIT; 2002. Lynn Leonard, Aram John, Reddy Mohan. Technology communities and innovation communities. J Eng Technol Manag 1997;14:12945. Mathwick Charla, Rigdon Edward. Play, flow, and the online search experience. J Consum Res 2004;31:32432 [September]. McAlexander James, Schouten John, Koenig Harold. Building brand community. J Mark 2002;66(1):3854. McWilliam Gil. Building strong brands through online communities. Sloan Manage Rev 2000;41(13). Morrison Pamela, Roberts John, Midgley David. The nature of lead users and measurement of leading edge status. Res Policy 2004;33(2):35162. Muniz Jr Albert, Schau Hope Jensen. Religiosity in the abandoned Apple Newton brand community. J Consum Res 2005;31:73747 [March]. Nambisan Satish. Designing virtual customer environments for new product development: toward a theory. Acad Manage Rev 2002;27(3):392413. Nelson Michelle R. Exploring cross-cultural ambivalence: a netnography of intercultural wedding message boards. J Bus Res 2005;58:8995.

71

Nemiro Jill. The creative process in virtual teams. Creat Res J 2002;14(1):6983. Nonaka Ikujiro. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ Sci 1994;5(1):1437. Nonaka Ikujiro, Konno Noboru. The concept of Ba: building a foundation for knowledge creation. Calif Manage Rev 1998;40(3):4054. Nonaka Ikujiro, Reinmoeller Patrick, Senoo Dai. Integrated IT systems to capitalize on market knowledge. In: Von Krogh Georg, Nonaka I, Nishiguchi T, editors. Knowledge creation a source of value. New York, NY: Macmillan Press; 2000. Nonnecke Blair, Preece Jenny, Andrews Dorine. What lurkers and posters think of each other. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS37. Big Island, Hawaii: IEEE; 2004. Ogawa Susumu. Does sticky information affect the locus of innovation? Evidence from the Japanese convenience-store industry. Res Policy 1998;26:77790. Paccagnella Luciano. Getting the seats of your pants dirty: strategies for ethnographic research on virtual communities. J Comput-Mediat Commun 1997:3 [June]. Prahalad C, Ramaswamy Venkatram. The future of competition: co-creating unique value with customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 2004. Prgl Reinhard, Schreier Martin. Opening up the innovation process by toolkits: learning from leading-edge customers at The Sims. R&D Management Conference. Sesimbra (Portugal); 2004. July. Sawhney Mohanbir, Prandelli Emanuela. Communities of creation: managing distributed innovation in turbulent markets. Calif Manage Rev 2000;42 (4):2454. Sawhney Mohanbir, Prandelli Emanuela, Verona Gianmario. The power of innomediation. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 2003;44:7782. Schau Hope Jensen, Gilly Mary C. We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space. J Consum Res 2003;30:385404. Schouten John, McAlexander James. Subcultures of consumption: an ethnography of the new bikers. J Consum Res 1995;22:4361. Shah Sonali. Sources and patterns of innovation in a consumer products field: innovations in sporting equipment. Working Paper, vol. 4105. MIT; 2000. Shah Sonali. Motivation, governance and the viability of hybrid forms in open source software. Working Paper, vol. 04-0115. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign; 2005. Szulanski Gabriel. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strateg Manage J 1996;17:2743 [Winter, Special Issue]. Urban Glen, Von Hippel Eric. Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Manage Sci 1988;34(5):56982. Verona Gianmario, Prandelli Emanuela, Sawhney Mohanbir. Innovation and virtual environments: towards virtual knowledge brokers. Working Paper, vol. 38; 2004. Von Hippel Eric. Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Manage Sci 1986;32(7):791805. Von Hippel Eric. Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Manage Sci 1994;40(4):42939. Von Hippel Eric. Economics of product development by users: the impact of sticky local information. Manage Sci 1998;44(5):62944. Von Hippel Eric. Innovation by user communities: learning from open-source software. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 2001;42(4):826. Von Hippel Eric. Horizontal innovation networks by and for users. Working paper. MIT Sloan School of Management; 2002. Von Hippel Eric. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2005. Von Hippel Eric, Katz Ralph. Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Manage Sci 2002;48(7):82133. Von Hippel Eric, Von Krogh Georg. Open source software and the privatecollective innovation model: issues for organaization science. Organ Sci 2003;14(2):20923. Von Krogh Georg. Open-source software development. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 2003:148 [Spring]. Von Wartburg I. Fallstudie Nike Shox. Bern: Universitt Bern, Institut fr Innovations-management; 2002. Wallendorf Melanie, Belk Russel. Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic consumer research. In: Hirschman E, editor. Interpretive consumer research. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research; 1989. Wenger Etienne. Knowledge management as a doughnut: shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice. Ivey Bus J 2004;68(3):18.