Involving lead users in firm’s standardization strategy within action groups: evidence from smart robotics

Abstract

Purpose

This research explores how firms manage the complex technologies standardization in action groups. It considers the strategic issues that technology producers face when involving lead users in architecture design. Drawing on the multi-mode standardization literature, this study addresses two dilemmas regarding value creation and appropriation by technology producers within coalitions. The first dilemma is how to create value by developing solutions in compliance with industry standards. The second one is how to appropriate value while ensuring the technology sharing with action groups. The answers to these two dilemmas contribute to filling the research gap on value creation and appropriation in multi-mode standardization.

Design/methodology/approach

The research focuses on technology producers participating in action groups where lead users play a crucial role. We conducted a qualitative analysis based on the standardization experience of a Japanese company specializing in smart robotics. Data are collected through semi-structured interviews with key actors. Action groups are defined operationally as a set of stakeholders including competitors of the technology producers, component suppliers, end users, services providers, research centers and academia. The case study is suitable for highlighting specific aspects of the standardization process during its manifestation. It reveals how firms create and appropriate value, providing details about its standardization strategy.

Findings

Our findings show that smart robotics standardization is drivn by collaborative models, where the two dilemmas of value creation and appropriation are evident. Firstly, the case revealed that standardization is lead users oriented. Secondly, lead users’ involvement is crucial to customize technologies. Thirdly, the firm’s position is to share a part of the value with the members. The IPR policy is a matter of interest within action groups, since the collaboration is based on open innovation models to share patents and licenses related knowledge.

Research limitations/implications

This research has some limitations attributable to the limited generalizability of the results due to the qualitative analysis. In addition, this study considers the perspective of technology producers, but should also take into account the perspective of both collective actions itself and the lead users. Findings have some implications in the strategy negotiation. Participating in action groups is not enough to ensure a competitive advantage. Involving lead users is of strategic importance to acquire a competitive advantage. Lead users contribute to the producers’ technology design, helping firms to differentiate solutions from the industry standard and create value from customized technologies.

Practical implications

This study helps practitioners understand the competitive side of collective actions, clarifying the value capture and appropriability in standardization. The research provides insights to policymakers and standard development organizations committees when they are called to harmonize standards considering the fallouts on the sector’s competitiveness. Findings suggest appropriate property rights policies to manage the issues related to the value appropriability and technology sharing, recognizing action groups members for their contribution in value creation.

Originality/value

This study shows how firms deal within action groups with the two dilemmas of variety versus technology conformity and property rights versus technology sharing. It fills the research gap in collective actions, emphasizing the perspective of the individual firm in the group rather than the coalition strategy itself. This topic highlights the crucial role of lead users within action groups in managing the two dilemmas, offering a new perspective for understanding critical issues of multi-mode standardization. Reflecting on mechanisms and tools to manage the two dilemmas allows firms to protect their competitive advantage in coalitions.