Marketing & Innovation MAN-MMA026 – 2026
21 articles table summary’s - All relevant conceptual models - Lecture summary
Table of Content
Article 1. Tripsas (1997): Unraveling the Process of Creative Destruction:
Complementary Assets and Incumbent Survival in the Typesetter Industry.......2
Article 2. Hillebrand, Kemp, and Nijssen (2011): Customer Orientation and
Future Market Focus in New Service Development...........................................3
Article 3. Hubert, Blut, Brock, Zhang, Koch, and Riedl (2019): The Influence of
Acceptance and Adoption Drivers on Smart Home Usage.................................6
Article 4. Mani and Chouk (2019): Impact of Privacy Concerns on Resistance to
Smart Services: Does the “Big Brother Effect” Matter?....................................8
Article 5. Workman (1993): Marketing’s Limited Role in New Product
Development in One Computer Systems Firm..................................................9
Article 6. Bouschery, Blazevic, and Piller (2023): Augmenting Human Innovation
Teams with Artificial Intelligence: Exploring Transformer Based Language
Models......................................................................................................... 10
Article 7. Pescher and Tellis (2025): The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the
Ideation Process........................................................................................... 13
Article 8. Berends, Jelinek, Reymen, and Stultiëns (2014): Product Innovation
Processes in Small Firms: Combining Entrepreneurial Effectuation and
Managerial Causation...................................................................................14
Article 9. Nenonen, Storbacka, and Windahl (2019): Capabilities for Market
Shaping: Triggering and Facilitating Increased Value Creation.......................15
Article 10. Van Kleef, Van Trijp, and Luning (2005): Consumer Research in the
Early Stages of New Product Development: A Critical Review of Methods and
Techniques.................................................................................................. 17
Article 11. Hauser (1993): How Puritan Bennett Used the House of Quality.....20
Article 12. Bitner, Ostrom, and Morgan (2008): Service Blueprinting: A Practical
Technique for Service Innovation..................................................................22
Article 13. Füller, Hutter, and Faullant (2011): Why Co Creation Experience
Matters: Creative Experience and Its Impact on the Quantity and Quality of
Creative Contributions..................................................................................24
Article 14. Afuah and Tucci (2023): Crowdsourcing as a Solution to Distant
Search......................................................................................................... 25
Article 15. Schweisfurth (2017): Comparing Internal and External Lead Users as
Sources of Innovation...................................................................................26
,Article 16. Eliëns, Eling, Gelper, and Langerak (2018): Rational Versus Intuitive
Gatekeeping: Escalation of Commitment in the Front End of New Product
Development............................................................................................... 27
Article 17. Guiltinan (1999): Launch Strategy, Launch Tactics, and Demand
Outcomes.................................................................................................... 28
Article 18. Golder and Tellis (1993): Pioneer Advantage: Marketing Logic or
Marketing Legend?.......................................................................................31
Article 19. Sorescu, Chandy, and Prabhu (2003): Sources and Financial
Consequences of Radical Innovation: Insights from Pharmaceuticals..............32
Article 20. Kuester, Homburg, and Robertson (1999): Retaliatory Behavior to
New Product Entry.......................................................................................33
Article 21. Homburg, Fürst, and Prigge (2010): A Customer Perspective on
Product Eliminations: How the Removal of Products Affects Customers and
Business Relationships.................................................................................34
Lecture overview M&I...................................................................................36
1. Why innovation matters............................................................................36
2. The curse of success.................................................................................................36
3. Adoption and resistance...........................................................................................37
4. New Product Development (NPD).............................................................................37
5. Innovation in ecosystems......................................................................................... 38
6. Effectuation vs causation..........................................................................................38
7. Fuzzy front-end I: understanding customers.............................................................38
8. Fuzzy front-end II: customers as innovators..............................................................39
9. Testing and forecasting............................................................................................ 39
10. Product launch........................................................................................................ 40
11. After the launch...................................................................................................... 41
Article 1. Tripsas (1997): Unraveling the Process of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets and Incumbent Survival in the Typesetter Industry
Dimension Explanation Findings Implications
Research problem The study examines why some incumbent firms Incumbents show inconsistent survival Understanding survival requires
fail while others survive when radical outcomes across different identifying underlying mechanisms
technological change occurs. technological shifts. rather than assuming automatic
failure.
Creative destruction: New innovations replace old
ones, causing established firms to lose their
advantage while new firms gain it.
Core idea Incumbent survival is not determined by Incumbents can remain dominant even Technology alone cannot explain
technological superiority but by complementary with inferior technology if assets retain survival outcomes, so asset
assets that help firms commercialize innovation. value after disruption. continuity is critical.
Complementary Complementary assets are non-technological These assets remained valuable in Firms must understand which
assets resources that help firms generate value from some technological shifts but lost value assets will continue to generate
technology, such as customer relationships and in others. value in new regimes.
, proprietary content.
Mechanism Complementary assets reduce the negative effect Incumbents only failed when Successful adaptation depends on
of disruptive technological change by enabling disruption destroyed both their the interaction between
firms to profit despite technical weaknesses. technological capabilities and their technology development and asset
complementary assets. continuity.
First technological The shift from mechanical to analog changed Incumbents produced inferior products When assets lose value,
shift required skills and disrupted value of existing and lost their dominant positions to incumbents are vulnerable even if
assets. new entrants. they try to adopt new
technologies.
Second The shift from analog to digital demanded new Incumbents kept most of the market Asset stability can offset
technological shift skills but preserved asset value. despite slower technology because technological inferiority and
relationships and distribution still sustain dominance.
mattered.
Third The shift from digital to laser required new Incumbents again maintained Long term asset continuity
technological shift knowledge but did not disrupt asset value. dominant positions. supports survival even during
repeated technological change.
Quantitative Statistical models tested the relationship between Incumbents frequently Asset continuity moderates the
evidence technology, assets and survival. underperformed technologically yet negative impact of disruptive
retained market share when assets change.
remained valuable.
Summary of Survival outcomes differ systematically depending Incumbents succeed when assets Disruption does not inherently
findings on whether complementary assets retain value remain valuable and fail when assets favor new entrants; survival
across technological regimes. become obsolete. conditions matter.
Implications for The study challenges deterministic views of Radical innovation does not Creative destruction is conditional
theory creative destruction. automatically replace incumbents. rather than universal.
Managerial Firms must manage both technological Firms that fail to adapt their asset base Strategic survival requires
implications development and commercialization assets to risk losing their competitive position. identifying valuable assets and
survive disruption. investing in new ones when
necessary.
Contribution The study offers a mechanism-based explanation Technology and assets jointly Understanding survival requires
of incumbent survival. determine survival outcomes. integrating both innovation
performance and asset continuity.
Article 2. Hillebrand, Kemp, and Nijssen (2011): Customer Orientation and Future Market Focus in New Service Development
Dimension Explanation Findings Implications
Research The study looks at how two ways of thinking in service Firms that mainly listen to current To understand innovation, we
problem firms affect innovation. These are customer customers often make small must look at how firms balance
orientation and future market focus. improvements but may miss future current needs with future
opportunities. possibilities.
,Core idea Customer orientation and future market focus lead to Customer orientation leads to Firms need both views to
different kinds of innovation because they shape how improvements that fit current succeed today and stay relevant
firms think about change. customers. tomorrow.
Future market focus leads to more
radical innovation because it looks at
upcoming needs.
Customer A focus on understanding and satisfying current Firms that are highly customer- Customer orientation can
orientation customers. oriented avoid big changes that create inertia, meaning firms
could cannibalize current business. stick to what works now and
avoid risky changes.
Future market A focus on future customer needs and market trends. Firms that think about the future are A future focus
focus more willing to replace existing reduces inertia and helps firms
services and investments to prepare take risks and create more
for upcoming needs. radical innovations.
Organizational Inertia means resistance to change because routines Firms that accept losing current To innovate, firms must
inertia and and investments are hard to alter. business can innovate more radically, overcome inertia by being willing
willingness to especially when they change routines to sacrifice short term gains for
cannibalize Willingness to cannibalize means being ready to replace and drop outdated services. long term opportunities.
profitable existing products with new ones. It includes:
Sales: launching new services that might reduce existing
sales.
Routines: changing the firm’s processes and ways of
working.
Investments: replacing or abandoning older
technologies or assets.
Conceptual The model explains how customer orientation and Customer orientation decreases Innovation depends on both
model future market focus affect innovation through willingness to cannibalize → increases internal skills such as R&D and
willingness to cannibalize, and how R&D inertia → reduces innovativeness. external focus such as current
strength supports innovation. Future market focus increases versus future markets.
willingness to cannibalize → decreases
inertia → enhances innovativeness.
Service R&D strength directly
improves innovativeness.
Role of service Service R&D strength is a firm’s ability to develop new Firms with strong R&D are more Firms need both resources and
R&D strength services. innovative because they can turn ideas the right mindset to innovate
into actual services. successfully.
Results on Customer-oriented firms avoided replacing successful Customer orientation did not stop all Too much focus on current
customer services but could change small things when useful for innovation but discouraged radical customers can make firms strong
orientation current customers. innovation that might upset current now but weak in the long run.
customers.
Results on Future oriented firms actively changed services routines These firms created more radical Firms that act early on future
future market and investments to meet future needs. innovations because they looked for needs may lead the market
focus opportunities rather than waiting for rather than follow it.
customer demand.
Effect of firm The authors also looked at firm size. Larger firms had more innovation but Growing firms must work harder
size also more inertia. Smaller firms had to stay flexible and adaptive.
less resources but were more flexible.
Summary of Customer orientation leads to smaller improvements. Willingness to cannibalize is the key Innovation performance depends
findings Future market focus leads to more radical innovation by mechanism linking orientation to on what firms focus on and how
reducing inertia. innovation. willing they are to disrupt
themselves.
Managerial Managers must think about current customers and Protecting current business too much Managers must encourage future
implications future opportunities. reduces radical innovation. thinking and be willing to change
or replace current services when
needed.
,
, Article 3. Hubert, Blut, Brock, Zhang, Koch, and Riedl (2019): The Influence of Acceptance and Adoption Drivers on Smart Home Usage
Dimension Explanation Findings Implications
Research The study examines why consumers adopt Adoption decisions are influenced by both benefits To understand adoption
problem or reject smart home technologies and such as usefulness and fit, and barriers such as risk properly, we must look at how
argues that earlier research looked at and uncertainty. positive and negative beliefs
either positive factors or negative factors interact, not just one side.
separately rather than together.
Technology TAM explains adoption through perceived People were more likely to adopt smart homes when Smart home systems must feel
Acceptance usefulness (technology improves daily life) they believed the system would make life easier, effortless and genuinely helpful
Model (TAM) and perceived ease of use (it is simple to safer, or more efficient. to create adoption.
learn and operate). People adopt
technology when it feels both useful and Ease of use indirectly increased adoption by making
easy. systems seem more useful.
Innovation IDT explains adoption through how well an Compatibility strongly increased intention because Adoption increases when
Diffusion innovation fits with users’ habits and people prefer technologies that work smoothly with technologies fit users’ current
Theory (IDT) lifestyle. Key attributes what they already use. Testing and seeing benefits routines and when benefits can
are compatibility, trialability, visibility, helped mostly by making the system seem more be experienced or observed
and result demonstrability. useful. before use.
Perceived PRT highlights negative beliefs that Risk did not directly stop adoption, but it reduced Reducing risk strengthens
Risk Theory discourage adoption, especially security usefulness and ease of use. When people felt positive beliefs and has a
(PRT) risk, performance risk, and time risk. These insecure, they were less convinced that smart homes stronger effect on adoption than
risks reduce confidence in the technology. would improve their life. addressing intention directly.
Integrated The authors combine TAM, IDT, and PRT The integrated model predicted intention much Adoption models should focus
theoretical because innovation attributes can increase better than single theories because it captured how on how beliefs are linked,
perspective usefulness and ease of use, while risk can beliefs influence each other, not just intention especially indirect effects, rather
undermine these same beliefs. directly. than isolated predictors.
Compatibility Compatibility means how well a system fits Compatibility had the strongest effect on adoption Showing how products fit with
with existing habits, routines and devices. because people prefer technologies that do not force existing routines and devices is
lifestyle changes. essential for adoption.
Perceived Usefulness means believing that smart Usefulness was a major driver because people adopt Firms must clearly show how
usefulness home systems provide clear benefits such systems that clearly improve their daily life. smart home systems solve real
as comfort, safety, or efficiency. problems.
Perceived Ease of use means believing that smart People viewed systems as more useful when they Simplicity reduces uncertainty
ease of use homes are simple, intuitive, and not time- seemed easy to use. Ease therefore increased and increases willingness to try.
consuming. adoption mainly by making usefulness seem more
likely.
Perceived Risk means fearing privacy loss, Risk lowered usefulness and ease of use. People were Reducing risk indirectly
risk malfunction, or wasted time. less convinced of benefits when they felt insecure increases adoption by
about privacy or reliability. strengthening positive beliefs.
Summary of Overall explanation of how predictors The study offers a unified explanation of technology Adoption success depends on
findings behaved. adoption by combining benefits and risks in one reinforcing positive beliefs and
model. It shows that compatibility is the strongest preventing risk from weakening
driver because people adopt technologies that fit them.
their routines. It finds that risk discourages adoption
indirectly by reducing perceived usefulness. It also
explains inconsistent results in earlier research by
showing that many predictors work through indirect
pathways, not directly on intention.
Managerial What firms should do. Firms must design and communicate products that fit Compatibility, transparency, and
implications users’ daily life, reduce risk, and clearly show benefits. security communication drive
adoption more than novelty or
advanced features.
21 articles table summary’s - All relevant conceptual models - Lecture summary
Table of Content
Article 1. Tripsas (1997): Unraveling the Process of Creative Destruction:
Complementary Assets and Incumbent Survival in the Typesetter Industry.......2
Article 2. Hillebrand, Kemp, and Nijssen (2011): Customer Orientation and
Future Market Focus in New Service Development...........................................3
Article 3. Hubert, Blut, Brock, Zhang, Koch, and Riedl (2019): The Influence of
Acceptance and Adoption Drivers on Smart Home Usage.................................6
Article 4. Mani and Chouk (2019): Impact of Privacy Concerns on Resistance to
Smart Services: Does the “Big Brother Effect” Matter?....................................8
Article 5. Workman (1993): Marketing’s Limited Role in New Product
Development in One Computer Systems Firm..................................................9
Article 6. Bouschery, Blazevic, and Piller (2023): Augmenting Human Innovation
Teams with Artificial Intelligence: Exploring Transformer Based Language
Models......................................................................................................... 10
Article 7. Pescher and Tellis (2025): The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the
Ideation Process........................................................................................... 13
Article 8. Berends, Jelinek, Reymen, and Stultiëns (2014): Product Innovation
Processes in Small Firms: Combining Entrepreneurial Effectuation and
Managerial Causation...................................................................................14
Article 9. Nenonen, Storbacka, and Windahl (2019): Capabilities for Market
Shaping: Triggering and Facilitating Increased Value Creation.......................15
Article 10. Van Kleef, Van Trijp, and Luning (2005): Consumer Research in the
Early Stages of New Product Development: A Critical Review of Methods and
Techniques.................................................................................................. 17
Article 11. Hauser (1993): How Puritan Bennett Used the House of Quality.....20
Article 12. Bitner, Ostrom, and Morgan (2008): Service Blueprinting: A Practical
Technique for Service Innovation..................................................................22
Article 13. Füller, Hutter, and Faullant (2011): Why Co Creation Experience
Matters: Creative Experience and Its Impact on the Quantity and Quality of
Creative Contributions..................................................................................24
Article 14. Afuah and Tucci (2023): Crowdsourcing as a Solution to Distant
Search......................................................................................................... 25
Article 15. Schweisfurth (2017): Comparing Internal and External Lead Users as
Sources of Innovation...................................................................................26
,Article 16. Eliëns, Eling, Gelper, and Langerak (2018): Rational Versus Intuitive
Gatekeeping: Escalation of Commitment in the Front End of New Product
Development............................................................................................... 27
Article 17. Guiltinan (1999): Launch Strategy, Launch Tactics, and Demand
Outcomes.................................................................................................... 28
Article 18. Golder and Tellis (1993): Pioneer Advantage: Marketing Logic or
Marketing Legend?.......................................................................................31
Article 19. Sorescu, Chandy, and Prabhu (2003): Sources and Financial
Consequences of Radical Innovation: Insights from Pharmaceuticals..............32
Article 20. Kuester, Homburg, and Robertson (1999): Retaliatory Behavior to
New Product Entry.......................................................................................33
Article 21. Homburg, Fürst, and Prigge (2010): A Customer Perspective on
Product Eliminations: How the Removal of Products Affects Customers and
Business Relationships.................................................................................34
Lecture overview M&I...................................................................................36
1. Why innovation matters............................................................................36
2. The curse of success.................................................................................................36
3. Adoption and resistance...........................................................................................37
4. New Product Development (NPD).............................................................................37
5. Innovation in ecosystems......................................................................................... 38
6. Effectuation vs causation..........................................................................................38
7. Fuzzy front-end I: understanding customers.............................................................38
8. Fuzzy front-end II: customers as innovators..............................................................39
9. Testing and forecasting............................................................................................ 39
10. Product launch........................................................................................................ 40
11. After the launch...................................................................................................... 41
Article 1. Tripsas (1997): Unraveling the Process of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets and Incumbent Survival in the Typesetter Industry
Dimension Explanation Findings Implications
Research problem The study examines why some incumbent firms Incumbents show inconsistent survival Understanding survival requires
fail while others survive when radical outcomes across different identifying underlying mechanisms
technological change occurs. technological shifts. rather than assuming automatic
failure.
Creative destruction: New innovations replace old
ones, causing established firms to lose their
advantage while new firms gain it.
Core idea Incumbent survival is not determined by Incumbents can remain dominant even Technology alone cannot explain
technological superiority but by complementary with inferior technology if assets retain survival outcomes, so asset
assets that help firms commercialize innovation. value after disruption. continuity is critical.
Complementary Complementary assets are non-technological These assets remained valuable in Firms must understand which
assets resources that help firms generate value from some technological shifts but lost value assets will continue to generate
technology, such as customer relationships and in others. value in new regimes.
, proprietary content.
Mechanism Complementary assets reduce the negative effect Incumbents only failed when Successful adaptation depends on
of disruptive technological change by enabling disruption destroyed both their the interaction between
firms to profit despite technical weaknesses. technological capabilities and their technology development and asset
complementary assets. continuity.
First technological The shift from mechanical to analog changed Incumbents produced inferior products When assets lose value,
shift required skills and disrupted value of existing and lost their dominant positions to incumbents are vulnerable even if
assets. new entrants. they try to adopt new
technologies.
Second The shift from analog to digital demanded new Incumbents kept most of the market Asset stability can offset
technological shift skills but preserved asset value. despite slower technology because technological inferiority and
relationships and distribution still sustain dominance.
mattered.
Third The shift from digital to laser required new Incumbents again maintained Long term asset continuity
technological shift knowledge but did not disrupt asset value. dominant positions. supports survival even during
repeated technological change.
Quantitative Statistical models tested the relationship between Incumbents frequently Asset continuity moderates the
evidence technology, assets and survival. underperformed technologically yet negative impact of disruptive
retained market share when assets change.
remained valuable.
Summary of Survival outcomes differ systematically depending Incumbents succeed when assets Disruption does not inherently
findings on whether complementary assets retain value remain valuable and fail when assets favor new entrants; survival
across technological regimes. become obsolete. conditions matter.
Implications for The study challenges deterministic views of Radical innovation does not Creative destruction is conditional
theory creative destruction. automatically replace incumbents. rather than universal.
Managerial Firms must manage both technological Firms that fail to adapt their asset base Strategic survival requires
implications development and commercialization assets to risk losing their competitive position. identifying valuable assets and
survive disruption. investing in new ones when
necessary.
Contribution The study offers a mechanism-based explanation Technology and assets jointly Understanding survival requires
of incumbent survival. determine survival outcomes. integrating both innovation
performance and asset continuity.
Article 2. Hillebrand, Kemp, and Nijssen (2011): Customer Orientation and Future Market Focus in New Service Development
Dimension Explanation Findings Implications
Research The study looks at how two ways of thinking in service Firms that mainly listen to current To understand innovation, we
problem firms affect innovation. These are customer customers often make small must look at how firms balance
orientation and future market focus. improvements but may miss future current needs with future
opportunities. possibilities.
,Core idea Customer orientation and future market focus lead to Customer orientation leads to Firms need both views to
different kinds of innovation because they shape how improvements that fit current succeed today and stay relevant
firms think about change. customers. tomorrow.
Future market focus leads to more
radical innovation because it looks at
upcoming needs.
Customer A focus on understanding and satisfying current Firms that are highly customer- Customer orientation can
orientation customers. oriented avoid big changes that create inertia, meaning firms
could cannibalize current business. stick to what works now and
avoid risky changes.
Future market A focus on future customer needs and market trends. Firms that think about the future are A future focus
focus more willing to replace existing reduces inertia and helps firms
services and investments to prepare take risks and create more
for upcoming needs. radical innovations.
Organizational Inertia means resistance to change because routines Firms that accept losing current To innovate, firms must
inertia and and investments are hard to alter. business can innovate more radically, overcome inertia by being willing
willingness to especially when they change routines to sacrifice short term gains for
cannibalize Willingness to cannibalize means being ready to replace and drop outdated services. long term opportunities.
profitable existing products with new ones. It includes:
Sales: launching new services that might reduce existing
sales.
Routines: changing the firm’s processes and ways of
working.
Investments: replacing or abandoning older
technologies or assets.
Conceptual The model explains how customer orientation and Customer orientation decreases Innovation depends on both
model future market focus affect innovation through willingness to cannibalize → increases internal skills such as R&D and
willingness to cannibalize, and how R&D inertia → reduces innovativeness. external focus such as current
strength supports innovation. Future market focus increases versus future markets.
willingness to cannibalize → decreases
inertia → enhances innovativeness.
Service R&D strength directly
improves innovativeness.
Role of service Service R&D strength is a firm’s ability to develop new Firms with strong R&D are more Firms need both resources and
R&D strength services. innovative because they can turn ideas the right mindset to innovate
into actual services. successfully.
Results on Customer-oriented firms avoided replacing successful Customer orientation did not stop all Too much focus on current
customer services but could change small things when useful for innovation but discouraged radical customers can make firms strong
orientation current customers. innovation that might upset current now but weak in the long run.
customers.
Results on Future oriented firms actively changed services routines These firms created more radical Firms that act early on future
future market and investments to meet future needs. innovations because they looked for needs may lead the market
focus opportunities rather than waiting for rather than follow it.
customer demand.
Effect of firm The authors also looked at firm size. Larger firms had more innovation but Growing firms must work harder
size also more inertia. Smaller firms had to stay flexible and adaptive.
less resources but were more flexible.
Summary of Customer orientation leads to smaller improvements. Willingness to cannibalize is the key Innovation performance depends
findings Future market focus leads to more radical innovation by mechanism linking orientation to on what firms focus on and how
reducing inertia. innovation. willing they are to disrupt
themselves.
Managerial Managers must think about current customers and Protecting current business too much Managers must encourage future
implications future opportunities. reduces radical innovation. thinking and be willing to change
or replace current services when
needed.
,
, Article 3. Hubert, Blut, Brock, Zhang, Koch, and Riedl (2019): The Influence of Acceptance and Adoption Drivers on Smart Home Usage
Dimension Explanation Findings Implications
Research The study examines why consumers adopt Adoption decisions are influenced by both benefits To understand adoption
problem or reject smart home technologies and such as usefulness and fit, and barriers such as risk properly, we must look at how
argues that earlier research looked at and uncertainty. positive and negative beliefs
either positive factors or negative factors interact, not just one side.
separately rather than together.
Technology TAM explains adoption through perceived People were more likely to adopt smart homes when Smart home systems must feel
Acceptance usefulness (technology improves daily life) they believed the system would make life easier, effortless and genuinely helpful
Model (TAM) and perceived ease of use (it is simple to safer, or more efficient. to create adoption.
learn and operate). People adopt
technology when it feels both useful and Ease of use indirectly increased adoption by making
easy. systems seem more useful.
Innovation IDT explains adoption through how well an Compatibility strongly increased intention because Adoption increases when
Diffusion innovation fits with users’ habits and people prefer technologies that work smoothly with technologies fit users’ current
Theory (IDT) lifestyle. Key attributes what they already use. Testing and seeing benefits routines and when benefits can
are compatibility, trialability, visibility, helped mostly by making the system seem more be experienced or observed
and result demonstrability. useful. before use.
Perceived PRT highlights negative beliefs that Risk did not directly stop adoption, but it reduced Reducing risk strengthens
Risk Theory discourage adoption, especially security usefulness and ease of use. When people felt positive beliefs and has a
(PRT) risk, performance risk, and time risk. These insecure, they were less convinced that smart homes stronger effect on adoption than
risks reduce confidence in the technology. would improve their life. addressing intention directly.
Integrated The authors combine TAM, IDT, and PRT The integrated model predicted intention much Adoption models should focus
theoretical because innovation attributes can increase better than single theories because it captured how on how beliefs are linked,
perspective usefulness and ease of use, while risk can beliefs influence each other, not just intention especially indirect effects, rather
undermine these same beliefs. directly. than isolated predictors.
Compatibility Compatibility means how well a system fits Compatibility had the strongest effect on adoption Showing how products fit with
with existing habits, routines and devices. because people prefer technologies that do not force existing routines and devices is
lifestyle changes. essential for adoption.
Perceived Usefulness means believing that smart Usefulness was a major driver because people adopt Firms must clearly show how
usefulness home systems provide clear benefits such systems that clearly improve their daily life. smart home systems solve real
as comfort, safety, or efficiency. problems.
Perceived Ease of use means believing that smart People viewed systems as more useful when they Simplicity reduces uncertainty
ease of use homes are simple, intuitive, and not time- seemed easy to use. Ease therefore increased and increases willingness to try.
consuming. adoption mainly by making usefulness seem more
likely.
Perceived Risk means fearing privacy loss, Risk lowered usefulness and ease of use. People were Reducing risk indirectly
risk malfunction, or wasted time. less convinced of benefits when they felt insecure increases adoption by
about privacy or reliability. strengthening positive beliefs.
Summary of Overall explanation of how predictors The study offers a unified explanation of technology Adoption success depends on
findings behaved. adoption by combining benefits and risks in one reinforcing positive beliefs and
model. It shows that compatibility is the strongest preventing risk from weakening
driver because people adopt technologies that fit them.
their routines. It finds that risk discourages adoption
indirectly by reducing perceived usefulness. It also
explains inconsistent results in earlier research by
showing that many predictors work through indirect
pathways, not directly on intention.
Managerial What firms should do. Firms must design and communicate products that fit Compatibility, transparency, and
implications users’ daily life, reduce risk, and clearly show benefits. security communication drive
adoption more than novelty or
advanced features.
