Perspectives on UX Practices for American Entrepreneurs: A Survey of User Engagement Approaches to Innovation

Abstract

This article explores how entrepreneurs engage users in innovation in order to identify collaboration opportunities between entrepreneurship and technical and professional communication (TPC) scholars interested in user experience (UX). This article surveyed American entrepreneurs (N = 100) asking when and how they involve users in product development. The results suggest that most entrepreneurs do engage users to drive innovation and understand their markets, but do so largely through informal means. Our research suggests that UX can serve as a connection point for TPC scholars and entrepreneurs, especially if TPC emphasizes the role of UX in innovation and offers entrepreneurs efficient yet reliable user-research methodologies.

Keywords

entrepreneurship user experience UX innovation

Introduction

In theory, every new product or service arises to meet the needs of customers who will use the innovation to solve a problem and improve their lives. According to Verhulsdonck et al. (2021), design-thinking, user experience (UX), and technical communication should all encourage innovators to “create design-driven innovations” (p. 471). Technical and professional communication (TPC), UX and entrepreneurship should be natural allies because “both UX professionals and entrepreneurs look at the same challenge - the user's problem” (Sturm et al., 2017: p. 6). Effective products require great UX; as He et al. (2020) argue, “in order to create a successful product, designers should not only consider the functional modeling and use-value of the product, but also consider more human-related factors, which is so-called human centered design or user experience” (p. 136). Because of UX's centrality to product success, innovators can use UX research methods not only to perfect prototypes for future customers but also as a means of developing product ideas. As Von Hippel has argued for decades (Thomke & Von Hippel, 2002; Von Hippel, 1977; Von Hippel, 1978), customers can drive innovation and serve as a major source of inspiration for novel technologies and products.

Yet, theories and models of innovation often ignore both the needs of users and their potential role in contributing to and participating in innovation. Models of innovation processes and surveys of innovation strategies often neglect users entirely (Griffiths-Hermans and Grover, 2006) or relegate considerations of customer needs to approaches like market research (Floren and Frishammar, 2012; Frishammer et al., 2013; Troy et al., 2001). Despite growing emphasis on how users can participate in the co-creation of products and services (Sproll et al., 2010; Klein, 2013; Levy, 2015; Shin et al., 2017), academics and practitioners do not always recognize the full potential for user research and users themselves to contribute directly to innovation. This article explores the user-engagement practices of entrepreneurs to help identify areas where technical and professional communication and entrepreneurship can collaborate through UX.

Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in TPC scholarship on entrepreneurship, as the field has recognized both the academic and pragmatic benefits of exploring entrepreneurship in greater depth. These studies often focus on the rhetorical and communication work of entrepreneurs (Galbraith et al., 2014; Spartz & Weber, 2015; Gogan & Belinsky, 2022; Jones, 2017; Spinuzzi, 2017; Spinuzzi et al., 2023; Tomlinson, 2020), an approach that offers fruitful and insightful scholarship. However, TPC could enhance its connections with entrepreneurship scholarship and practice by developing a greater focus on innovation that involves users, not only for testing existing designs, but for identifying opportunities and inspiring concepts for innovations. Some TPC studies have implemented this approach by connecting user experience, entrepreneurship, and technology development (Fraiberg, 2017; Thominet, 2018; Thominet, 2021). Most notably, Bacha (2018) argues that UX philosophies insist that “Human needs and their experiences should dictate product development practices” (p. 199) and argues that user storytelling should play a vital role in very early product development work. This initial research suggests that further exploration into the relationships between UX and innovation provides a promising avenue for TPC scholarship.

This article builds on existing research by investigating if and how entrepreneurs engage with customers and potential users throughout their innovation process. More pointedly, it answers the following research questions:

Do entrepreneurs engage users as part of the product/service ideation and development processes?

What are the characteristics of businesses that tend to engage users?

What types of methods do entrepreneurs deploy when engaging users?

Why do entrepreneurs engage users?

What user research methods do entrepreneurs want to learn?

Accordingly, this manuscript reports on a survey (N = 100) that asked participants about their user-involvement practices. This paper reviews literature on users and innovation, describes the research methods, presents the results, and discusses the implications of these findings for TPC scholars and practitioners interested in leveraging UX as a point of engagement with entrepreneurship.

Literature Review

The Role of UX Issues and Customer Needs in Innovation

While much research into product innovation does not specifically consider UX factors, some research finds that considerations of the product limitations and customer needs can fuel new ideas. In a massive survey of aspiring entrepreneurs (N = 30,409), Bennett and Chatterji (2019) found that 34% of respondents developed an innovative idea “from their own use of an existing product” (p. 17). This finding implies that many entrepreneurs develop new products by experiencing UX issues with existing products. However, the survey does not specifically ask entrepreneurs about how engagement with other users contributed to their product ideas.

Other research has specifically identified customer needs and engagement as powerful drivers of innovation. In a study of the factors spurring innovation in Nigeria, Egbetokun et al. (2009) found that entrepreneurs benefited more from customer collaboration and proximity than from relationships with any other stakeholder group. The same survey found that the most common motivator for innovation is to “satisfy customer's demand” (p. 16). A study by Coates et al. (1996) of idea generation techniques (IGTs) found that 42% of the companies that use IGTs involved customers in some way. The authors conclude, “The majority of ideas for new products appears to originate from outside the company, either through communication with the customer, by imitating a competitor, or perhaps through market research. The customer was seen to be the most popular idea source in the present study, inferring that it was also the most successful” (p. 113–114). Amoroso et al. (2018) found that European entrepreneurs consider clients and customers the most important knowledge source for exploring new business opportunities. Joshi and Sharma (2004) found that knowledge of customer preferences during the pre-launch phase can enhance the success of new products, but only under certain managerial and organizational conditions. Kirner et al. (2009) found that among low-technology firms, “firms that develop their products according to customers’ specifications perform better in product innovations” (p. 451). This finding leads the authors to posit that during a product's development, “a close relationship to customers makes it more likely to succeed on a service innovation path” (p. 5). Although not all research finds a link between customer involvement and product success (Campbell & Coopter, 1999; Marvel & Lumpkin, 2007), many scholars have identified ways that user engagement can benefit businesses.

Involving Users and Customers in Innovation

Increasingly, entrepreneurship research has specifically explored how users and customers can participate in innovation through co-creation and co-development of products and services (Alam, 2004; Chuang & Lin, 2015; Roschuni et al., 2013; Franke & Shah, 2003; Gong, 2020; Ind et al., 2013; Kaasinen et al., 2012; Liu et al. 2020a; Saldanha et al., 2017; Shah & Tripsas, 2007; Wandahl et al., 2011; Yadav & Goyal, 2015; see Greer & Lei, 2012 for review of literature on collaborative innovation with customers). This research shares a close connection with TPC research suggesting that rhetorical approaches (Gerding & Vealey, 2017; Rajan, 2021; Moreau, 2022) and design thinking (Pope-Ruark et al., 2019) can foster more effective innovation by considering the complex needs and participation of users and stakeholders (however, Greenwood et al. [2019] specifically works to dispel the notion that “design thinking should be used as a road map for developing innovative products and services” [p. 404]). This research often finds that ideas generated through customer involvement, crowdsourcing, or other user-focused approaches are more innovative than those developed through traditional means (Kristensson et al., 2004; Matthing et al., 2006; Meinal et al., 2020; Nishikawa et al., 2013; Poetz & Schreier, 2012). For instance, Melton and Hartling (2015) found that “customer involvement in the design stage of NSD projects can increase the radical innovativeness of a new service” (p. 112). According to some research, customer involvement in product design, especially at the early stages, can increase product success (Gruner & Homburg, 2000). Innovation often benefits most when companies engage so-called “lead users” of products (Lilien et al., 2002), who are often “‘idea generators’ for what later become commercially significant new products and processes” (p. 1044).

Several scholars offer frameworks and strategies for firms, organizations, and entrepreneurs hoping to engage users (Bird et al., 2021; Hokkanen & Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, 2015; Karahanoğlu & Bakırlıoğlu, 2022; Kosonen et al., 2013; Kristensson et al., 2008; Matthing et al., 2006; Pallot et al., 2020; Prandelli et al., 2008; Sawhney et al., 2005; Seybold, 2006; Washington et al., 2020). These strategies often include methods employed by UX and TPC researchers, such as ethnography (Hovde, 2001), interviews (Flint, 2002; Karahanoğlu & Bakırlıoğlu, 2020), surveys (Pallot et al., 2020), concept testing (Heiskanen et al., 2007), user experience maps (He et al., 2020), and user input on design (Bird et al., 2021). Dhargalkar et al. (2016) use focus groups to develop a master list of traits users desire in products or services. Other scholars offer specific participatory design approaches (Buur & Matthews, 2008) or UX-inspired strategies for product development (Chen et al., 2018; Zaina & Álvaro, 2015).

UX Research About Innovation

In recent years, research from user-experience practitioners has also focused on how UX can contribute to innovation, rather than only refining existing product concepts. Researchers advocate for user involvement in the very early stages of product design (Klein, 2013; Levy, 2015; Rundblad, 2011; Shivers-McNair et al., 2019; Sproll et al., 2010; Spartz & Weber, 2016; Shin et al., 2015; Su et al., 2006; Moon et al., 2016; Linton and Klinton, 2019), and offer methodologies to bring users into the ideation phase of product and service design (Purwanto, 2016; Schulz et al., 2017; Touloum et al., 2018) where users “are actively involved in the ideation and design process to support the generation of innovative product features that address individual needs and actual contexts of use” (Fronemann & Peissner, 2014, p. 727). Shin et al. (2017) provide specific UX concepts and contexts of use that designers can consider during new product development. Few studies from UX have actually examined how firms, entrepreneurs, and teams use UX principles to innovate (Kuusinen et al., 2019), though Hokkanen et al. (2016) draw on surveys with 20 startups to conclude that “while startups aim to provide products with good usability, the lack of a more comprehensive approach to UX can hinder their value creation” (p. 1). Kuusinen et al. (2019) found that startups trying to implement user-experience methods in innovation struggle with a lack of UX skills and an understanding about how to use UX data.

Despite attention to user-centered innovation from entrepreneurship, TPC, and UX scholars, these fields have a limited understanding of how entrepreneurs and firms involve users in innovation. According to Kuusinen et al. (2019), “it seems evident that startups would benefit from user experience practices, but more research is needed to develop practices that would suit for this particular context” (p. 3). Similarly, Greer and Lei (2012) argue that theories from entrepreneurial research about why firms engage in Collaborative Innovation with Customers (CIC) “provide little guidance to how such innovation can be performed” (p. 65). Additionally, little crossover has occurred between scholarship in UX, TPC, and entrepreneurship, preventing similar research strands from informing one another. This research addresses these gaps by offering results from a survey about how entrepreneurs and business owners engage users in new product and service development. The results can deepen our understanding about the role of users in innovation and in the ways that UX, TPC, and entrepreneurship scholarship and practices can benefit one another.

Methods

Participant Recruitment

To systematically investigate the status of entrepreneurs’ engagement with UX methods and approaches throughout their innovation process(es), we conducted survey research approved by our respective institutional review boards. Our research methods complement those of Bennett and Chatterji (2019), whose comprehensive survey endeavors to develop conclusions about the entrepreneurial process. Likewise, we intentionally designed our survey instrument to collect data on entrepreneurial activity, including “the discrete steps a representative set of individuals take to pursue business formation and milestones” (Bennett & Chatterji, 2019, p.10).

Accordingly, we created and administered a comprehensive, formal survey to entrepreneurs (N = 100) in the United States of America in June 2018. We defined an entrepreneur as an individual who has successfully taken at least one product or service to market; because we wanted to assess how entrepreneurs engage users for innovation purposes, we excluded individuals who had opened a bar, restaurant, or similar service that did not involve developing a new product. To qualify for the survey, participants had to answer yes to the question “Have you taken at least one innovative product/service to market?” In order to access this specialized population of entrepreneurs, we engaged the services of Qualtrics, an institutionally supported survey company headquartered in Provo, Utah, and Seattle, Washington. As a subscription-based software company focused on collecting and analyzing data, Qualtrics implements a host of quality system certifications and programs: ISO 20252 management system standards, Mktg Inc., Media Ratings Council, and various internal tools and methods.

Qualtrics also provides access to participant populations and samples through “traditional, actively managed market research panels” (Qualtrics, Esomar, p. 3), which they maintain by using samples certified by Grand Mean™, a reputable sample-source auditing company. Thus, they stand by their participant pools and work to eliminate duplication and certify participant validity “to guarantee that the population surveyed meets the requirements of the specific survey.” To do so, Qualtrics “checks IP addresses and uses a sophisticated digital fingerprinting technology” (p. 3). In addition to participant assurances, Qualtrics takes measures to generate high-quality data by helping researchers develop surveys that include “additional attention checks which guarantee that respondents are carefully taking the survey” (p. 6). Qualtrics software records participant completion times and omits participants who complete the survey in under one third of the average time (established via a pilot run), then replaces them with a subsequent participant from the target pool. Accordingly, while our study doesn’t endeavor to reach statistical significance, we have confidence in our research pool comprising our targeted population.

Survey Participants

Our participant pool (N = 100) represented a variety of successful entrepreneurs running businesses that began anywhere from 1979 to 2017. It included 54 females and 46 males, with age-groups ranging from under 25 (n = 4) to 65 and over (n = 11), the largest group (n = 36) falling in the 25 to 36 age group. The participants’ education ranged across the spectrum, with 13% having completed some or all high school, 5% having completed trade school, 32% having completed some college or an associate's degree, 21% having completed a bachelor's degree, 5% having completed some graduate education, 18% having completed a masters degree, and 4% having completed a PhD.

Our participants had innovated products in a wide range of industries, with the most common industries including retail trade (17%), arts, entertainment, and recreation (14%), professional, scientific, and technical services (12%), construction (10%), and other services (9%). Although the size of our participant entrepreneurs’ businesses varied, the majority reported numbers that align with small business demographics in the United States. Almost half reported employing fewer than 100 people (n = 47), with 41 entrepreneurs being sole proprietors. Only 11 participants employed between 100 and 1,500 workers, and one owner reported having over 1,500 employees. According to the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, only three percent of United States businesses have 500 employees or more, and more than 60 percent of businesses have two or fewer employees (as cited in Pala, 2017). Thus, in terms of business size, our participants represent the spectrum of US businesses.

Further, in terms of revenue, our pool's reported businesses also represent an appropriate swath of those in the US. According to the US Census Bureau, for the year these participants were surveyed, more than 60 percent of businesses have less than $400,000 annual sales and more than 90 percent have less than $800,000. Only the largest 0.3 percent of companies in the US have more than a billion dollars in sales, while 1.5 percent of all companies in the US report an average of slightly less than $50 million in revenue (Bureau, 2021). Relatedly, one group of entrepreneurs (n = 43) reported an annual revenue of less than $100,000, whereas 31 reported generating between $100,00 and $1 million. Fourteen entrepreneurs from our pool generated between $1 million and $10.9 million, with four participants reporting $11 million to $50.9 million and one reporting between $51 and $100.9 million in revenue. One entrepreneur generated between $501 million and $1 billion dollars. Thus, our participant sample was quite diverse and fairly representative of the spectrum of United States entrepreneurs. Although we solicited responses from a diverse population of practicing entrepreneurs, our research makes no claims that the sample represents either the general populace of entrepreneurs or even all entrepreneurs in the United States. Rather, because we employed nonprobability sampling methods through Qualtrics, we detail data from our participants descriptively to offer an illuminating snapshot of the UX practices of a segment of practicing entrepreneurs.

A key criterion for screening our entrepreneur participants specified that each must have developed and brought to market “at least one new product or service.” Thus, our survey required that, when answering the “have you taken at least one innovative product/service to market?” question, a “no” answer would prevent a potential participant from completing the survey.

Represented in Figure 1, our population included entrepreneurs with a range of experience in developing and bringing to market products/services. While the highest number of respondents (n = 22) reported being on their first successful venture, it is noteworthy that 78% have developed more than one product, with 20% bringing more than 10 products to market. This was a savvy and veteran group of entrepreneurs, to be sure.

Figure 1.

Number of products/services developed by participant entrepreneurs.

Figure 2 represents the varied sources our entrepreneurs reported as helping in their product or service ideation. The most common source of product inspiration was respondents’ previous work experience, though many respondents also developed product ideas through using an existing product. About 15% of respondents developed product ideas by directly engaging users of existing products.

Figure 2.

Participant entrepreneurs’ product or service ideation sources.

Survey Content

Building on the methods established in Bennett and Chatterji (2019), the survey itself comprised four sections: demographic questions about respondents and their most recent business (16 questions), innovation history questions about recent products/services entrepreneurs developed (11 questions), user or potential customer engagement questions (9 questions), and questions about interest in learning user engagement research methods (3 questions). Appendix 1 lists the questions from each section that generated our data. While we were able to gather responses from 100 participants (N = 100), due to designed survey logic, only those who selected specific answers on some questions answered other, subsequent questions (see n# in Appendix 1). Ultimately, we use the resulting survey data to examine the extent to which entrepreneurs value and engage UX practices—and when they do so. While we collected data through a total of 41 survey questions, those listed in Appendix 1 are those that we report as the most significant for this manuscript. Using descriptive statistical methods, we analyzed the means and percentages of the data generated from these survey questions.

Results

The findings from this survey indicate that most entrepreneurs do engage potential customers in some way. The survey asked a principal question: “Did you involve users/potential customers in the development of your most recent product/service?” (Figure 3) which was intended to separate our respondents into a “yes” and “no” user-engagement binary.

Figure 3.

Number of entrepreneurs involving users or potential customers.

Of our total participant pool (N = 100), 73 entrepreneurs reported engaging users or potential customers at some point of their product/service development process, while 27 reported no user interaction. Participants who selected “yes” to user engagement were taken to a bank of questions to further articulate how, when, where, and why they involved users. To draw some relationships among the variables in product/service development, we conducted correlational descriptive statistical analysis.

Why Entrepreneurs Involve Users

An overwhelming percentage of our participants indicated involving users throughout the process of venture innovation. In order to better understand their perspective on the value of users, including their motivations for seeking them out and engaging users, we asked those participants (N = 73) “Why did you involve users/potential customers?” The reasons for that involvement were varied (see Figure 4), but participants often selected market-driven choices, including “to better understand market needs for a product” being chosen by 45% of entrepreneurs (n = 33) and the related “to create products that are truly relevant to users/potential customers” coming in at 38% of participants (n = 28).

Figure 4.

Reasons entrepreneurs engage users.

Venture ideation choices were also highly valued by 33% (n = 24) engaging users “to help think of product ideas” and 30% (n = 22) hoping users would “help refine product ideas.” Only one participant selected “to mediate internal debates/conflict in product vision/direction.”

How Entrepreneurs Find Users

When seeking users to inform innovation, entrepreneurs reported a host of strategies (see Figure 5), with tapping existing networks being the most common approach at 63% (n = 46) and social media solicitation being reported as an approach by 32% (n = 23). Apparently, entrepreneurs have limited interest in paying to locate users, as engaging a panel agency database or using a research recruitment company were reported by 3% (n = 2) and 1% (n = 1), respectively.

Figure 5.

How entrepreneurs locate users for their engagement.

When Entrepreneurs Involve Users

Entrepreneurial ventures evolve iteratively as they move toward a market-ready status. Thus, myriad opportunities for user engagement exist, and our participants illustrated this by their responses (see Figure 6) to the question “in what phases [of development] did you involve users/potential customers?” Nearly a third (n = 24) of those entrepreneurs reporting user involvement indicated that they did so early in the process at the “user/potential customer research” phase, with a related 29% (n = 21) conducting user-centered “needs/problems research.”

Figure 6.

Development phase and user involvement.

In contrast to expectations born from traditional user experience work, only 25% (n = 18) of our entrepreneurs conducted “product prototype testing” that involved users, and only 15% (n = 11) of innovators leaned on users in developing their “product marketing” strategies.

User Engagement Approaches

UX research that involves users/potential customers relies on a host of methods–dependent on product/service type, development phase, business needs, KPIs, etc.–to generate data that inform innovation, design, and development. Table 1 represents the user research methods most predominantly engaged by our pool of entrepreneurs. The bulk of the strategies reported rely on limited preparation and formality, falling on the casual or impromptu side of user research. Specifically, of the 73 entrepreneurs who reported involving users, 44% (n = 32) held “casual conversations with current users/customers” of their innovations and 38% (n = 28) had “casual conversations with people about problems they want a solution for.”

Table 1.

UX Research Methods Used by Entrepreneurs.

User experience research methods	% Deployed
Casual conversations with current users/customers of your products	44%
Casual conversations with people about problems they want a solution for	38%
Asking users/potential customers about problems they might anticipate when using your product	32%
Asking users/potential customers about problems they experience using products similar to yours	26%
Observing users/potential customers to learn about their needs	23%
Casual conversations with users/potential customers of similar products	22%
Observing users/potential customers as they use your products	15%
Looking at customer product reviews	14%
Formal usability testing	12%
Formal focus groups with users/potential customers	11%
Asking users/potential customers to write about how they feel about your products	11%
Using web analytics	11%
Soliciting feedback on more than one version of your product	11%
Formal interviews with users/potential customers	7%
Tracking users/potential customers’ behaviors with your product using technology	7%
Analyzing users’/potential customers’ step-by-step interaction with your product	7%
Surveying users/potential customers of your products	5%
Other	1%

Relationships Between User Engagement and Business Success

In this section, we analyze the ways our survey responses interact, drawing some preliminary conclusions about the relationships between responses. For each of the following data representations, we correlate the question “Did you involve users/potential customers in the development of your most recent product/service?” (yes = 73; no = 27) with another data-point to begin to understand the extent to which user engagement might shape these entrepreneurial ventures. We make no claims about the statistical significance of these interactions; rather, we use these data to illustrate trends we found among the participants surveyed as detailed herein.

Employee Number and User Engagement

If companies are able to recruit, hire, and maintain satisfied employees, it seems that more employees might correlate with a successful venture. As one way to determine the success of the business these entrepreneurs oversee and the potential effect that users might have, we asked participants about the number of employees working at their current business and correlated that number with user engagement.

Figure 7 represents a clear trend: 71% of solo-run companies, 70% of companies with fewer than 100 employees, 91% of those with 100–1500 employees, and 100% of companies with more than 1,500 employees report engaging users. These data illustrate that, at least for our surveyed population of entrepreneurs, businesses with a greater number of employees more often involve users in the development of their products or services.

Figure 7.

Number of employees and user involvement relationship.

Annual Revenue and User Engagement

In addition to using employee number as an entrepreneurial success measure, we surveyed participants about their most recent yearly business revenues, as revenue serves as a standard indicator of venture success. Thus, we report participants’ most recent year's revenues from pre-revenue to over $1 billion and correlated it to user engagement in Figure 8.

Figure 8.

Reported annual revenue and user involvement relationship.

Associating revenue with user/potential customer engagement, we find that, in general, the higher the revenue, the more consistently companies involved users. Specifically, 86% of those reporting earnings between 1 and 11 million dollars involved users during their development processes, and 100% of ventures generating over 11 million involved users during innovation. None of the entrepreneurs who reported $0 or negative revenue said that they engaged users.

Number of Innovations and User Engagement

Moreover, while employee number and annual revenue indicate business success, at the individual entrepreneur level, the number of innovations taken to market seems to be a logical success metric. As such, determining if user involvement is related to more innovation helps paint the picture of the importance of UX engagement. Figure 9 indicates a positive relationship with 100% of entrepreneurs marketing between 7 and 14 products/services involving users.

Figure 9.

Number of marketed innovations and user interaction.

Innovation Impetus and User Involvement

Entrepreneurial ideation comes in varied forms (see Figure 10), so investigating the relationship between the product/service genesis and users seems important. In so doing, we found that 90% (n = 66) of entrepreneurs responding to the question “where did you get the idea for your product or service” did so by “talking to users of an existing product” reported engaging users. That same percentage of participants who got their product/service idea “by personally experiencing an issue,” involved users as part of their ideation process.

Figure 10.

Product/service ideation and user involvement.

In contrast, of those who “partnered with others who had an existing idea,” only 60% (n = 44) included users as part of their ideation and development processes.

Changing Innovation Processes to Include Users

Our survey tapped a savvy and experienced pool of entrepreneurs, with 78% having developed more than one product or service. Because of this, it seemed appropriate to determine if their ideation and development processes changed over time and, if so, whether that changed process includes engaging more users. Of the 94 respondents to the question “Have your product/service-development processes changed over time?,” 57 (61%) reported “yes,” while 37 (39%) had no change. About 84% of these 57 entrepreneurs (See Figure 11) whose processes have changed involved more users as part of the revisioned product/service development processes.

Figure 11.

Changed process and user involvement.

Interest in Learning User Engagement Techniques

Our survey asked practicing entrepreneurs whether they would be interested in learning strategies and techniques for engaging users. About 71% of respondents indicated interest in learning user engagement techniques. When asked to indicate their interest in learning various user engagement techniques (on a 1–3 scale where 1 = Very Interested and 3 = Not Interested), participants selected “How to observe users/potential customers to learn more about their needs” (1.58), “How to hold casual conversations with people about problems they want a solution for” (1.59), “How to ask users/potential customers about problems they experience using products similar to yours” (1.62), “How to observe users/potential customers as they use your products” (1.66), and “How to hold casual conversations with users/potential customers of similar products” (1.69) as their top five answers. Table 2 shows participant interest in learning about various user engagement techniques.

Table 2.

Interest in Learning User Engagement Methods on a 1–3 Scale (1 = Very Interested).

User experience research methods	Interest (on 1–3 scale)
How to observe users/potential customers to learn more about their needs	1.58
How to hold casual conversations with people about problems they want a solution for	1.59
How to ask users/potential customers about problems they experience using products similar to yours	1.62
How to observe users/potential customers as they use your products	1.66
How to hold casual conversations with users/potential customers of similar products	1.69
How to track users/potential customers’ behaviors with your product using technology (video-recording, click-tracking, eyetracking, heatmapping, etc.)	1.69
How to ask users/potential customers about problems they might anticipate when using your product	1.73
How to hold casual conversations with current users/customers of your products	1.73
How to conduct formal usability testing	1.73
How to survey users/potential customers of your products	1.76
How to ask users/potential customers to write about how they feel about your products	1.79
How to solicit feedback on more than one version of a product	1.8
How to analyze users'/potential customers’ step-by-step interaction with your product	1.83
How to use product reviews to determine user/customer needs	1.83
How to conduct formal interviews with users/potential customers	1.85
How to use web analytics	1.87
How to conduct formal focus groups with users/potential customers	1.91

29% of participants indicated that they were not interested in learning user engagement techniques. Asked to indicate their reasons for disinterest in learning user engagement techniques, these participants chose as their top reasons “My business is already successful enough” (23%), “I don’t have time to learn anything new” (21%), “I have (or will) hire an outside firm to involve users” (19%), “I have involved users and found limited value in the effort” (17%), “The strategies and techniques seem too difficult to understand” (14%), and “I do not think I would receive valuable information by involving users/potential customers” (14%).

Discussion

This article investigated whether and how entrepreneurs engage users during product and venture development. The research goal was to determine whether entrepreneurs currently value user engagement and to identify areas where UX scholars and practitioners can collaborate more productively with entrepreneurs. The majority of entrepreneurs in our sample involved users or potential users during product development. This finding complements more theoretical or experimental discussions about the potential of users to contribute to entrepreneurial innovation processes (Sproll et al., 2010; Sturm et al., 2017; Spartz & Weber, 2016; Shin et al., 2015; Bacha, 2018) by demonstrating how this engagement may look in practice. Our findings indicate that many entrepreneurs are incorporating some kind of user engagement into product innovation, even if they do not have strong knowledge of user experience methods or view themselves as officially participating in user experience work.

The most common motives for entrepreneur user engagement centered around understanding the market/user-base for their products or developing and refining product ideas. The two most common motives for user engagement (“to better understand the market needs for a product” and “to create products that are truly relevant to users/potential customers”) suggest that entrepreneurs most commonly see user involvement as a way to understand if a product meets a market need or solves problems for potential users. This finding connects with Fronemann and Peissner (2014), who view an emphasis on user needs as an important source for innovation. Similarly, many entrepreneurs involve users to help think of or refine product ideas, providing real-world instances of Spartz and Weber's (2016) argument about “the potential for UX to actually inspire new innovations by indicating user needs that go unmet by existing products” (p. 1). It appears that entrepreneurs are enacting, at least informally, He et al.'s (2020) emphasis on the “important position of users in the front-end of innovation” (p. 135).

Although entrepreneurs do tend to engage users for reasons recommended by innovation and UX scholars, their engagement tends to be much less formal or rigorous than the practitioner-recommended UX methods. For instance, most entrepreneurs tap into existing networks to find users for engagement. Out of the top six methods for user involvement among entrepreneurs, five involve casual or informal discussions with users. Formal approaches often recommended by experts (Fronemann & Peissner, 2014; Klein, 2013; Levy, 2015; Shin et al., 2015), such as user interviews, focus groups, testing, and surveys, are less common among entrepreneurs. These results are not surprising, in that most entrepreneurs are not officially trained in user experience methods; many may not even classify their informal user engagement as user experience research. Additionally, small startups do not always possess the expertise or resources necessary for formal user experience methods (Kuusinen et al., 2019).

Comparative statistics suggest a correlation between business success and user involvement. Businesses with more employees, higher annual revenue, and a greater number of innovations are all more likely to engage users as part of product development. These trends suggest that user involvement has a positive relationship with business success, a finding supported by other research (Egbetokun et al., 2009; Joshi & Sharma, 2004; Kirner et al., 2009). These results provide justification for entrepreneurs to involve users in product development, but they also leave unanswered questions. For instance, our data do not specify causation about whether businesses were more successful because they involved users or simply whether successful businesses tend to involve users more often. Findings do suggest that businesses tend to involve users more as they mature, given that 84% of entrepreneurs who changed their user engagement processes increased their interactions with users. This result indicates that entrepreneurs often realize the value of user engagement over time and find that it contributes to their success.

Another indication of entrepreneurs’ value of user engagement is their interest in learning user research techniques. In our results, 71% of respondents expressed interest in learning user research techniques and strategies. Participants showed most interest in learning how to effectively engage current and potential users through more informal methods, such as holding conversations with users and observing customers as they use products. The survey presented methods using approachable terminology (i.e., “How to solicit feedback on more than one version of a product” rather than “How to conduct A/B testing”), but even so, participants indicated less interest in learning more formal and rigorous UX methods, such as usability testing, focus groups, web analytics, product reviews, A/B testing, or formal interviews. These results suggest that entrepreneurs prioritize less academic user engagement methods, potentially because they are easier, quicker, and less-expensive and time consuming. These findings echo Rose and Tenenberg (2015), which argues that UX researchers do not always follow the prescriptions of academic literature. These findings also align with Pellegrini (2023), whose research indicates that entrepreneurs, especially marginalized and/or microenterprise entrepreneurs, often favor more informal approaches more conducive to their rhetorical situations and purposes. Our responses also indicate specific barriers and areas of resistance that might come from entrepreneurs invited to participate in user engagement. All of the participants’ top reasons for disinterest relate to impressions that user involvement would not benefit their business or that user research techniques would be too difficult to learn and implement. TPC and UX professionals who want to encourage entrepreneurs to participate in user engagement may have to work against these assumptions.

This research suggests that user experience is a fruitful avenue for TPC scholars who want to further collaborate with entrepreneurs. Based on these findings, we offer the following insights on forming productive relationships with entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship programs through user experience.

User experience offers a meaningful connection point for TPC and entrepreneurs: In this survey, 73% of entrepreneurs engaged users in some way, suggesting that entrepreneurs would be receptive to the ideas, theories, and methods of user experience if these concepts are presented in ways that are relevant to their needs. Given TPC scholars’ increasing interest in entrepreneurship, the field can use its expertise in UX to develop future research and partnerships with entrepreneurs and programs.

User experience can foster innovation: Our findings suggest that many entrepreneurs appreciate the role of users in not only testing and refining products, but also innovation. Among the most commonly cited motives for engaging users were “to help think of product ideas,” “to help refine product ideas,” and “to create products that are truly relevant/useful to potential users/customers.” At the same time, entrepreneurs could more fully integrate users into the earliest stages of product development. Only 18% of our respondents engaged users at the ideation phase, and only 15% of entrepreneurs in our sample derived product ideas from talking to users of an existing product to determine what needs that product left unmet. The interest and potential for user-driven innovation combined with the low rates of entrepreneurs fully utilizing this resource suggests a productive entry point for TPC scholars to work with entrepreneurs, both in academia and industry.

Although scholars have identified user needs and engagement as a potential source of innovation (Klein, 2013; Levy, 2015; Shin et al., 2017; Sproll et al., 2010), user-driven innovation remains underemphasized in TPC scholarship and pedagogy. Therefore, TPC scholars can make a stronger case for user experience throughout the product development lifecycle, especially at the beginning stages of product innovation, as a means for establishing a more foundational position for user experience within entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurs want to learn efficient methods for engaging users: The majority of entrepreneurs in our sample engaged users, but they mostly used informal and ad hoc means, such as conducting conversations with users or potential customers. A similar majority expressed interest in learning more user research techniques, but favored learning more casual and informal methods. Entrepreneurs seem less interested in extremely formal, complex, or academic UX methodologies, potentially due to the time, resources, and knowledge these methods require. Entrepreneurs could likely benefit most from learning affordable, flexible, and actionable methods that also provide reliable, tangible results. TPC and UX scholars and practitioners offer a variety of rigorous but applicable and accessible approaches to user experience research: Williams (2022) offers multiple UX heuristics to analyze user experiences with virtual displays; Campbell and Lanius (2023) offer flexible and efficient methods for employing proxy users in industry; Verhulsdonck and Shalamova (2020) offer a UX framework for behavioral design to capture attention; Kirkscey (2022) offers heuristics for testing with multiple stakeholder-users throughout a product lifestyle while developing safe and satisfying products for older adults; Danis et al. (2023) conducted interviews about early COVID research practices to recommend ways “to conduct moderated and unmoderated remote research while maintaining inclusiveness and rigor” (p. 1); and Thominet (2018) argues that “open development offers a methodology for re-examining the activities that put us in touch with user communities and helping us to imagine new ways of designing our interactions” (p. 78). TPC instructors and programs can offer courses, projects, workshops, bootcamps, and other resources to help current and aspiring entrepreneurs engage in user experience practices that are both reliable and efficient. These educational opportunities could foster collaborations between TPC and organizations such as business schools, small business development centers, incubators, and chambers of commerce.

User engagement may correlate with venture success: Our data showed that more successful and mature businesses tend to engage users more, suggesting a positive relationship between user engagement and venture success. This correlation is worth exploring through further research and practice because a relationship between user engagement and venture success would give TPC scholars a powerful argument for the importance of their work. TPC and business scholars can conduct statistical research about the impacts of UX on business and collect case studies about the effects of UX practices on developing businesses.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study contains limitations worth acknowledging. The sample size for the study is too small to draw generalizable conclusions from the data, and the sample draws only from entrepreneurs and startups based in the United States. Therefore, the study can offer trends and descriptive statistics but not predictive analysis of how user involvement relates to venture success. Although our study found correlations between user involvement and launching and maintaining a successful enterprise, we cannot infer causality about how user engagement drives entrepreneurial success. It may be that more successful businesses prefer to engage users or that businesses tend to succeed because they involve users (or some combination of these factors). And although our research shows that entrepreneurs tend to engage users in more informal ways rather than using formal UX methods, this paper cannot conclude whether entrepreneurs could benefit from employing more rigorous UX methods. Additionally, this survey was conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic prompted many professionals to engage in more remote work, a shift which could change engagement with users (Danis et al., 2023). Entrepreneur user engagement practices may have changed in the intervening years.

Future research could draw from a larger sample size of entrepreneurs from multiple countries, and perhaps combine surveys with interviews about how entrepreneurs engage users. Subsequent research might include survey questions that focus on the extent to which entrepreneurs feel users contributed to business inception and, separately, business success and evolution. Ongoing studies of entrepreneurship practices, such as the NSF Business Enterprise Research and Development Survey, can gather more information about how entrepreneurs engage users in R&D. TPC scholars can report on UX collaborations and case studies involving entrepreneurs and startups to document how UX practices influence innovation. Research could also explore how entrepreneurs respond to training about various UX methods and how they implement these methodologies in practice, and similarly, studies could investigate how academic UX methods translate to product development processes in startups.

Conclusion

This study found that entrepreneurs often engage users throughout the product development process, indicating a more prevalent role for UX in innovation than research in both TPC and entrepreneurship have recognized. These findings suggest that users can serve as a force for innovation by helping entrepreneurs identify product ideas that meet user needs and then ensuring that innovators develop useful products. Entrepreneurs are already informally enacting the academic idea that users can contribute to innovation and design (Alam, 2004; Chuang & Lin, 2015; Gong, 2020; Ind et al., 2013; Kaasinen et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2020a; Saldanha et al., 2017; Yadav & Goyal, 2015). TPC scholarship can develop this deeper conception of UX as an innovative force. The current levels of entrepreneur engagement with users, combined with their interest in learning more about user research techniques, offer TPC scholars an excellent and underutilized opportunity for collaborating with entrepreneurs. TPC can further its connections with entrepreneurial research and practice by developing a research agenda, theory, and projects built around entrepreneurial user engagement.

Footnotes

Appendix 1: Survey Questions

Correction (July 2024):

Article has been updated to include ethical statements.

Author Biographies

Ryan Weber is an Associate Professor of English at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. His work has previously appeared in publications including Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Technical Communication, and Technical Communication Quarterly. He hosts the podcast 10-Minute Tech Comm.

John Spartz is a reformed Associate Professor from the University of Wisconsin-Stout English and Philosophy Department now working as a Senior UX Researcher at Edward Jones. As a member of a SAFe enterprise software development team, he leads the strategic design and execution of UX and usability research to help inform product decisions. He has previously published in Journal of Business and Technical Communication, IEEE Transactions in Professional Communication, and Programmatic Perspectives around UX and entrepreneurship.

References

Alam

(2004). Interacting with customers in the new product development process. In Kahn

K. B.

(Ed.), The PDMA handbook of new product development (2nd Edition, pp. 249–262). John Wiley and Sons.

Amoroso

Audrestch

D. B.

Link

A. N.

(2018). Sources of knowledge used by entrepreneurial firms in the European high-tech sector. Eurasian Business Review, 8, 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-017-0078-4

Bacha

J. A.

(2018). Mapping use, storytelling, and experience design: User-network tracking as a component of usability and sustainability. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(2), 198–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917746708

Bennett

V. M.

Chatterji

A. K

. (2019). The entrepreneurial process: evidence form a nationally representative survey. Strategic Management Journal, 44(1), 86–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3077

Bird

McGillion

Chambers

E. M.

Dix

Fajardo

C. J.

Gilmour

Levesque

Lim

Mierdel

Ouellette

Polanski

A. N.

Reaume

S. V.

Whitmore

Carter

(2021). A generative co-design framework for healthcare innovation: Development and application of an end-user engagement framework. Research Involvement and Engagement, 7(12), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00252-7

Bureau, U. S. C. ((2021, March 29). 2017 SUSB Annual Data Tables by Establishment Industry. The United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/susb/2017-susb-annual.html.

Buur

Matthews

(2008). Participatory innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919608001996

Campbell

A. J.

Coopter

R. G.

(1999). Do customer partnerships improve new product success rates? Industrial Marketing Management, 28(5), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00058-9

Campbell

Lanius

(2023). A-proxy-mate users: An industry-driven, flexible, testable, reliable model for selecting proxy users. Communication Design Quarterly, 11(4), 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1145/3592378.3592382

10.

Chen

Drennan

Andrews

Hollebeek

L. D.

(2018). User experience sharing: Understanding customer initiation of value co-creation in online communities. European Journal of Marketing, 52(5–6), 1154–1184. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-05-2016-0298

11.

Chuang

Lin

(2015). Co-creating e-service innovations: Theory, practice, and impact on firm performance. International Journal of Information Management, 35(3), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.01.002

12.

Coates

N. F.

Cook

Robinson

(1996). Idea generation techniques in an industrial market. Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 3(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004336

13.

Danis

Yargin

G. T.

Süner-Pla-Cerdà

(2023). Remote UX research in unpredictable times: Takeaways from early pandemic practices. Journal of User Experience, 19(1), 8–31.

14.

Dhargalkar

Shinde

Arora

(2016). A universal new product development and upgradation framework. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(27), 2–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-016-0055-7

15.

Egbetokun

A. A.

Siyanbola

W. O.

Sanni

Olamade

O. O.

Adeniyi

A. A.

Irefin

I. A.

(2009). What drives innovation? Inferences from an industry-wide survey in Nigeria. International Journal of Technology Management, 45(1/2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.021524

16.

Flint

D. J.

(2002). Compressing new product success-to-success cycle time: Deep customer value understanding and idea generation. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(4), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00165-1

17.

Florén

Frishammer

(2012). From preliminary ideas to corroborated product definitions: Managing the front end of new product development. California Management Review, 54(4), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2012.54.4.20

18.

Fraiberg

(2017). Start-up nation: Studying transnational entrepreneurial practices in Israel’s start-up ecosystem. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(3), 350–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917695541

19.

Franke

Shah

(2003). How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy, 32(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00006-9

20.

Frishammer

Lichtenthalter

Richtnér

(2013). Managing process development: Key issues and dimensions in the front end. R&D Management, 43(3), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12011

21.

Fronemann

Peissner

(2014). User experience concept exploration: user needs as a source for innovation. In NordiCHI ‘14: Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational, October 2014, pp 727–736.

22.

Galbraith

C. S.

McKinney

B. C.

DeNoble

A. F.

Ehrlich

S. B.

(2014). The impact of presentation form, entrepreneurial passion, and perceived preparedness on obtaining grant funding. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 28(2), 222–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651913513902

23.

Gerding

J. M.

Vealey

K. P.

(2017). When is a solution not a solution? Wicked problems, hybrid solutions, and rhetoric of civic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(3), 290–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917695538

24.

Gogan

Belinsky

S. J.

(2022). Emotion, rhetoric, and entrepreneurial experience: A survey of start-up community membership. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 36(4), 440–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519221105490

25.

Gong

(2020, March). Research on design thinking transforming the curriculum of entrepreneurship education. In 4th International Conference on Culture, Education and Economic Development of Modern Society (ICCESE 2020) (pp. 791–794). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200316.173

26.

Greenwood

Lauren

Knott

DeVoss

D. N.

(2019). Dissensus, resistance, and ideology: Design thinking as a rhetorical methodology. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(4), 400–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651919854063

27.

Greer

C. R.

Lei

(2012). Collaborative innovation with customers: A review of literature and suggestions for future research. International Journal of Management Review, 14(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00310.x

28.

Griffiths-Hermans

Grover

(2006). Setting the stage for creative new products investigating the idea fruition process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305281777

29.

Gruner

K. E.

Homburg

(2000). Does customer interaction enhance new product success. Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00013-2

30.

Han

Zhu

Fan

Jin

Song

(2020). User experience: How to drive innovation on the fuzzy front end. In Marcus

Rosenweig

(Eds.), Design, User Experience, and Usability. Interaction Design. HCII 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 12200 (pp. 130–146). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49713-2_9

31.

Heisekanen

Hyvonen

Niva

Pantzar

Timonen

Varjonen

(2007). User involvement in radicial innovation: Are customer conservative? European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(4), 489–509. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060710828790

32.

Hokkanen

, & Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K. (2015). UX Work in startups: Current practices and future needs. In Lassenius

Dingsøyr

Paasivaara

(Eds.), Agile processes in software engineering and extreme programming (pp. 81–92). Springer.

33.

Hokkanen

Väänänen

(2016). Focusing on user experience and business models in startups: investigation of two-dimensional value creation. AcademicMindtrek ‘16: Proceedings of the 20th International Academic Mindtrek Conference, October 2016. 59–67.

34.

Hovde

M. R

. (2001). Research tactics for constructing perceptions of subject matter in organizational contexts: An ethnographic study of technical communicators. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 59–95. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15427625tcq1001_3

35.

Ind

Iglesias

Schultz

(2013). Building brands together: Emergence and outcomes of co-creation. California Management Review, 55(3), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2013.55.3.5

36.

Jones

N. N.

(2017). Rhetorical narratives of Black entrepreneurs: The business of race, agency, and cultural empowerment. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(3), 319–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917695540

37.

Joshi

A. W.

Sharma

(2004). Customer knowledge development: Antecedents and impact on new product performance. Journal of Marketing, 68(October 2004), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.47.42722

38.

Kaasinen

Koskela-Huotari

Ikonen

Niemelä

Näkki

(2012). Three approaches to co-creating services with users. In Spohrer

J. C.

Freund

L. E.

(Eds.), Advances in the human Side of service engineering (pp. 4343–4352). CRC Press.

39.

Karahanoğlu

Bakırlıoğlu

. (2022). Evaluation of the usefulness of path of long-term user experience model in design process. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(4), 777–795. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1836256

40.

Kirkscey

. (2022). Development and patient user experience evaluation of an mHealth informational app for osteoporosis. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 38(8), 707–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1965773

41.

Kirner

Kinkel

Jaeger

(2009). Innovation paths and the innovation performance of low-technology firms-an empirical analysis of German industry. Research Policy, 38(3), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.10.011

42.

Klein

(2013). UX for lean startups: Faster, smarter user experience research and design. O’Reilly Media, Inc.

43.

Kosonen

Gan

Olander

Blomqvist

(2013). My idea is our idea! supporting user-driven innovation activities in crowdsourcing communities. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(3), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919613400100

44.

Kristensson

Gustafsson

Archer

(2004). Harnessing the creative potential among users. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(1), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00050.x

45.

Kristensson

Matthing

Johansson

(2008). Key strategies for the successful involvement of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19(4), 474–491. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230810891914

46.

Kuusinen

Sørensen

M. K.

Frederiksen

N. M.

Laugesen

N. K.

Juul

S. H.

(2019). From startup to scaleup: An interview study of the development of user experience work in a data-intensive company. In Human-Centered Software Engineering: 7th IFIP WG 13.2 International Working Conference, HCSE 2018, Sophia Antipolis, France, September 3–5, 2018, Revised Selected Papers 7 (pp. 3–14). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05909-5_1

47.

Levy

(2015). UX Strategy: How to Devise Innovative Digital Products that People Want. O’Reilly Media.

48.

Lilien

G. L.

Morrison

P. D.

Searls

Sonnack

von Hippel

(2002). Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development. Management Science, 48(8), 995–1101. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1042.171

49.

Linton

Klinton

(2019). University entrepreneurship education: A design-thinking approach to learning. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 8(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-018-0098-z

50.

Liu

Hong

Fan

(2020a). User idea implementation in open innovation communities: Evidence from a new product development crowdsourcing community. Information Systems Journal, 30(5), 899–927. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12286

51.

Marvel

Lumpkin

(2007). Technology entrepreneurs’ human capital and its effects on innovation radicalness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6), 807–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00209.x

52.

Matthing

Kristensson

Gustafsson

Parasuraman

(2006). Developing successful technology-based services: The issue of identifying and involving innovative users. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(5), 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040610679909

53.

Meinel

Eismann

T. T.

Baccarella

C. V.

Fixson

S. K.

Voigt

(2020). Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study. European Management Journal, 38(4), 661–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.02.002

54.

Melton

H. L.

Hartling

M. D.

(2015). Customer and frontline employee influence on new service development performance. Journal of Service Research, 13(4), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510369378

55.

Moon

Sung

Chun

H. J.

Hong

S. W.

(2016). A design process for a customer journey map: A case study on mobile services. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 26(4), 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20673

56.

Moreau

(2022). Teaching students in the technical and profession communication classroom practices for innovation rhetoric. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 36(4), 484–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519221105495

57.

Nishikawa

Schreier

Ogawa

(2013). User-generated versus designer-generated products: A performance assessment at Muji. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(2), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.09.002

58.

Pala

(2017, July 14). Defining Success Is a Crucial Step for Entrepreneurs. Inc.com.https://www.inc.com/serhat-pala/defining-success-is-a-crucial-step-for-entrepreneu.html.

59.

Pallot

Pawar

Krawczyk

Topolowski

Lecossier

Rahman

Razek

(2020). Evaluating user experience as a means to reveal the potential adoption of innovative ideas. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC).

60.

Pellegrini

M. T

. (2023). ‘F—-Shark Tank:’ Rethinking the centrality of the business pitch in microenterprise entrepreneurship. Technical Communication Quarterly, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2023.2246050

61.

Poetz

M. K.

Schreier

(2012). The value of crowdsourcing: Can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00893.x

62.

Pope-Ruark

Tham

Moses

Conner

(2019). Introduction to special issue: Design-thinking approaches in technical and professional communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(4), 370–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651919854054

63.

Prandelli

Sawhney

Verona

(2008). Collaborating with customers to innovate: conceiving and marketing products in the networking age. Edward Elgar.

64.

Purwanto

(2016). User research and opportunities for innovation: Exploring methods and tools. Masters Thesis, Uppsala University.

65.

Radnejad

A. B.

Sarkar

Osiyevskyy

. (2022). Design thinking in responding to disruptive innovation: A case study. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 23(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/14657503211033940

66.

Rajan

(2021). Making-do on the margins: Organizing resource seeking and rhetorical agency in communities during grassroots entrepreneurship. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 35(2), 254–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920979999

67.

Roschuni

Goodman

Agogino

A. M.

(2013). Communicating actionable user research for human-centered design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 27(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060413000048

68.

Rose

Tenenberg

(2015). Arguing about design: A taxonomy of rhetorical strategies deployed by user experience practitioners. SIGDOC ‘16, September 23–24, 2016, Silver Spring, MD. https://doi.org/10.1145/2987592.2987608

69.

Rundblad

(2011). The academic library startup: innovation and social technologies. AJCU Conference 2011.

70.

Saldanha

T. J. V.

Mithas

Krishnan

M. S.

(2017). Leveraging customer involvement for fueling innovation: The role of relational and analytical information processing capabilities. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 267–286. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26629647

71.

Sawhney

Verona

Prandello

(2005). Collaborating to create: The internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20046

72.

Schulz

Steinhoff

Jepsen

(2017). Strike while the iron is hot: User centricity adapted to the AGILE innovation development process. In Pfeffermann

Gould

(Eds.), Strategy and communication for innovation (pp. 349–365). Springer.

73.

Seybold

P. B.

(2006). Outside Innovation. Collins.

74.

Shah

S. K.

Tripsas

(2007). The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.15

75.

Shin

Lee

Kim

. (2015). Experience innovation and business strategy: Design for user experience (UX) in new product development (NPD). Journal of Information Technology Services, 14(2), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.9716/KITS.2015.14.2.231

76.

Shin

Kim

(2017). Design for experience innovation: Understanding user experience in new product development. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(12), 1218–1234. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1368709

77.

Shivers-McNair

Gonzales

Zhyvotovska

(2019). An intersectional technofeminist framework for community-driven technology innovation. Computers and Composition, 51, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2018.11.005

78.

Spartz

J. M.

Weber

R. P

. (2015). Writing entrepreneurs: A survey of attitudes, habits, skills, and genres. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29(4), 428–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651915588145

79.

Spartz

J. M.

Weber

R. P.

(2016, October). User experience as a driver of entrepreneurial innovation. In 2016 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC) (pp. 1–7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2016.7740486

80.

Spinuzzi

(2017). Introduction to special issue on the rhetoric of entrepreneurship: Theories, methodologies, and practices. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(3), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917695537

81.

Spinuzzi

Cochran

Pogue

G. P.

(2023). Linked but desynched: An OODA analysis of associated entrepreneurship accelerator programs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 37(1), 28–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/10506519221121813

82.

Sproll

Peissner

Sturm

(2010). From product concept to user experience: exploring UX potentials at early product stages. In NordiCHI ‘10: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, October 2010, pp 473–482.

83.

Sturm

Aly

Schimdt

B. V.

Flatten

(2017). Entrepreneurial & UX mindsets: two perspectives - one objective. MobileHCI ‘17: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, September 2017, pp 1–11.

84.

Chen

Sha

D. Y.

(2006). Linking innovative product development with customer knowledge: A data mining approach. Technovation, 26, 784–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.05.005

85.

Thominet

(2021). Open video game development and participatory design. Technical Communication Quarterly, 30(4), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2020.1866679

86.

Thominet

(2018). How to be open: User experience and technical communication in an emerging game development methodology. Communication Design Quarterly, 6(2), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1145/3282665.3282672

87.

Thomke

von Hippel

(2002). Customers as innovators: A new way to create value. Harvard Business Review, 80(4), 5–11.

88.

Tomlinson

E. C.

(2020). Stasis in the Shark Tank: Persuading an audience of funders to act on behalf of entrepreneurs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 34(3), 221–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920910219

89.

Touloum

Idoughi

Seffah

(2018). Leveraging user experience and touchpoints analysis for services design: Case of crisis management. The Journal of Interaction Science, 6(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.24982/jois.1713018.001

90.

Troy

L. C.

Szymanski

D. M.

Varadarajan

P. R.

(2001). Generating new product ideas: An initial investigation of the role of market information and organizational characteristics. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070301291006

91.

Verhulsdonck

Howard

Tham

(2021). Investigating the impact of design thinking, content strategy, and artificial intelligence: A “streams” approach for technical communication and user experience. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 51(4), 468–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816211041951

92.

Verhulsdonck

Shalamova

(2020). Creating content that influences people: Considering user experience and behavioral design in technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 50(4), 376–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281619880286

93.

Von Hippel

E. A.

(1977). Has a customer already developed your next product? Sloan Management Review, 18(2), 63–74.

94.

Von Hippel

E. A.

(1978). Successful industrial products from customer ideas. Journal of Marketing, 42(1), 39–49.

95.

Wandahl

Jacobsen

Lassen

A. H.

Poulsen

S. B.

Sørensen

(2011). User-driven innovation in a construction material supply network. Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management, 11(4), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714171111175882

96.

Washington

Soumahoro

Saxena Arora

(2020). Ideate-Generate: Design Thinking and User Experience (UX) for Sustainable Impact on Global Product Development of Wearable Technologies in the Healthcare Industry. In Saxena Arora

Bacouel-Jentjens

Sepehri

Arora

(Eds.), Sustainable Innovation. International Marketing and Management Research (pp. 15–24). Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30421-8_2.

97.

Williams

(2022). Day or night at the museum: A UX analysis of virtual exhibits. Journal of Technical Writing and Cikommunication, 52(2), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472816221074101

98.

Yadav

Goyal

(2015). User innovation and entrepreneurship: Case studies from rural India. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 4(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-015-0018-4

99.

Zaina

L. A. M.

Álvaro

(2015). A design methodology for user-centered innovation in the software development area. Journal of Systems and Software, 110, 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.08.029

Perspectives on UX Practices for American Entrepreneurs: A Survey of User Engagement Approaches to Innovation

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

The Role of UX Issues and Customer Needs in Innovation

Involving Users and Customers in Innovation

UX Research About Innovation

Methods

Participant Recruitment

Survey Participants

Survey Content

Results

Why Entrepreneurs Involve Users

How Entrepreneurs Find Users

When Entrepreneurs Involve Users

User Engagement Approaches

Relationships Between User Engagement and Business Success

Employee Number and User Engagement

Annual Revenue and User Engagement

Number of Innovations and User Engagement

Innovation Impetus and User Involvement

Changing Innovation Processes to Include Users

Interest in Learning User Engagement Techniques

Discussion

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix 1: Survey Questions

Ethics Approval

Informed Consent

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Correction (July 2024):

Author Biographies

References