Search results

Firms increasingly integrate a wide range of actors in the early ideation and concept creation phases of innovation processes leading to the collection of a large number of ideas. This creates the challenge of filtering the most promising ideas from a large number of submissions. The use of external stakeholders into the evaluation and selection of submissions (i.e. open evaluation (OE)) might be a viable alternative. The purpose of this paper is to provide a state-of-the-art analysis on how such OE systems are designed and structured.

Since OE is a new phenomenon, an exploratory qualitative research approach is adopted. In all, 122 instances of OE in 90 innovation contest cases are examined for their design elements.

This research reveals that OE systems are configured in many different ways. In total, 32 design elements and their respective parameters are identified and described along the six socio-technical system components of an OE system. This study allows for a comprehensive understanding of what OE is and what factors need to be taken into consideration when designing an OE system.

Scholars and professionals may draw insights on what design choices to make when implementing OE.

The comprehensive analysis performed in this study contributes to research on open and user innovation by examining the concept of OE. In particular, it extends knowledge on design elements of OE systems.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relevant factors that influence the implementation of innovation contests, an open innovation (OI) practice that has been extensively reported in the literature as a managerial tool for external knowledge search. The authors focus the study on the context of small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

The approach is a retrospective case study. This methodology allows an in-depth view into a Spanish SME that successfully undertook two new product development processes thanks to the deployment of innovation contests.

The main context factors influencing innovation contests as managerial tool are ambidexterity, technological and marketing turbulence and intermediaries, among others. Regarding design factors, this work highlights the role of attraction and facilitation. Additionally, the repetitive implementation of innovation contests creates a corporate culture that promotes OI activities.

Managers will understand that they can use innovation contests as a managerial tool, and knowing the factors that need to be taken into account when implementing an innovation contest will help SMEs managers to make better use of this practice.

This case study enriches the literature of both innovation contests and topics relevant to SMEs. Based on a theoretical framework of the design factors that influence the implementation of innovation contests, the authors propose a research framework that incorporates those context factors in association with an SME.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how an adequate mix of technological, organisational and managerial tools might support Open Innovation (OI) processes achieved by contests in the food sector.

The methodology of this paper is exploratory in nature. Data have been gathered about the 140 innovation contests launched by the best global food brands (2013 BusinessWeek/Interbrand Best Global Brands) over the last decade.

The research highlights the main changes that have occurred over the last decade, showing that the choice of platform type for contest launches is often neglected or considered as an ancillary element. Indeed, it is a choice that embeds another set of technological, organisational and managerial tools that strongly influence the collaborative behaviour (and the participation itself) of partners throughout the innovation process.

Companies investigated in this paper consist exclusively of top brands in the sector. Future research should strive to obtain larger samples, develop a set of fine-grained hypotheses, and test them by using appropriate statistical techniques.

This paper fills an inexplicable gap in academic literature due to the fact that food companies are those that mainly use contests in order to implement OI but they are scarcely researched regarding this issue.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate both the impact of different reward types and the adoption of knowledge-sharing practice on a crowdsourcing-based open innovation contest. Despite the benefit of knowledge sharing, contestants could struggle to find a balance between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection in open innovation.

The authors' approach follows a stylised contest model in a game-theoretical setting in which contestants first decide on their efforts and then the contest sponsor chooses the winner. Moreover, the outcome of an open innovation contest is delineated as either intermediate goods that require further refinement and risk-taking versus a market-ready end product for the contest sponsor. The authors also investigate how knowledge sharing among contestants would be influenced by reward types such as fixed-monetary prizes vs performance-contingent awards.

The contest sponsor will lower the prize level after adopting knowledge sharing. Therefore, the total effort will decline regardless of the reward type. Moreover, the choice of reward types depends on the contest sponsor's characteristics because the performance-contingent award is suitable for a large market size but the fixed-monetary prize can more efficiently raise the quantity of contestant inputs.

Prior studies have tested the connection between contest performance and knowledge sharing in crowdsourcing-based contests; however, there is not an integrated framework to best design the operation of a contest when considering different reward types and knowledge-sharing practices.

This study aims to demonstrate how destination management organizations can fruitfully harvest users’ ideas by facilitating an online idea contest to enhance value creation and innovation processes. The structure of the idea quality, contest-related factors and user-related factors are investigated in relation to the overall quality of the ideas submitted by users.

A total of 489 ideas were assessed based on the overall quality and effects of various factors. A structural model was tested to analyze the dimensions contributing to quality of the submissions that influence the overall idea quality. Furthermore, non-parametric tests were performed to reveal how specific user traits as well as contest-related traits relate to overall idea quality. Lastly, post-hoc analyses were performed to reveal if mean values differ among users who are grouped according to age, overall idea quality, place of residence and age at time of submission.

The study demonstrates that novelty, feasibility, relevance and elaboration explain overall idea quality. Only the age of the idea submitter exhibits an impact on the level of idea quality, wherein younger users tend to submit higher quality ideas. The areas of innovation significantly differ depending on the users’ place of residence and age. Moreover, none of the contest-related traits that were analyzed have an impact on the level of overall idea quality.

Marketing managers and destination management organizations are given a set of recommendations on how to facilitate internet-based participation tools, such as idea contests, to collect high-quality input from various user segments and, subsequently, to feed their value creation and innovation processes.

Within the field of tourism, the open tourism paradigm is relatively new. New insights into the role of online tools, and how they can be leveraged to harvest users’ ideas, as well as users’ capabilities for enhancing tourism firms’ value creation and innovation processes, are provided.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the different heuristics adopted by a crowd and a management committee to evaluate new product proposals, and whether, in assessing the value of proposals, they emphasize different features.

The study takes a quantitative analysis approach to study an internal innovation contest held by the biotechnology company Novozymes. The contest generated 201 proposals that were evaluated by 109 research and development professionals by means of a virtual preference market, and by a management committee.

The crowd and the committees’ assessments of the value of the proposals were based on different features. The committee emphasized experience and inventors’ seniority; the crowd set more store on informative idea descriptions but penalized overly complex and lengthy proposals.

The design of the innovation contest does not allow full comparison of the preference functions of crowd and committee. The findings from this case study cannot be generalized. The early stage of new product development seems fruitful for investigating crowdsourcing and knowledge management.

Firms should consider adopting preference markets for idea screening and evaluation since they appraise ideas from different angles compared to managers. However, they complement, rather than substitute managerial evaluation, especially in the case of more detailed proposals.

This is one of the first attempts to identify differences in the decision-making processes of crowds and committees. The paper identifies their strengths as evaluators of new product ideas and finds that the “wisdom of crowds” has some limitations in relation to the ability to process complex information.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how communication practices influence individuals’ team assembly and performance in open innovation contests.

This study analyzed behavioral trace data of 4,651 teams and 19,317 participants from a leading open innovation platform, Kaggle. The analyses applied weighted least squares regression and weighted mediation analysis.

Sharing online profiles positively relates to a person’s performance and likelihood of becoming a leader in open innovation teams. Team assembly effectiveness (one’s ability to team up with high-performing teammates) mediates the relationship between online profile sharing and performance. Moreover, sharing personal websites has a stronger positive effect on performance and likelihood of becoming a team leader, compared to sharing links to professional social networking sites (e.g. LinkedIn).

As team collaboration becomes increasingly common in open innovation, participants’ sharing of their online profiles becomes an important variable predicting their success. This study extends prior research on virtual team collaboration by highlighting the role of communication practices that occur in the team pre-assembly stage, as an antecedent of team assembly. It also addresses a long-standing debate about the credibility of information online by showing that a narrative-based online profile format (e.g. a personal website) can be more powerful than a standardized format (e.g. LinkedIn).

Open innovation organizers should encourage online profile sharing among participants to facilitate effective team assembly in order to improve innovation outcomes.

The current study highlights the importance of team assembly in open innovation, especially the role of sharing online profiles in this process. It connects two areas of research that are previously distant, one on team assembly and one on online profile sharing. It also adds new empirical evidence to the discussion about online information credibility.

As the application of crowdsourcing contests grows, leveraging the participation of superstars (i.e. solvers who have outstanding performance records in a crowdsourcing platform) becomes an emergent approach for managers to solve crowdsourced problems. Although much is known about superstars’ performance implications, it remains unclear whether and how their participation affects the size of a contest crowd for a crowdsourcing contest. Based on social contagion theory, this paper aims to examine the impact of superstars’ participation on the crowd size and studies how this impact varies across solvers with different heterogeneity in terms of skills, exposure and cultural proximity with superstars in crowdsourcing contests.

This paper uses secondary data from one crowdsourcing platform that includes 6,587 innovation contests to examine superstars’ main and contextual effects on the crowd size of a contest.

Our results reveal that superstars’ participation positively affects the crowd size of a contest in general. This finding suggests that social contagion is a fundamental mechanism underlying crowd formation in crowdsourcing contests. Our results also indicate that in contests that involve multiple superstars, superstars’ effect on crowd size becomes negative when we simultaneously consider other solvers’ heterogeneity in terms of skills, exposure and cultural background, and this negative effect will be intensified by increases in the skill gap, extent of exposure and cultural proximity between superstars and other solvers in the same contest.

Our research enhances the understanding of the influence of superstars and the mechanism underlying the emergence of contest crowds in crowdsourcing contests and contributes knowledge to better understand social contagion in a competitive setting. The results are meaningful for sourcing managers and platform supervisors to design contests and supervise crowd size in crowdsourcing contests.

Crowdsourcing initiatives, especially the format of idea and research contest have provided companies with unique and inventive opportunities to capitalize on users’ innovative potential and knowledge. Inspired by the potential, nonprofits are beginning to use the principles of crowdsourcing to develop better solutions for social problems. This research aims to enhance our knowledge on crowdsourcing for social innovation. Since the crowdsourcing initiative hinges on individuals' willingness to participate in these projects and their motivation to contribute valuable insights and ideas, we introduce a new framework that aligns participants’ motives with potentially offered incentives. The conducted empirical study at the ScrapLab design contest finds that participants indeed differ in their preferred incentives. It shows that participants not only strive for monetary but also nonmonetary incentives such as an internship, a party with friends, or the support of a social project, once they can choose. The results further highlight, that those participants, differing in their incentive preference, also show different types of contribution behavior. Our research contributes to a better theoretic understanding of the impact of various incentive structures on contribution behavior. From a managerial perspective, it provides guidance in adopting prize structures to justify participation and contribution behavior in crowdsourcing initiatives.

The research study intends to gain a better understanding of members' behaviors in the context of crowdsourcing contests. The authors examined the key factors that can motivate or discourage contributing to a team and within the community.

The authors conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with Kaggle.com members and analyzed the data to capture individual members' contributions and emerging determinants that play a role during this process. The authors adopted a qualitative approach and used standard thematic coding techniques to analyze the data.

The analysis revealed two processes underlying contribution to the team and community and the decision-making involved in each. Accordingly, a set of key factors affecting each process were identified. Using Holbrook's (2006) typology of value creation, these factors were classified into four types, namely extrinsic and self-oriented (economic value), extrinsic and other-oriented (social value), intrinsic and self-oriented (hedonic value), and intrinsic and other-oriented (altruistic value). Three propositions were developed, which can be tested in future research.

The study has a few limitations, which point to areas for future research on this topic. First, the authors only assessed the behaviors of individuals who use the Kaggle platform. Second, the findings of this study may not be generalizable to other crowdsourcing platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk, where there is no competition, and participants cannot meaningfully contribute to the community. Third, the authors collected data from a limited (yet knowledgeable) number of interviewees. It would be useful to use bigger sample sizes to assess other possible factors that did not emerge from our analysis. Finally, the authors presented a set of propositions for individuals' contributory behavior in crowdsourcing contest platforms but did not empirically test them. Future research is necessary to validate these hypotheses, for instance, by using quantitative methods (e.g. surveys or experiments).

The authors offer recommendations for implementing appropriate mechanisms for contribution to crowdsourcing contests and platforms. Practitioners should design architectures to minimize the effect of factors that reduce the likelihood of contributions and maximize the factors that increase contribution in order to manage the tension of simultaneously encouraging contribution and competition.

The research study makes key theoretical contributions to research. First, the results of this study help explain the individuals' contributory behavior in crowdsourcing contests from two aspects: joining and selecting a team and content contribution to the community. Second, the findings of this study suggest a revised and extended model of value co-creation, one that integrates this study’s findings with those of Nov et al. (2009), Lakhani and Wolf (2005), Wasko and Faraj (2000), Chen et al. (2018), Hahn et al. (2008), Dholakia et al. (2004) and Teichmann et al. (2015). Third, using direct accounts collected through first-hand interviews with crowdsourcing contest members, this study provides an in-depth understanding of individuals' contributory behavior. Methodologically, this authors’ approach was distinct from common approaches used in this research domain that used secondary datasets (e.g. the content of forum discussions, survey data) (e.g. see Lakhani and Wolf, 2005; Nov et al., 2009) and quantitative techniques for analyzing collaboration and contribution behavior.

The authors advance the broad field of crowdsourcing by extending the literature on value creation in the online community, particularly as it relates to the individual participants. The study advances the theoretical understanding of contribution in crowdsourcing contests by focusing on the members' point of view, which reveals both the determinants and the process for joining teams during crowdsourcing contests as well as the determinants of contribution to the content distributed in the community.