St. Petersburg State University
Graduate School of Management
Master in Management Program
INNOVATION THROUGH CROWDSOURCING: FACTORS
INFLUENCING ENGAGEMENT IN IDEA COMPETITIONS
Master’s Thesis by the 2nd year student
Concentration – Master in Management
Elizaveta Semakova
Research Advisor
Associate Professor Tatjana Samsonowa
St. Petersburg
2017
ЗАЯВЛЕНИЕ О САМОСТОЯТЕЛЬНОМ ХАРАКТЕРЕ ВЫПОЛНЕНИЯ
ВЫПУСКНОЙ КВАЛИФИКАЦИОННОЙ РАБОТЫ
Я, Семакова Елизавета Владимировна, студент второго курса магистратуры
направления «Менеджмент», заявляю, что в моей ВКР на тему «Инновации посредством
краудсорсинга: факторы, стимулирующие вовлеченность участников в конкурсах идей»
представленной в службу обеспечения программ магистратуры для последующей передачи
в государственную аттестационную комиссию для публичной защиты, не содержится
элементов плагиата.
Все прямые заимствования из печатных и электронных источников, а также из
защищенных ранее выпускных квалификационных работ, кандидатских и докторских
диссертаций имеют соответствующие ссылки.
Мне известно содержание п. 9.7.1 Правил обучения по основным образовательным
программам высшего и среднего профессионального образования в СПбГУ о том, что «ВКР
выполняется индивидуально каждым студентом под руководством назначенного ему
научного руководителя», и п. 51 Устава федерального государственного бюджетного
образовательного учреждения высшего профессионального образования «СанктПетербургский государственный университет» о том, что «студент подлежит отчислению
из Санкт-Петербургского университета за представление курсовой или выпускной
квалификационной работы, выполненной другим лицом (лицами)».
28.09.17
STATEMENT ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT CHARACTER OF THE MASTER THESIS
I, Semakova Elizaveta Vladimirovna, second year master student, program
«Management», state that my master thesis on the topic «Innovation through crowdsourcing:
factors influencing engagement in idea competitions», which is presented to the Master Office to
be submitted to the Official Defense Committee for the public defense, does not contain any
elements of plagiarism.
All direct borrowings from printed and electronic sources, as well as from master theses,
PhD and doctorate theses which were defended earlier, have appropriate references.
I am aware that according to paragraph 9.7.1. of Guidelines for instruction in major
curriculum programs of higher and secondary professional education at St.Petersburg University
«А master thesis must be completed by each of the degree candidates individually under the
supervision of his or her advisor», and according to paragraph 51 of Charter of the Federal State
Institution of Higher Professional Education Saint-Petersburg State University «a student can be
expelled from St. Petersburg University for submitting of the course or graduation qualification
work developed by other person (persons)».
28.09.2017
2
АННОТАЦИЯ
Автор
Название ВКР
Семакова Елизавета Владимировна
Инновации
посредством
краудсорсинга:
факторы,
стимулирующие вовлеченность участников в конкурсах идей
Направление подготовки
38.04.02 «Менеджмент»
Год
2017
Научный руководитель
Самсонова Татьяна Александровна
Описание цели, задач и Целью данного исследования является доработка и
основных результатов
перепроектировка модели, первоначально предложенной de
Vreede, посредством выявления факторов, влияющих на
вовлеченность участников. Метод множественных кейс-стади
был выбран в связи с исследовательским типом работы,
который объясняется новизной темы. Для анализа были
выбраны четыре платформы соревнований: Lego Ideas,
HyveCrowd, Innosite и Telegram InstantView Challenge. В
результате двух раундов интервью были выявлены
дополнительные факторы и новые категории участников. На
основе результатов исследования была доработана модель
вовлеченности. Спроектированная модель может стать
полезным инструментом для создателей соревнований идей.
Ключевые слова
инновации,
инновационный
менеджмент,
открытые
инновации, краудсорсинг, конкурсы идей, вовлеченность
ABSTRACT
Master Student's Name
Master Thesis Title
Elizaveta Semakova
Innovation through Crowdsourcing: Factors Influencing
Engagement in Idea Competitions
Main field of study
38.04.02 «Management»
Year
2017
Academic Advisor's Name
Tatjana A. Samsonowa
Description of the goal, tasks The purpose of this study is to identify factors influencing
and main results
engagement, to re-design and finalize the model of participants’
engagement in idea competitions initially proposed by de Vreede.
Multiple case studies method was chosen due to the exploratory
nature of the study which is justified by innovativeness of the topic.
Four idea competition platforms were selected for analysis: Lego
Ideas, HyveCrowd, Innosite and Telegram InstantView Challenge.
As a result of two interview rounds, additional factors and new
groups of stakeholders were introduced. Based on research
findings, the model of engagement was finalized. The refined
holistic model can be considered a useful tool for creators of idea
competitions.
Keywords
innovation, innovation management, idea management, open
innovation, crowdsourcing, idea competitions, user engagement
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
АННОТАЦИЯ ............................................................................................................................... 3
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ 4
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 5
1. THEORETICAL OVERVIEW OF IDEA MANAGEMENT, OPEN INNOVATION, AND
CROWDSOURCING ..................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Idea Management ................................................................................................................................7
1.2 Open Innovation ................................................................................................................................10
1.3 Crowdsourcing ..................................................................................................................................12
2. IDEA COMPETITION AND ITS CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR...................................... 16
2.1 Idea competitions...............................................................................................................................16
2.2 Participants’ engagement as a critical success factor for idea competition .......................................18
2.3 Research Gap .....................................................................................................................................20
3. RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 21
3.1 Research Question .............................................................................................................................21
3.2 Research Methodology ......................................................................................................................21
3.3 Data collection process ......................................................................................................................24
4. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 27
4.1 Results of the study ...........................................................................................................................27
4.1.1 Analysis of idea competitions platforms ....................................................................................27
4.1.2 First round of interviews ............................................................................................................34
4.1.3 Updating the model of user engagement in idea competitions ..................................................37
4.1.4 Second round of interviews – confirmation of model validity ..................................................38
4.2 Managerial Implications ....................................................................................................................42
4.3 Limitations and suggestions for further research ..............................................................................43
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 45
LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 47
4
INTRODUCTION
In today’s ever-changing environment the definition of innovation is transforming from being
a key to a company’s success towards a requirement for staying alive. Often even the most
innovative companies can “do everything right” and yet fail. That is why many are obsessed with
trying to find a way to overcome disruptions adequately. Today, organizations are redesigning the
ways of managing their innovation processes. Opening up the innovation funnel for external
parties and crowdsourcing ideas is a new way to include independent stakeholders into the
company’s R&D activities and therefore discussed broadly in the innovators’ community. Idea
competitions are one of the recent tools to foster idea management, open innovation, and
crowdsourcing, and are of particular interest.
The term “crowdsourcing” first appeared in 2006, and online idea competitions platforms
began to appear since then. There are many examples of successfully implemented challenges,
however, the topic is still underinvestigated. Whenever individuals are involved in a certain
activity, participants’ engagement becomes the primary subject of investigation. The concept of
engagement is a new perspective in analyzing relationships between stakeholders within the
process of a project. Developing a better understanding of crowdsourcing experience and
mechanisms of engagement may help practitioners to improve existing interactions and platforms
used in crowdsourcing sessions (Aitamurto, Landemore and Saldivar Galli, 2016). De Vreede was
the first to attempt to develop a model of user engagement in the open collaboration environment.
However, the author suggested that in future researchers could discover and find additional drivers
for engagement (de Vreede et al., 2013). After de Vreede’s research was published in 2013, a
group of scholars from University of St.Gallen conducted a single-case study research on a Swiss
crowdsourcing platform using the designed model. Scholars recommended conducting multiplecase studies to identify more engagement driving mechanisms (Troll and Blohm, 2017).
Therefore, research goal of this study is to identify additional factors, to re-design and finalize
the model of user engagement in idea competitions.
To address the above-mentioned research purposes, the following research question was
raised:
Which factors influence participants’ engagement in idea competitions?
5
To identify drivers of engagement in idea contests it is crucial to explore and describe the
whole ecosystem of idea competitions, e.g. relationships between participants, roles of
stakeholders and platform characteristics. Due to the innovativeness of the topic and the low level
of investigation, this research is of exploratory nature. Multiple-case study method was identified
as the most suitable for the stated research purposes, and four idea competition platforms were
selected for the investigation: Lego Ideas, HyveCrowd, Innosite and Telegram InstantView
Challenge. Both primary and secondary data was analyzed. Two rounds of interviews were
conducted: first round to reveal additional factors, second round to confirm the validity of the
model. Based on the findings, the model was updated and finalized.
This master thesis is structured in the following way. In the first chapter, the theoretical
overview of idea management, open innovation and crowdsourcing is presented. Further, idea
competition and engagement as its critical success factor is discussed. In the end of the chapter,
the model developed by de Vreede is examined and the research gap is identified.
Next, the research methodology and data collection processes are explained. Subsequently,
the fourth chapter illustrates empirical results of the study and demonstrates the finalized model of
engagement in idea competitions. Finally, managerial implications are defined and limitations of
the research are stated. Additionally, suggestions for future research are presented.
6
1. THEORETICAL OVERVIEW OF IDEA MANAGEMENT, OPEN INNOVATION,
AND CROWDSOURCING
1.1 Idea Management
For decades, there was a growing awareness of the importance of innovation, and for many
companies, especially those in high-tech and knowledge-intensive industries, it has been a top
strategic priority. Thus, there has always been a great need for new concepts and tools that can
assist and drive the innovation process. (Iversen et al., 2009) In 1990’s organizations concentrated
on implementing New Product Development (NPD) models, Integrated Product Development and
Concurrent Engineering concept. Their goal was to improve integration between the departments
and to optimize the whole innovation process. In parallel, efforts were directed to boost front-end
of innovation (FEI), an early stage of product innovation, a complex space of various stakeholders
with a similar aim: finding and developing innovative ideas into new product concepts (Vagn,
Clausen and Gish, 2013).
Today, in the era of rapid digitalization every organization has the same access to information,
knowledge, techniques, and tools. Under these equal conditions, the question “How to achieve a
breakthrough?” becomes more and more important. Companies are eager to find new ways to
strive in front-end of innovation, and one of the solutions given is Idea Management (IM)
(Mikelsone and Liela, 2015).
Having identified a need for improvement and establishment of consistent idea flow within
the company, it is important to recognize the complexity of high-value ideas distinction and their
development into tangible profits. While this transition might be facilitated by respective
techniques dedicated to the idea-creation process, the company should also take into account its
own internal specifics. This is precisely a gap IM is filling in, a structured process of defining,
generating and collecting, enhancing and improving, as well as evaluating and prioritizing ideas
(Gallmeister and Lutz, 2016).
Green et al. (1983) were ones of the first researchers who recognized the companies’ need for
idea flow, introducing idea management aspects in their work. While many studies see IM as a
part of innovation management (Miecznik, 2013), some of them are dedicated to the understanding
of how IM can help organizations putting innovation into practice and underlining its mutually
7
supportive relations with front end innovation (Aagard, 2013; Bassiti and Ajhoun, 2013). Barczak
et al. (2009) in their turn argue that, although the goal of IM’s use might be unclear in the initial
stage of innovation management, its presence clearly states a need for company’s management
change.
Rowbotham and Bohlin (1996) two decades ago suggested a structured approach towards IM,
indicating its 7 parts: the development of criteria, preparation for idea generation, idea selection,
development of ideas, idea evaluation, ranking of ideas and concept development. Bothos,
Apostolou and Mentzas (2008) divided IM into three parts: idea generation, idea enhancement,
idea evaluation. Klein and Convertino (2014) in their more recent work proposed another
description of IM process, which, in their opinion, includes requesting ideas, collecting those
relevant, selecting the most appropriate and, finally, evaluating them. These steps are necessary
for creating innovative products and services or improving existing ones.
Initially, Green et al. (1983) refer to idea management while analyzing ideas’ flow in R&D
laboratories from a human information-processing perspective. Although not stating it
distinctively, this paper made a solid connection to the future of idea management at the time,
currently related to computer technology as an alternative to human brain capabilities. Another
application of idea management is emphasized in Xie and Zhang (2010) work dedicated to the
understanding of the process of team creation. Currently, the goal of IM is defined by Westerski
et al. (2011) as seizing those ideas that would potentially bring benefits to companies by solving
problems or generating innovations.
According to Sandstrom and Bjork, the nature of innovation itself has changed rapidly over
the years. For instance, instead of implementing incremental innovation companies now focus on
business model innovation or open innovation and these changes drive the demand for new idea
management systems (Sandstrom and Bjork, 2010). In regard to IM, Westerski et al. (2011)
dedicate their study to the analysis of idea management development over the years, emphasizing
the path idea management has gone through – from a box for pieces of paper with employees’
ideas to web 2.0 systems supported by heavy databases. The emergence of technologies such as
web-based collaboration platforms and social networks has transformed the former physical idea
suggestions tools into online IM systems. Such systems provide an opportunity for both internal
8
and external innovators to suggest ideas, rate ideas of others and discuss them online (Hrastinski
et al. 2010).
Vandenbosch et al. (2006) highlight the difference between human idea management system
and IT one, claiming that while the first one can exist and evolve by itself, the latter one needs
specific tools and careful management to be maintained. In this regard, Couhglan and Johnson
(2008) discuss how ideas are developed in companies and described several strategies and
techniques aimed at efficiently handling them. Selart and Johansen (2011) take another perspective
on idea management classification and identify value-focused and alternative thinking within this
system, pointing out that the first one has a positive impact on the quality of ideas, although
substantially lowers their amount overall. Shani and Divyapriya (2011) take a more holistic
approach towards idea management analysis basing their research on a life-cycle of innovation.
Bassiti and Ajhoun (2013) further develop this idea and conclude there are 4 constituents of the
above-mentioned cycle, including idea generation, evaluation, implementation, and links.
Dhodapkar (2012) suggests a similar approach towards IM structure, introducing front-end, backend, reporting and ideas’ capturing parts of the process. Front-end he defines as instruments of
collecting ideas, which include brainstorming, email-based as well as web- and intranet-based
infrastructures; back-end, in his opinion, is mainly concerned with identification and prioritization
of high-value ideas; reporting deals with evaluation of effectiveness of idea management systems,
for instance, amount of ideas submitted versus a task, number of individuals engages, etc.; finally,
ideas’ capturing is referred to as means towards encouraging boundless idea generation process,
developing the brightest ones and generally making this activity appealing for any individuals
involved.
Brem et al. (2007) were among the first ones of researchers who considered external parties
as sources of ideas for companies, emphasizing the importance of an integrated idea management
system. Later researches focus on the investigation of distinctively internal and external idea
sources. While Zejnilovic et al. (2009) explore approaches to engaging companies’ employees to
submit their radical ideas to IM systems and ways of increasing the rate of their successful
implementation, Bothos et al. (2012) highlight the importance of bringing external parties to idea
creation process, and clearly show benefits of such a tool, namely reducing time and costs of this
process by providing this opportunity outside the company. Enkel et al. (2009) develops above-
9
mentioned researchers and sees the Internet as a great opportunity for bringing internal and external
idea sources together.
The importance of specific tools regulating idea management and providing its high levels of
efficiency was recognized as a hot topic among academics in the beginning of the 21st century.
Nilsson et al. (2002) more than a decade ago investigated this area and came up with
recommendations towards increasing innovation capacity of companies via idea management
system. Hrastinski et al. (2010) more recently devote their work to the analysis of existing
technologies aimed at supporting idea management and conclude that IT systems may not be
sufficient at initial stages of developing ideas. Having suggested one of the first classifications of
idea management systems, namely “active” and “passive” ones, emphasize that the most efficient
IM systems result from simultaneous use of real life and web-based idea creation processes.
1.2 Open Innovation
Even though the idea and some of the concepts of Open Innovation date back as far as the
1960s, the term itself was promoted in 2003 by Henry Chesbrough, a professor at Haas Business
School, University of California. The term then referred to a paradigm that assumed that
companies should seek help of external parties in parallel to internal innovation processes in their
search for new ideas (Chesbrough, 2011). He saw Open Innovation as a knowledge-flow (inbound
and outbound) with a goal to accelerate internal innovation. Recent scholars interpret the term in
a slightly different way. For instance, they suggest that by opening up the innovation process, firms
can make greater use of external knowledge and collaborate with a variety of external parties.
(Mortara and Minshall, 2011) Joe Tidd claims that Open Innovation means that companies should
“acquire valuable resources from external firms and share internal resources for new product
development (Tidd, 2014).
It is clear that the interpretations of the term vary in a sense that some claim that it is a
knowledge-flow, other choose to view it as resource acquisition. Additionally, one group of
scholars puts an emphasis on collaboration between organizations or firms while another does not
limit the concept of “external parties” to companies, but rather broadens it to users, partners,
suppliers, etc. In general, under the open innovation, firms search for knowledge or resources more
broadly and deeply, across different external parties (Garriga, von Krogh, & Spaet, 2013).
10
In order to understand fully the definition of Open Innovation, it is crucial to compare it to
the opposite, Closed Innovation concept. Visual comparison of these two models is represented on
Figure 1. Closed Innovation assumes that the whole innovation process should be kept and
controlled only internally, e.g. by hiring the smartest employees, keeping new products in a secret,
etc. Thus, in companies that have closed innovation processes, all stages of new product
development never leave the companies’ boundaries (Chesbrough, 2006).
Figure 1 Closed Innovation versus Open Innovation (adapted from Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke and West,
2006)
Under the Open Innovation, on the contrary, external parties are included in the early stage
of R&D process. Such integration of new stakeholders opens up the innovation funnel, and new
innovative ideas or perspectives flow into the innovation process of the company. Terwiesch and
Ulrich argue that profitable innovation does not come from increasing R&D investments, but from
identifying a larger amount of opportunities (Terwiesch and Ulrich, 2009). In this sense, the
innovation potential increases as more parties are involved in the process (Leimeister et al., 2009).
While initially studies devoted to open innovation were mainly concerned with high-tech
industries, Chesbrough and Crowther (2006) later claimed that it could be applied to other
industries, too. Chesbrough (2011) also argues that the use of open innovation will eventually lead
to organizational business models’ development aimed at opening up towards an external
environment in order to create value more efficiently. Perkmann and Walsh (2007) take another
perspective and investigate relationships between industries and universities from an open
innovation perspective, resulting in a distinct framework focused on differences of universityindustry and other business partnerships. Enkel et al. (2009) further point out that outbound open
11
innovation has undeservedly lacked attention of academics, and insist both inbound and outbound
innovation processes should coexist simultaneously and compete with each other.
According to West et al. (2014), who have recently summarized academic findings
regarding open innovation, this approach has been highly beneficial for the companies using it in
the past years. Paul Sloane (2011) respectively gives examples of P&G, aimed at bringing 50% of
innovations through open innovation, and Kimberly-Clark that has escalated the process of
launching new products by 30% via the same approach. In his book “A guide to open innovation
and crowdsourcing” (Sloane, 2011), he also defines four types of open innovation:
1. Suggestive/participative – encouraging people to submit their ideas and further
choosing the best out of those;
2. Suggestive/invitational – engaging specific individuals, teams or companies in creating
ideas regarding broad topics;
3. Directed/invitational – engaging specific individuals, teams or companies in tackling
particular business challenges;
4. Directed/participative – encouraging people to submit their suggestions and proposals
regarding particular business challenges.
He further explains that in order to choose the most appropriate of one of the abovementioned approaches it is crucial for the company to firstly have a clear view of its internal
strategy and understand what it wants to achieve with open innovation.
1.3 Crowdsourcing
Being a relatively recent concept, “crowdsourcing” emerged from the words “crowd” and
“outsourcing”. It has been introduced as a specific model in which organizations use the crowd to
obtain new knowledge or conduct services traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually
an employee) (Howe, 2006). Crowdsourcing can be used in different stages of organization’s
innovation process, e.g. ideas generation, product development, product design, marketing, etc.
(Šundić and Leitner, 2013). In 2012 researchers from the Technical University of Valencia put an
effort to summarize more than 200 definitions of the term “crowdsourcing”. They achieved the
following explanation: “…a type of participative online activity in which an individual, an
12
institution, a non-profit organization, or a company proposes to a group of individuals of varying
knowledge, heterogeneity, and number, via a flexible open call, the voluntary undertaking of a
task” (Estellés-Arolas and González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, 2012).
Howe (2006) identifies three main constituents of crowdsourcing process:
1. Users are not only consumers, but producers – for instance, consumers go to the website of the
company not only to gain more information about the products or services or purchase them
but to actually contribute to production process;
2. Number of users is undefined – amount of people involved in crowdsourcing is not fixed
initially and emerges during the process;
3. Efforts of users are directed towards particular task – a so-called “open call” is a necessary
starting point of any crowdsourcing process, stating a specific request from the company to
potential users.
The opportunity creation process within the crowdsourcing session is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Opportunity creation process (adapted from Terwiesch and Ulrich 2009)
Crowdsourcing creates a flow of “raw opportunities” of ideas that need to pass the quality
hurdle set by the organization. Exceptional opportunities are rare, and therefore a significant
number of ideas need to be generated by the crowd before the extraordinary one emerges
(Terwiesch and Ulrich 2009). The larger the number of participants in crowdsourcing sessions, the
more diverse views will emerge. More diversity increases chances to obtain innovative ideas
(Saldivar et al. 2016).
Blohm et al. (2013) indicate two types of crowdsourcing:
13
1. Competitive – collecting and transmitting independent solutions;
2. Collaborative – developing a common solution in a collective way.
Howe (2008) suggests another classification:
•
Crowd wisdom – creating a network of people possessing particular knowledge and
providing them with respective opportunities to share it;
•
Crowd creation – creating opportunities for individuals to create their own content, such
as photos, videos, papers, etc.;
•
Crowd voting – engaging people to share their judgement regarding particular topics or
issues;
•
Crowd funding – using personal fund of individuals instead of those possessed by banks
and other financial institutions.
The popularity of crowdsourcing can be explained by its benefits. First, crowdsourcing is a
relatively inexpensive and easy way to obtain ideas (compared to internal idea generation process).
Second, the level of subjectivity can be reduced significantly as “the crowd” represents the
diversity of knowledge, experience, and opinions compared to internal teams. Participants can
think out of the box and generate distant ideas. Finally, the perception of crowdsourcing,
companies think of it as a way to identify trends, gain an understanding of the market or confirm
its business intentions (de Vreede et al. 2013).
Also, the idea of mutual benefit shared between crowdsources and crowdsourcees appears to
be appealing. Besides tackling an unsolvable inbound issue via external resources, companies may
enrich their brand visibility (Ye and Kankanhalli, 2015). Participants, on the other hand, may be
motivated by remuneration as well as self-development and recognition among respective
individuals and/or companies. While some researchers try to evaluate user engagement from an
experience-based perspective (Pedersen et al., 2013), it seems that their papers lack holistic
approach towards assessing participants’ engagement within whole crowdsourcing process.
Although crowdsourcing is recognized among academics as a part of well-studied open
innovation approach (Wikhamn and Wikhamn, 2013), the number of papers devoted to the
discussion of the phenomenon of crowdsourcing is still surprisingly low (Hossain and Kauranen,
2015). While above-mentioned Estellés-Arolas and González-Ladrón-de-Guevara (2012) succeed
14
in defining it and Zhao and Zhu (2012) make a review of existing literature, many issues concerned
with crowdsourcing, such as applications, benefits, risks, etc., are yet to be explored by researchers.
Marjanovic et al. (2012) make an attempt to point out potential risks of crowdsourcing,
claiming that in order to use this approach companies often need to expose their particular
weakness or disclose a vector for further development, which could be used not in their favor by
competitors. Franklin et al. (2011) underline another limitation of crowdsourcing, stating that
external individuals engaged have different levels of expertise and motivation, which could lead
to unsatisfying results of such a practice.
15
2. IDEA COMPETITION AND ITS CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR
2.1 Idea competitions
Idea competitions is one of the promising tools for leveraging open innovation and
crowdsourcing (Leimeister et al., 2009). Idea contests are usually conducted through internetbased platforms or websites where companies collect, evaluate and reward innovative ideas or
problem solutions submitted by customers or the general public. Therefore, it is also a tool that
fosters idea management.
An open idea competition works as the following: an organizer (traditionally called a seeker)
sets a topic or a question, defines the time-frame, and invites “the crowd” to participate in the
ideation process. When participants (called solvers) submit their ideas, other participants have a
chance to discuss them. Subsequently, a pre-defined committee evaluates submitted ideas and
rewards a winner or a number of winners (Ebner et al., 2008). One of the first major works focused
exclusively on idea competitions was written by Christian Terwiesch and Karl Ulrich in 2009. In
their book, they argue that “innovation tournaments” or idea competitions embody the Darwinian
principle of survival of the fittest. They compare idea competition with the show “American Idol”:
many participants compete, but only “the fittest” survives (Terwiesch and Ulrich 2009).
One of the well-recognized idea competition heritage is provided by MIT, and their founders
quite distinctively describe the motivation behind the organization of such challenges. It is fair to
say that proposed classification could be easily applied to general idea competitions and their
participants. 5 primary goals of idea competitions as described by respective MIT representatives
are the following:
•
To promote participants’ inventiveness and entrepreneurship;
•
To expose participants to real-world problem solving;
•
To provide resources to implement plans and products that meet community/company
needs;
•
To increase awareness of community/company needs;
•
To empower individuals with the knowledge that they can make a difference in the world
(Smith et al., 2003).
16
Idea competitions have proved to be an effective instrument of idea generation process
engaging both inbound and outbound specialist (Gassman and Enkel, 2006). As a consequence of
that, at some point companies have actually faced an urge for attracting individuals to their
particular challenges, and a competition for participants has emerged (Fuller, 2009). Thus, it
became clear for organizers of idea competitions that in order to obtain a necessary number of
ideas submitted and provide the required quality of those, they should be able to successfully attract
individuals to taking part in challenges and maintain their high level of engagement with the
process during the whole time the competition takes place.
Following this logic, investigation of motives leading individuals to participate in idea
competitions has become a hot topic among academics about a decade ago. Primarily, basic
remuneration and firm recognition were taken into consideration by researchers as drivers of
participants’ engagement (Morgan and Wang, 2010; Leimeister et al., 2009). Nevertheless, it was
soon realized that these drivers may actually have a negative impact on individuals’ willingness to
give an idea competition a try and, most importantly, to rejoin the challenge later on (Fuller, 2006).
Fuller (2006) further develops this idea, basing his research on the self-determination theory of
Deci and Ryan (2000), who identify extrinsic and intrinsic incentives of individuals. Referring to
above-mentioned financial and organizational rewards as extrinsic means of engagement, Fuller
(2006) claims that they are not sufficient for providing a required level of participants’
engagement. Quite on the contrary, organizers of idea competitions, in his opinion, should take a
closer look at intrinsic incentives, which, in case of being tackled appropriately, according to
Bretschneider et al. (2012) study, result in increased amount of ideas submitted, their quality and
willingness of individuals taking part to rejoin new challenges of companies. Morgan and Wang
(2010) summarize above-mentioned academic proposals and define 4 crucial elements of idea
competitions’ design that their organizers should consider, namely the interdependency of
participants’ performance, the innovative nature of the problem, the heterogeneity of participants’
abilities, and the importance of secrecy.
Authors provide many historical examples of offline idea competitions. In the 18th century,
British government initiated the competition for breakthroughs in the measurement of time and
navigation principles. In the 19th century, the grand prize of 100,000 franks was offered by the
French Academy to those contestants who would discover a way to produce soda from sea water.
Charles Lindbergh won the Orteig Prize of 25,000 by crossing the Atlantic for the first time in
17
1927. In 2004 Mojave Aerospace Ventures received 10 million USD from X-Prize Foundation for
the suborbital spaceflight by their SpaceShipOne (Terwiesch and Ulrich 2009).
One of the first documented successful examples of open online idea competitions is Netflix
Prize initiated in 2006. Netflix Prize was an open competition for the best collaborative algorithm
that could predict users’ ranking for films based on their past rankings (with no other information
given, e.g. without identification of users or exact films). In 2009 the grand prize of 1 million USD
was awarded to the team that could improve the Netflix’ internal algorithm Cinematch by more
than 10% ("Netflix Prize", 2017).
2.2 Participants’ engagement as a critical success factor for idea competition
Whenever individuals are involved in a certain activity, participants’ engagement becomes the
primary subject of investigation. Idea competitions can be successful only if participants are highly
engaged in the process (de Vreede et al. 2013).
De Vreede has developed a model of user engagement in idea competitions as shown in Figure
3. According to his study, there are three factors that drive user engagement: Personal Interest in
Topic, Motivation to Contribute and Goal Clarity.
Figure 3 Model of user engagement in open collaboration crowdsourcing (adapted from de Vreede et al.,
2013)
Personal Interest in Topic
According to de Vreede, the first important factor that drives the engagement of participants
in idea competitions is personal interest. If users are not interested in the topic of the competition,
there is a small chance that they will achieve significant results. Scholars divide personal interest
18
into two categories: topical interest (or topic-based interest) and situational interest (Flowerday,
Schraw and Stevens 2004). Topic-based interest stable as it is developed for a longer period of
time through personal experience and emotions. For instance, it can be an interest in the particular
industry, technology or a company associated with the person’s day-to-day activity. Situational
interest is rather short-term: it depends on a context and is environmentally activated and might
disappear as quickly as it occurs. Situational interest is a useful tool to “catch” users’ attention
while topic-based interest can assist in holding the attention over time (de Vreede et al. 2013).
Motivation to Contribute
Another factor that contributes to user engagement is motivation to contribute. Leimeister was
one of the first researchers to investigate participants’ motivation behind participation in idea
competitions. Leimeister analyzed solvers’ motivation behind participation and identified four
categories: direct compensation, learning, self-marketing and social motives (Leimeister et al.,
2009). While conducting his study on a crowdsourcing platform Threadless in 2010, Brabham has
conducted 17 interviews with solvers and came to similar conclusions. According to his studies,
participants’ motives were: the opportunity to make money, the opportunity to develop creative
skills, the potential to find additional work and job opportunities, and the positive attitudes toward
the community involved (Brabham, 2010). In 2011 a group of scholars analyzed data from 283
contest solvers from Chinese crowdsourcing platforms and found out that motivation to gain
monetary rewards and motivation to gain recognition had different effects on participation
intention, moreover, intrinsic motivation was more critical in inducing the motivation (Zheng, Li
and Hou, 2011).
Goal Clarity
Goal clarity is the third factor described by de Vreede as a driver of user engagement. Goal
clarity is an ability to set precise, well-defined and specific targets that all stakeholders understand
and can work towards achieving (Sawyer 1992). Studies conducted by Bipp and Kleingeld show
that goal clarity increases participants’ commitment towards the goal. Communities and teams are
also more successful if goals are well-defined from the beginning of the process or a project (Bipp
and Kleingeld 2011). In the context of open crowdsourcing collaboration or idea competitions, in
particular, goal clarity means the extent to which companies make it clear what participants are
19
expected to do and what they can gain as a reward. In their studies, Zheng, Li and Hou prove that
well-defined tasks increase intrinsic motivation of participants (Zheng, Li and Hou, 2011).
However, de Vreede argues that goal clarity alone is not a sufficient factor that enables user
engagement in idea competitions, it can rather be an addition to personal interest and motivation
to contribute (de Vreede et al. 2013).
2.3 Research Gap
Idea competition is a relatively new tool used by firms that are keen to open their innovation
funnels to engage external bright minds in their R&D processes. There are many examples of
successfully implemented ideas competitions, however, the topic is still underinvestigated.
While discussing her findings, de Vreede states that even though her user engagement model
is one of the first to be developed, it is not “complete”. She suggests that in future researchers can
discover, add and describe additional factors that influence user engagement in idea competitions,
and the model can be re-designed and expanded (de Vreede et al. 2013).
The concept of engagement itself is a new perspective in analyzing relationships between the
stakeholders within the process or a project. Developing a better understanding of crowdsourcing
experience and the associated mechanisms of engagement may help practitioners to improve
existing interactions and platforms used in crowdsourcing sessions (Aitamurto, Landemore and
Saldivar Galli 2016).
In 2017 Julia Troll and Ivo Blohm from University of St. Gallen conducted a single-case study
on a crowdsourcing project initiated by a leading insurance company from Switzerland. Even
though the research is a pilot study that provides valuable insights, they recommend conducting
multiple case studies to identify more engagement-driving mechanisms (Troll and Blohm, 2017).
20
3. RESEARCH DESIGN
3.1 Research Question
A literature review has revealed a research gap between existing studies and needs of
practitioners. The goal of the thesis is to update de Vreede’s model of participants’ engagement in
idea competitions. There is a limited number of case studies on idea competitions focusing
specifically on participants’ engagement, and therefore, the exploratory nature of this study has
been justified.
In order to identify additional factors that drive participants’ engagement in idea competitions
the following research question was stated:
Which factors influence user engagement in idea competitions?
To identify factors driving engagement in idea competitions it is crucial to explore and
describe the whole ecosystem of idea competitions, e.g. relationships between participants, roles
of stakeholders, platform characteristics, etc. Thus, the following subquestions need to be
addressed in order to answer the proposed research question:
-
How are idea competition platforms designed?
-
How are activities (e.g. discussions, idea submission, idea evaluation) organized?
-
What are the roles of stakeholders involved in idea competitions?
-
Why do solvers decide to participate in idea competitions?
-
What do solvers gain from participating in idea competitions?
-
What is the ecosystem of idea competitions?
The research will be based on a collection of both primary and secondary qualitative data. The
more detailed description of research methodology is introduced later in this chapter.
3.2 Research Methodology
Exploratory nature of the proposed research implies that the most appropriate method would
be multiple-case study research.
21
There is no easy explanation of what case study is, and therefore this particular research
method is difficult to describe. Several definitions of case studies have been introduced over the
years. Robert K. Yin is the most cited scholar in terms of case study research method definitions.
According to Yin, the case study needs to be described from two perspectives: scope of case study
and features of case study. From the scope perspective, “…a case study is an empirical enquiry
that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-world context, especially
when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident”. From the
features perspective, “…a case study enquiry copes with the technically distinctive situation in
which there will be many more variables of interest than data points and as one result relies on
multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion, and as
another result benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data
collection and analysis” (Yin 2012).
Case study approach allows gathering deeper information on relationships, opinions, beliefs
and human behaviors. Compared to survey approach, it allows a higher degree of adaptability for
the interviewer: the researcher can direct the respondent’s attention on the matter that is important
for the study (Miles and Huberman 1984). One of the more recent definitions of the case study as
a research method is provided by Creswell: “The case study method “explores a real-life,
contemporary bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through
detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information…” (Creswell 2013).
To justify the suitability of the chosen research method, let us go back to Yin’s description of
case study research method. Yin states that there are three key requirements that should be met in
order to justify the suitability of case studies research method.
First, research questions and subquestions of the study should be focused mainly on “how”
and “why” which proves the explanatory nature of the research. For this kind of research, case
studies approach is considered to be the most suitable.
Secondly, the study should investigate an innovative and contemporary event or a setting indepth. Due to the innovativeness of the proposed research, other methods are unlikely to be
reliable. Case-study evidence will highlight real-life events and demonstrate the execution of new
specific features. It is also suggested that the case study method is highly applicable to those areas
22
or topics that are underinvestigated or if there are no publications available on the matter
(Eisenhartd 1989).
Third, if the case studies method is used, qualitative data gathered cannot be manipulated: the
researcher will observe the events or a setting, analyze relevant information and communicate with
only those highly involved in the process.
The aim of this research is to update the model of engagement in idea competition proposed
by de Vreede. The topic is innovative from several angles. The field of crowdsourcing and open
collaboration is still considered to be underinvestigated. Idea competition is a relatively new tool
that draws attention of companies that are eager to open up their innovation funnel and seek for
new techniques to obtain innovative ideas. Moreover, the concept of engagement itself is a new
perspective in analyzing relationships between the stakeholders within the process or a project.
Even though the main research question starts with “what”, subquestions beginning with “how”
and “why” are needed to be answered to describe the phenomena in detail. In this study, only
relevant cases of idea competitions will be observed and only those highly engaged in the
respective contests will be interviewed.
This research uses the inductive approach meaning that it begins with collecting data and
observation on each case and further the generalization of theories will follow. The inductive
approach is used in qualitative studies as it suggests development of theory based on analysis of a
real-life case. On the contrary, deductive approach means creating hypotheses and confirming
them with quantitative data. As we need to develop a new theory regarding factors influencing
engagement in idea competitions, the inductive approach has been chosen as a suitable one.
The study will follow a multiple-case study design. There are several points of view on
whether single case study or multiple case studies should be used. One of the benefits of multiple
case studies approach is that scholar can analyze information within each situation and across
various situations. The researcher can understand differences and similarities across cases and
therefore assess the setting from various perspectives. Another advantage of multiple case studies
over single case studies is that the evidence generated is considered to be more robust and therefore
more reliable. When the suggestions made by the writer are proved with different empirical
evidence, the research results in a more convincing theory (Yin 2012).
23
Information gathered on several idea competitions will provide an evidence on a bigger range
of factors that influence engagement. By conducting a multiple case study research, we will
decrease the subjectivity factor that might appear in a single case study due to specifics of industry,
type or a size of the contest. Julia Troll and Ivo Blohm who conducted a single case study on
engagement patterns in open collaboration setting of Swiss insurance company also recommend
conducting a multiple case studies research to gather additional data on engagement-driving
mechanisms (Troll and Blohm 2017).
3.3 Data collection process
Case selection for the purposes of current research is based on purposive criteria. (Emmel
2013) Yin suggests that for multiple-case studies each case must follow the replication logic and
not the sampling logic. This means that each case must be carefully selected so that it either a)
predicts similar results (e.g. replication) or b) predicts contrasting results but for an anticipatable
reason (Yin 2012).
Idea competition platforms pre-selected for interviews and research are all ongoing, they all
have their online presence and all are successful (there is an evidence that ideas were generated
and the participants were rewarded). Thus, the results are expected to be similar. Even if
differences are revealed, they are expected to be explained by industry specifics or other factors
that will be discovered during the interview phase. In order to reduce a subjectivity factor that
might appear due to specifics of a certain industry, the pre-selected idea competitions deal with
different industries: toy industry, IT industry, construction industry and multiple industries.
Additionally, chosen idea competitions differ in terms of size and platform design.
Four idea competition platforms are suggested for the stated research purposes: LEGO Ideas,
Innosite, HYVE Crowd and Telegram Challenge. The study will be based on both secondary and
primary data. Secondary data on each case will be collected from various sources: contest pages,
community platforms, blogs, published interviews articles and studies. Short description of each
of the investigated ideas contests platforms is stated below.
LEGO Ideas – toy industry
24
LEGO Ideas is a crowdsourcing platform where individuals or teams can create models with
LEGO bricks, take photos, and write project descriptions. If the submitted model gets more than
10,000 supporters, it qualifies the project for review. LEGO review board then chooses which
project becomes a new LEGO set. Peter Espersen, head of community co-creation at Lego, states
that annually the company receives more than 20 thousand model ideas from participants. (Davidi,
2014). The winner of the contest is featured in brick sets materials, obtains a royalty on the set’s
sales (1%), and is recognized as the product creator. The last project that came into life was NASA
Apollo Saturn V created by two enthusiasts, and it is available in stores from June 2017
(Ideas.lego.com, 2017).
Innosite – construction industry
Innosite is an open innovation platform created by Danish Energy Agency and Realdania and
operated by Danish Architecture Centre. The platform allows seekers from Danish construction
industry to set up a contest and invite users and experts in the development field to submit their
ideas. So far, 25 contests were initiated by various seekers: developers, ministries, city councils,
etc. Each contest has its own prize, it can be either monetary rewards ranging from 15,000 DKK
to 50,000 DKK (USD 2000 – 8000 approx.) or non-monetary rewards, for example, bicycles
(Innosite.dk, 2017).
HYVE Crowd Contest platform – multiple industries
The goal of this crowdsourcing platform is to “bring creative minds, makers, doers, and experts
together on one table, to ensure the best innovative solutions and ideas for the tasks of the clients”.
In this way, companies can get access to external experts that can take part on projects all along
the entire value chain. Contests published on Hyve Crowd platform are dealing with such subjects
as design, innovation, and co-creation. By September 2017, 133 contests were initiated, 97663
participants were engaged and $1.1 million was awarded to the winners in total (Hyvecrowd.net,
2017).
Telegram Challenge – IT industry
Telegram is a free, non-profit instant messenger, created by Pavel Durov (former founder of
Vkontakte) in 2013. Over the past four years, Telegram has organized numerous contests
associated with the messenger’s design, security and chat bots. In this research, we will focus on
25
Telegram’s latest crowdsourcing contest “Instant Views Contest” initiated in May 2017
(Telegram, 2017).
Using secondary data available we will be able to identify how each of the platforms is
designed in terms of engagement, e.g. what activities are involved, what kinds of relationships
exist, how participants are classified and how communities are structured. Additionally, general
information will be gathered and we will be able to discover how competitions are managed from
the seekers’ perspective and what incentive systems are used by organizers.
Primary data will be collected in two stages through interviews with participants involved in
the idea competitions. At the first stage, we will reveal additional factors influencing engagement
in idea competitions by analyzing “buzzwords” from interviews. These “buzzwords” will be
categorized in groups, and factors will be discovered. After the model of engagement will be
updated, the second round of interviews will take place to confirm the validity of the model.
The interview guideline uses open questions with an aim to gather relevant information need
for the research. The interviewees will be found in communities of above-mentioned idea
competitions. All respondents should be highly involved in respective idea competitions, and this
can be defined by a number of ideas submitted, comments, time on a platform, participation in
discussions, evaluations and other characteristics.
26
4. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
4.1 Results of the study
4.1.1 Analysis of idea competitions platforms
The information on each of the analyzed idea competition platforms is presented below.
LEGO Ideas
General Information
LEGO Ideas is an idea competition platform run by Chaordix and Lego Group that allows
users submit their ideas for Lego products that can be potentially manufactured and sold by Lego.
The project was initiated in 2008 as a spin-off to a Japanese website Cuusoo.
Process
Users submit their ideas by writing a description and attaching an image of a model that
demonstrates the concept. As soon as the idea is submitted, it appears on Lego Ideas website and
becomes available for Lego Ideas community. The aim of each project submitted is to gather
10,000 votes which clear the model for review by Lego board. Lego review board consists of
designers and marketing specialists that assess each idea according to the internal criteria.
Participants have 2 years to reach the required number of votes, and in case the condition is not
fulfilled, the project is withdrawn. All eligible projects are reviewed in order of reaching the 10,000
votes within the deadlines in May, September, and January.
Initially, there was no restriction in terms of ideas that can be potentially submitted. However,
Lego changed that rule stating that the replicas of real-life weapons, projects based on third-party
licenses are not allowed. Some of the projects may be rejected due to specific intellectual property
issues.
If the reviewed product is cleared for production by Lego board, it is developed by Lego R&D
team and subsequently produced with a “Lego Ideas” label. Those who designed the produced sets
receive 10 copies of the model created and 1% royalty on the set’s net sales. Currently, 18 Lego
Ideas models have been produced, and 21 more are announced.
Platform design
27
Lego Ideas platform consists of 5 segments: “Discover”, “How it works”, “Submit”,
“Community” and “Blog”.
On “Discover” page all of the submitted projects are listed (1845 in total on September 2,
2017). Each project has a name, an image, the name of the user submitted the idea, the number of
votes collected and the deadline for gathering supporters. All ideas can be filtered by categories,
tags, time or staff picks. They can be also sorted by a number of comments, votes, and followers.
If you click on a project, the detailed description with all the attached images appears. Users can
“follow” the project and track the updates of the chosen idea.
“How it works” page explains the mechanisms of Lego Ideas with a video and written
description. Additionally, all the guidelines, rules and rewards can be found in this section.
Via “Submit” section users can propose their models. Video instructions can be found on this
page including tips on how to take a photo of a set. There are also written instructions, for instance,
“…keep it short, simple, and attention-grabbing” or “…photos must be well-lit with your model
against a neutral (or non-distracting) background”. For the images part, all kinds of pictures such
as 3D renderings or hand drawings are allowed.
On the “Community” page all of the Lego Ideas participants are listed (more than 830,000 on
September 2, 2017) with nicknames and short introductions. Detailed profiles are available with
contact information (Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin), description of all the projects submitted by a
user, followers, etc. Additionally, the number of submitted ideas, comments, and votes given by a
user is indicated.
“Blog” is the section moderated by internal Lego Ideas team. Posts include interviews with
those users who have reached 10,000 votes, information about conferences and competition
updates.
Activities
Users are involved in the following activities: submitting ideas, supporting projects by voting,
discussing projects (suggesting improvements or expressing their opinions), and following
particular projects or creators of projects.
28
HyveCrowd Contest Platform
General Information
HyveCrowd Contest Platform was created by HYVE Innovation Community GmbH, the
company that is located in Munich, Germany. HYVE focuses on innovation consulting, conceptual
design, managing innovation and co-creation. The aim of HyveCrowd Contest Platform is to
provide an opportunity for creative minds to develop innovative ideas. This community should
become a focal point of exchanging innovative ideas. According to HyveCrowd, 97,663
participants were involved in the ideation process and 1,5 million USD was awarded in prizes.
(Hyvecrowd.net 2017)
Process
HYVE launches its own challenges mostly in the sphere of innovations, for instance, “Robotic
Challenge 4.0”, “UV LED idea challenge” or “From Space to Earth - Carbon Composites Contest”.
External contests are also listed on HyveCrowd platform including “Frankfurt Airport Challenge”
initiated by Fraport AG, “Rethinking Kids’ Medication” by pharmaceutical company AbbVie,
“Audi sound plus” by Audi, and many others in various fields. In total 133 contests (internal and
external) were initiated and 121,861 ideas were submitted. (Hyvecrowd.net 2017) Timeline of
competitions is defined by contest’s organizers, and idea reviews are also done by initiators.
Prizes provided for winners vary depending on a contest: monetary awards (range of EUR
1,500 – 10,000), a percentage of net sales or even laptops, participation in conferences, etc.
Platform design
There are 5 sections on HyveCrowd platform: “Home”, “Contests”, “Community”, “Blog”
and “About Us”.
“Home” part shows overall statistics of the platforms: number of campaigns, submissions,
participants, prize money and visitors. Additionally, an overview of continuing and past contests
is provided.
“Contests” page presents all of the contests, and the user can choose from ongoing and current
competitions. Previews of contests are listed with names of contests, end dates and prizes. If you
click a button “visit the contest page” a more detailed description is shown alongside with the
29
timeline of the contest. Here all the submitted ideas can be viewed, evaluated and discussed.
Registered users have an opportunity to submit their ideas.
“Community” section is divided in two: members and wall of fame. Besides solvers’ profiles,
HyveCrowd team members’ pages can be found as well. Each profile includes a number of
messages, comments and idea submissions. Contact information is also presented if a person
wishes to include such: location, Facebook, e-mail, personal website, etc.
“Blog” is devoted to updates on competitions, either launching, ending or finished.
Additionally, information regarding upcoming workshops or HYVE projects results and other
news are presented.
“About us” is an introduction page that includes the idea behind the contests platform,
information about HYVE as a company and an invitation to register.
Activities
Users of HyveCrowd platform are engaged submission of ideas, discussions of others’ ideas
and evaluations. The platform also provides an opportunity of sending messages to other members
of community internally.
Innosite
General information
Innosite is an open innovation platform that connects players with a need for innovation with
people who have creative ideas. The website is an initiative of Danish Energy Agency in
collaboration with Realdania. Currently, it is administrated by Danish Architecture Centre. The
goal of Innosite is to explore and further advance a dynamic innovation environment within the
construction industry in Denmark and to encourage dialogue across professionals, organizations
and creative minds. The platform is opened also to those outside of construction industry allowing
companies to introduce tenders and contests, share ideas and inspire others with new innovational
techniques. (Innosite.dk, 2017)
Process
30
Innosite acts as an integrator of contests mostly in construction, urban development, and clean
tech industries. Various organizations including developers, ministries and city councils initiate
their contests on the above-mentioned topics, for example, “Culture Park – Creation of tomorrow’s
city park in Hedehusene” by Hedehusene Town Centre, “Solar dreams” launched by solar panel
producer Bolius or “Accessible Everyday” – a competition for designing level-free entrances,
introduced by Danish Architects’ Association, etc.
Most of the seekers provide monetary prizes in a range of 15,000 DKK - 50,000 DKK (USD
2000 – 8000 approx.), however some organizers reward winner with bicycles or opportunities to
present their idea on exhibitions, conferences, etc. Juries are representatives of contest initiators
and are clearly stated by names on the contest page. Criteria differ from competition to competition
and are also shown on the page.
Platform Design
Innosite has 6 sections: “Home”, “Contests”, “All Ideas”, “Community”, “Info” and “Events”.
“Home” page gives users an idea what contest is about mentioning newest competitions and
recent idea submissions. Latest discussions are also listed within the section.
“Contests” section includes snippets of contests in order of updates. For those competitions
that are already finished, winners appear on snippets. Detailed information on a challenge appears
if users click on each snippet.
“All Ideas” section list all the submissions by solvers, and can be filtered by date of
submission, number of comments, vies or rankings.
“Community” page has a list of profiles. Not only solvers are presented on this page, Innosite
team members are also included in the community together with “experts” who are representatives
of seekers. Team members and experts have the respective labels on their profile pictures. Users
have an opportunity to write a short description about themselves and add contact information.
Users’ activities such as comments and ideas are shown in this section.
“Info” includes the description of the Innosite platform and provides information about how
contests are structured and what is the idea behind this competition platform.
31
Innosite organizes events in Denmark, and the information regarding such affairs is presented
on the “Events” page. Events vary from award ceremonies and exhibitions to conferences and
meetings.
Activities
Users of Innosite can participate in the range of activities such as idea submission, discussions
and offline meetings. They do not have a possibility to evaluate others’ ideas.
Telegram InstantView Challenge
General Information
Telegram InstantView Challenge was organized by Telegram, a non-profit cloud-based
messaging service. The competition was initiated in summer 2017, just recently the winners were
announced and awards were granted to winners (as of September 4, 2017). InstantView Challenge
is an open crowdsourcing competition where users can create templates and check them for bugs
(technical issues). Templates are instructions that allow Telegram servers process articles from all
over the internet and convert them into light-weight versions to be displayed to messengers’
clients. ("Contest - Instant View" 2017) Telegram has already announced their plans to start the
second phase of InstantView Challenge in the upcoming months.
Process
The aim of the contest is creating a significant number of high-quality templates using the
Telegram image editor before the challenge ends. The first participant to submit the valid and
working template for a pre-selected website receives from 50 to 100 USD. This amount is
multiplied by a number of winning templates submitted by solvers. A grand winner is a person
who submits the highest number of valid templates (without significant technical issues). The
grand winner receives 10,000 USD in addition to the amount awarded for individual templates
submitted by a user. For the second place, 5000 USD is awarded.
Anyone can assess results of the contest (not the code). If the viewer reveals technical issues
he or she can report them using a dedicated section. The author of the template can view the issues
32
discovered, fix them and re-submit the work. However, if another user submits the winning
template in the meantime, this is considered a winning submission.
Telegram jury will evaluate all of the bugs in order of reporting. After the contest is ended,
the same review board will also check all the winning templates manually to define if they are
valid. After all the templates are reviewed, the winner is announced.
Platform Design
Telegram InstantView Challenge has 4 sections: “Intro”, “Contest”, “Rules” and “Checklist”.
Recently, “Contest Winners” page was added to the platform.
“Intro” has an overview of the competition and the description of Telegram templates editor
with detailed instructions.
“Contest” page is the main section of the platform. The list of pre-selected domains is
provided, and users can select them and submit their work.
“Rules” section explains the submission process, reveals rewards and provides an explanation
of the templates review process. Additionally, criteria for valid templates are presented.
“Checklist” broadens the list of criteria for valid templates.
“Contest winners” page includes a list of winners with nicknames, number of submitted
templates, number of issues and the amount of money awarded.
There is no dedicated section for community profiles or discussion. However, on the social
network VKontakte, users created a dedicated thread in Telegram group to discuss all the troubles
associated with the contests.
Activities
Solvers that participate in Telegram InstantView Challenge can either submit their templates
using the dedicated editor or report the bugs found in submitted templates.
Overview of analyzed idea competitions platforms is presented in Figure 4.
33
Lego Ideas
Category / Idea competition
HyveCrowd Contests
Innosite
Telegram InstantView
Challenge
toy industry
multiple industries
construction, clean tech,
urban development
industries
IT industry
1, continuous
133
25
1, finished, next phase
announces
830000
97663
approx. 300
approx. 620
monetary
1% or model's net sales
1500 - 10000 EUR
depending on a contest
2000 - 8000 EUR
depending on a contest
no
non-monetary
10 copies of the model
laptops, conferences
participations etc.
depending on a contest
bicycles, conferences
participations etc.
depending on a contest
50-100 USD for each
template;
10000 USD grand prize;
5000 USD second place
Information on a contest
yes
yes
yes
yes
overview of all ideas
yes
no
yes
yes
idea submission
yes
yes
yes
yes
rules explanation
yes
on each contest page
on each contest page
yes
community
yes
yes
yes
no
blog
yes
yes
no
no
idea submission
yes
yes
yes
yes
idea evaluation
yes
yes
yes
only by reporting
technical issues
discussion
yes
yes
yes
only on social network
Vkontakte
messaging to other
members
no
yes
no
no
offline events
no
no
yes
no
Industry
Number of contests
Number of registered users
Prizes
Platform Design
Activities
Figure 4 Overview of analyzed idea competitions platforms (own elaboration)
4.1.2 First round of interviews
For the first round of interviews, 68 participants of all 4 analyzed idea competitions were
contacted, 12 responded, and 8 interviews were conducted in the end.
František Hajdekr participated in the LEGO Ideas competition because he was a fan of LEGO
and LEGO ideas was the only way to bring his idea into serial production. He wanted to present a
model to other LEGO fans. However, after not receiving enough support from peers, the
respondent decided not to submit any other ideas but to explore others’ models. Mr. Hajdekr found
some great designers and remains in a LEGO Ideas community as a “supporter” and “explorer”.
Another interviewee who wished to be anonymous was also a big fan of LEGO brand, and she
came across the platform (called CUUSOO at the time) accidentally. She was curious to see what
would happen if she submits her idea on a platform and saw the whole process as “an exciting
34
experiment”. The most important factor for her was to see how her own idea could potentially
become an official LEGO set that people could buy in stores (two of her models were actually
produced by LEGO, and she receives 1% royalty from its sales). Interestingly, even though the
respondent is a winner of the competition, she does not see LEGO Ideas as an idea competition
platform, but rather as a community of like-minded individuals. The biggest personal gain for the
interviewee was a positive career impact and the impact her set made: she got invited to speak
about her experience at many conferences around the globe.
Sumit Goski, participant of the HyveCrowd “From Space to Earth – Carbon Composites
Contest” competition stated that he decided to participate because he needed money and even
though he did not get the prize, he participated actively in discussions and gained more confidence
in the end because he had positive reviews from both peers and experts.
Hiten Chudasama, participant of another HyveCrowd idea competition, “Advanced UV for
Life”, explained that he joined the contest because he liked to design products and the concept of
design thinking. Additionally, the respondent found it reassuring that innovative ideas can take the
form of a product. On a question regarding his primary motivation to participate the Mr.
Chudasama mentioned three things: 1) he wanted to test his ability to create new products; 2) his
curiosity, and 3) prizes provided by organizers. As for factors that contributed to his engagement,
the respondent acknowledged the HyveCrowd platform’s characteristics: easiness to use,
smartness and simplicity. Additionally, he stated that his engagement pattern changed over time.
When someone would put a better idea, he would initially lose motivation to participate, however,
he could learn in the process, and generate new ideas which motivated him again.
Christiam Galluccio, who participated in Innosite’s contest, stated that his motivation was
purely financial, and as an experienced architect, he wanted to bring his idea to life. He won one
of the contests and gained a lot of experience during the process.
Andrey Jelvakov chose to participate in Telegram InstantView Challenge for two reasons: 1)
financial reward; 2) interest in the technological side of InstantView as it helps users to save time
and money on the mobile Internet. Initially, organizers announced the prize of 100 USD for each
“winning template” and 2 USD for bugs found in the “winning template”. Mr. Jelvakov’s
motivation shifted overtime because organizers changed the conditions of the contest: participants
could receive money only if the amount is bigger than 200 USD. Thus, all other participants could
35
not receive any amount of prize money. He complained that participants needed to wait for 2
months after the contest ended for the announcement of winners. Additionally, there was no
support or information from organizers. It would be easier for the respondent if organizers could
update the website and inform participants so they could remain active in the community.
Artem Kolnogorov joined the Telegram InstantView Challenge out of “pure curiosity” as an
experienced Telegram User. The respondent is a developer, so he wanted to “play with the
technology”. He did not submit his template because he did not have enough time to work on it.
However, he helped other participants by answering their technical questions and participating in
the discussions.
Sergey Gnedin competed in Telegram InstantView Challenge because he was “bored”. The
respondent enjoyed both participating and observing others. He got so excited about the contest
that he created a Telegram channel where participants could discuss all the events and troubles
associated with the competition. At some point, all participants were divided into “teams”, and
those teams would compete with each other. The main reason for such inside competition lied in
the design of Telegram Challenge itself. If someone could find a bug in the winning template, he
or she received 2 USD from the winner’s 100 USD. In the end, the winner could receive 0 USD if
50 USD were found by the team of other contestants.
Summary of the first round of interviews is illustrated in Figure 5.
Figure 5 Summary of the first round of interviews (own elaboration)
36
4.1.3 Updating the model of user engagement in idea competitions
Based on the first round of interviews, additional roles and factors are added into the model.
Some of the interviewees mentioned additional groups of participants different from traditional
“solvers” and “seekers”:
-
“Observer”: these participants either have an experience of submitting ideas or never
submitted their own ideas, they only participate in the discussions, evaluation or support
of others’ ideas.
-
“Expert”: neither a “seeker” nor a “solver”, these participants share their specific
expertise and knowledge with solvers. They are experts in the topic of idea competition
due to their work or life experience.
As discussed in the previous chapter, de Vreede confirmed three factors influencing
engagement in idea competitions. All these factors can be put in a category of “Pre-defined
factors”: 1) Personal interest in a topic; 2) Motivation to contribute; 3) Goal clarity.
From the interviews, we identified “buzzwords” with which respondents described their
experience within the respective idea competitions. Nine additional factors that influence
engagement in idea competitions were discovered. Discovered factors are classified into 3 new
categories.
Community factors:
1. Peer recognition
2. Strong community feelings
3. Experts’ feedback
4. Seekers’ support
Platform and Competition Design:
5. Platform characteristics: smartness and simplicity
6. Gamification
Gained factors:
7. Obtaining new knowledge
8. Obtaining new experience
37
9. Career Impact
Based on the findings from the first round of interviews, the user engagement model was
updated as presented on Figure 6.
Figure 6 Updated model of user engagement in idea competitions (own elaboration)
4.1.4 Second round of interviews – confirmation of model validity
For the second round of interview 58 users of analyzed platforms were contacted, 21
responded, and 6 interviews were conducted to confirm the validity of the updated model.
Interviewees represented all the identified roles: “seekers”, “solvers”, “observers” and “experts”.
One of the community managers of Lego Ideas who wished to remain anonymous stated that
all factors mentioned in the model are relevant and valid. Especially she emphasized the possible
positive career outcome factor: Lego has an experience of employing those, whose ideas were
valuable for the company. She mentioned another important characteristic of successful idea
competition from the perspective of the seeker: transparency of all processes associated with the
competition for all of the members of the community.
38
Grigory Liubachev, who participated as an observer within the Telegram InstantView
Challenge agreed with the proposed factors, however he suggested the following improvements:
1) Incentive system provided by seekers should be derived from “Motivation to participate”; 2)
Specific skill-sets needed for participation should be added to the model; 3) External factors such
as the amount of free time that solvers, observers and experts have for participation have an
additional impact on engagement. He provided an argument that sometimes he lacks specific IT
knowledge or time for participation in such challenges even though he is highly motivated and
interested.
Another solver that submitted a number of winning templates in Telegram InstantView
Challenge also highlighted that monetary reward was the most significant factor for him and his
peers especially after the competitions’ conditions changed. Gamification factor that was
developed unconsciously had an additional impact to his engagement. Finally, he added that if
Telegram provided a distinctive community page and a dedicated space for discussions, probably
all parties were more involved in the challenge.
Christian Terry who participated in HyveCrowd “Wearable Nature” contest confirmed that all
the factors are relevant to his experience of engagement within the HyveCrowd platform. He was
personally very interested in the topic, the platform was easy to use, and he enjoyed discussion
with other participants of the contest.
Drawbacks of the Innosite platform were discussed during the interview with one of the
experts. In her opinion, the amount of support and feedback provided by organizers was not
enough. She added that if more experts and observers participated in contests, solvers could learn
from their mistakes and submit better ideas in other challenges.
One of the solvers participated in “Accessible Everyday” challenge via Innosite platform. As
an inexperienced designer and a student, he stated that the main benefit for him was the ability to
learn from other rather experienced designers and architects. He did not expect to win from the
very beginning, however he wanted to invest his free time into something meaningful. For him,
the openness of the community was the most valuable factor as he wanted to receive feedback
from professionals and acquire new skills.
Feedback received during the second round of interviews is summarized in Figure 7.
39
Categories
Factors
Validity
Personal interest in a topic
confirmed by de Vreede
Motivation to contribute
confirmed by de Vreede
Goal Clarity
confirmed by de Vreede
Free time
added
Specific skill-sets
added
Monetary and non-monetary
reward
added
Peer Recognition
confirmed
Strong community feeling
confirmed
Experts' feedback
confirmed
Seekers' support
confirmed
Platform's characteristics:
smartness and simplicity
confirmed
Gamification
confirmed
Transparency of processes
added
Obtaining new knowledge
confirmed
Obtaining new experience
confirmed
Career impact
confirmed
Pre-defined factors
Community factors
Platfrom & Competition
Design
Gained factors
Figure 7 Confirmation of validity of factors influencing engagement in idea competitions (own elaboration)
Based on the results of the second round of interviews, the model of user engagement was
redesigned and updated. Finalized model is presented on Figure 8.
40
Figure 8 Finalized model of user engagement in idea competitions (own elaboration)
User engagement model was expanded and the following factors are added to the model.
In the predefined factors category (added to initial de Vreede’s factors):
o Free time – from the solvers’ perspective
o Specific skill-sets – from the solvers’ perspective
o Monetary & Non-monetary rewards – from the seekers’ perspective
Gained factors category was introduced including three new factors:
o Obtaining New Knowledge
o Obtaining New Experience
o Possible positive career impact
Platform &contest design category was suggested with three drivers of user engagement:
o Smart & simple idea competition platform
o Gamification
o Transparent processes
41
The scope of community was re-designed and new roles and relationships were discussed.
Besides traditional seekers and solvers, observers and experts were included and it was revealed
that relationships between all of them have a significant impact on engagement in idea
competitions.
4.2 Managerial Implications
The results of the research provide valuable insights for idea competition organizers (seekers).
The model proposed by de Vreede consisted of three factors that influenced engagement in idea
challenges. These factors were: “Personal Interest in a Topic”, “Motivation to Contribute” and
“Goal Clarity”. The scholar stated that her model is not complete, and this was indeed proved
during the interviews with participants of four different contest platforms.
The model was updated and redesigned. Nine additional factors driving engagement in idea
competitions were revealed and classified. The scope of the contest community was broadened by
introducing two new groups of participants: observers and experts. Relationships between all of
the parties involved in the contest were of particular interest, and the community circle was
included in the final model.
The new complete model is now a useful tool for designing idea competitions. Those
companies that have already established contest platforms can improve them using the tool, and
those organizations that are planning to introduce this open collaboration technique, can build
platforms based on it.
Two main aspects should be taken into account by managers while creating or upgrading the
idea competition: maintaining strong community and competition design.
First, growing and maintaining strong community around the competition is a critical success
factor for the contest. As it was mentioned previously, besides traditional seekers and solvers, other
two groups of participants were acknowledged: 1) observers - those participants who evaluate,
support and discuss others’ ideas and 2) experts - professionals that share their knowledge and
expertise with solvers without actually participating in the competition. These users need particular
attention as they create a “hype” around the contest and a knowledge-flow within it.
42
To maintain a powerful community, the dedicated section should be established and could
possibly include profiles of participants stating their contact information and achievements, and
discussion boards. Receiving feedback from peers and experts motivated solvers to improve their
own ideas and remain in a community for a longer period of time.
Organizers should not forget about their own contribution as well, all of the updates associated
with the competition should be available to users and can be presented either on discussion boards
or in dedicated blogs. All technical issues experienced by users should be discussed and solved in
a timely manner. The impact of community is not limited to idea competition. Some companies
hire those who submitted innovative ideas that were considered valuable for business. From the
users’ point of view, this can increase the motivation to generate more solutions that can potentially
result in a career development.
Secondly, while designing or re-designing the platform itself, seekers should assess it from
the perspective of participants. It should be simple and easy to use, and users should be able to
find all the information needed by click. Processes associated with the contest including the idea
submission, evaluation and idea review should be transparent for contestants. This can be achieved
by stating the prizes, rules and conditions for winning clearly in the respective sections of the
website. The research has revealed that gamification was another important factor for a number of
solvers, therefore seekers should update the number of votes or points collected by users in realtime or even introduce additional team-based tournaments within the main competition.
4.3 Limitations and suggestions for further research
Although our research is one of the first attempts to identify factors driving engagement in
idea competitions, there are still some limitations that should be discussed.
One of the key concerns is associated with the innovativeness of the topic. Organizations
started to implement idea competitions as a tool for leveraging idea management and
crowdsourcing rather recently, and therefore the period of study is relatively short.
The complete holistic model of engagement in idea competitions was developed and proposed
for further practical and theoretical use. It is noteworthy that only currently existing and
43
functioning platforms were analyzed. In the future, as the usage of idea competitions penetrates
more industries and organizations, other drivers can still be added by scholars.
It has not escaped our notice that industry specifics might have significant impact on the
model. Even though one of the platforms analyzed acts as an integrator of challenges from multiple
industries, these industries are somehow connected with the field of innovations which limits the
scope of our research.
Besides, this study is focused purely on identifying specific factors that influence participants’
engagement in open collaboration environment. The engagement itself as well as the contribution
of each factor is not measured. Conducting quantitative research assessing and ranking the impact
of each driver could be another interesting perspective. Additionally, experiments with
manipulated stimuli can be conducted to verify the validity of factors introduced.
44
CONCLUSION
Innovation has always been in a spotlight of attention, especially for companies operating in
high-tech and knowledge-intensive industries. For decades, there has been a need for new
techniques and tools to assist and drive innovation management within the organization.
Especially, this urge is strong today, it the era of rapid digitalization, when companies have an
easy access to large amount of data and people. One of recent tools for companies that are eager
to open their innovation funnels and involve external bright minds into the idea management
process, is crowdsourcing, more specifically, idea competitions that are based on open
collaboration environment.
Even though many companies are now facing this new reality, the theoretical overview has
shown that there are several significant research gaps that need to be potentially eliminated.
Innovativeness of the sphere in general limits the number of scientific findings. Engagement is
considered to be a critical success factor for idea competition, however one of the few scholars
who attempted to identify drivers of engagement states that her model is not complete. Moreover,
studies that are based on de Vreede’s model show a potential for re-designing and finalizing the
model.
The topic of this master thesis is “Innovation through crowdsourcing: factors influencing
engagement in idea competitions”. The research is focused on identifying factors that influence
participants’ engagement in idea challenges. The goal of this study is to create a comprehensive
model of participants’ engagement in open idea contests.
Due to the innovativeness of the topic and insufficiency of evidence from existing researches,
the study is a subject of exploratory research.
The key research question raised for the stated research purposes was: “Which factors
influence participants’ engagement in idea competitions? However, to identify factors and
complete the model proposed by de Vreede, it was crucial to gain a holistic view of idea
management ecosystem. Therefore, the following subquestions were introduced in order to answer
the main research question:
-
How are idea competition platforms designed?
-
How are activities (e.g. discussions, idea submission, idea evaluation) organized?
45
-
What are the roles of stakeholders involved in idea competitions?
-
Why do solvers decide to participate in idea competitions?
-
What do solvers gain from participating in idea competitions?
-
What is the ecosystem of idea competitions?
Four idea competition platforms were analyzed, and two interview rounds took place to
finalize the model. During the first round of interviews with 8 respondents, 6 additional drivers
were revealed, the scope of the community was broadened introducing two new categories of
participants: observers and experts. Further, based on the results of the initial interview round, the
model was updated. Subsequently, the second round of interviews with 6 respondents was initiated
with an aim to confirm the validity of the model. Finally, having valuable insights from the latter
interview round that confirmed the legitimacy of the proposed model, additional 3 factors were
introduced, and the model was finalized.
With regards to managerial implications, the refined holistic model can be considered a useful
tool for creators of idea competitions (seekers). Two main aspects that need their particular
attention were discussed: maintaining strong community and competition design. To grow and
maintain powerful community organizers need to acknowledge efforts of newly introduced groups
of stakeholders (observers and experts) and create a user-friendly community space for feedbacks,
knowledge-sharing and peer support. Managers who design the competition need to bear in mind
all the factors from the finalized model that determine a successful idea contest platform from the
user perspective.
Results of the study presented in this master thesis considerably contribute to the elimination
of the identified research gap. Additionally, suggestions for future research were stated.
Quantitative measurement of the importance of each factor or experiments with manipulated
stimuli can be beneficial for further confirmation of the model and deepening the understanding
of the phenomena.
46
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Aagaard, Annabeth. "Idea management in support of pharmaceutical front end of
innovation." International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 12, no. 4 (2012):
373.
2. Aitamurto, Tanja, Hélène Landemore, and Jorge Saldivar Galli. "Unmasking the crowd:
participants’ motivation factors, expectations, and profile in a crowdsourced law
reform." Information, Communication & Society 20, no. 8 (2016): 1239-260.
3. Barczak, Gloria, Abbie Griffin, and Kenneth B. Kahn. "PERSPECTIVE: Trends and Drivers
of Success in NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study*." Journal of
Product Innovation Management 26, no. 1 (2009): 3-23.
4. Bassiti, L., and R. Ajhoun. "Toward an Innovation Management Framework: A Life-Cycle
Model with an Idea Management Focus." International Journal of Innovation, Management
and Technology 4, no. 6 (2013): 551-59.
5. Bipp, Tanja, and Ad Kleingeld. "Goal-setting in practice." Personnel Review 40, no. 3 (2011):
306-23.
6. Blohm, Ivo, Jan M. Leimeister, and Helmut Krcmar. "Crowdsourcing: how to benefit from
(too) many great ideas." MIS Quarterly Executive 12, no. 4 (2013): 199-211.
7. Bothos, Efthimios, Dimitris Apostolou, and Gregoris Mentzas. "A Collaborative Information
Aggregation System for Idea Management." 2008 Third International Conference on Internet
and Web Applications and Services, 2008.
8. Bothos, Efthimios, Dimitris Apostolou, and Gregoris Mentzas. "Collective intelligence with
web-based information aggregation markets: The role of market facilitation in idea
management." Expert Systems with Applications 39, no. 1 (2012): 1333-345.
9. Brabham, Daren C. "Moving The Crowd At Threadless." Information, Communication &
Society13, no. 8 (2010): 1122-145.
10. Brem, A., and K. I. Voigt. "Innovation management in emerging technology ventures – the
concept of an integrated idea management." Journal of Technology, Policy and Management7,
no. 3 (2007): 304-21.
11. Bretschneider, Ulrich, Balaji Rajagopalan, and Jan Marco Leimeister. "Idea Generation in
Virtual Communities for Innovation: The Influence of Participants Motivation on Idea
Quality." 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2012.
47
12. Chesbrough, Henry W., Wim Vanhaverbeke, and Joel West. Open innovation researching a
new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
13. Chesbrough, Henry William. Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting
from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2011.
14. Coughlan, Tim, and Peter Johnson. "Idea management in creative lives." Proceeding of the
twenty-sixth annual CHI conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing
systems - CHI 08, 2008.
15. Creswell, John W. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2014.
16. Davidi, Adam. "Building communities with Lego: let the users do the heavy lifting." The
Guardian. April 16, 2014. Accessed July 9, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/medianetwork/media-network-blog/2014/apr/16/lego-building-communities-fans-brands.
17. Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. "The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the
Self-Determination of Behavior." Psychological Inquiry 11 (2000): 227-68.
18. Dhodapkar, Prashant K. "Effective Idea Management Systems for Sustaining Innovation." The
XXIII ISPIM Conference – Action for Innovation: Innovating from Experience, 2012.
19. Ebner, Winfried, Marco Leimeister, Ulrich Bretschneider, and Helmut Krcmar. "Leveraging
the Wisdom of Crowds: Designing an IT-Supported Ideas Competition for an ERP Software
Company." Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS 2008), 2008.
20. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. "Building Theories from Case Study Research." Case Studies 14, no.
4 (1989): 532-50.
21. Emmel, Nick. "Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research." Sampling and Choosing Cases in
Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach, 2013, 157-60. California: Sage Publications.
22. Enkel, Ellen, Oliver Gassmann, and Henry Chesbrough. "Open R&D and open innovation:
exploring the phenomenon." R&D Management 39, no. 4 (2009): 311-16.
23. Estellés-Arolas, Enrique, and Fernando González-Ladrón-De-Guevara. "Towards an
integrated crowdsourcing definition." Journal of Information Science 38, no. 2 (2012): 189200.
24. Flowerday, Terri, Gregory Schraw, and Joseph Stevens. "The Role of Choice and Interest in
Reader Engagement." The Journal of Experimental Education 72, no. 2 (2004): 93-114.
48
25. Franklin, Michael J., Donald Kossmann, Tim Kraska, Sukriti Ramesh, and Reynold Xin.
"CrowdDB." Proceedings of the 2011 international conference on Management of data SIGMOD 11, 2011.
26. Fuller, J. "Anleitung zum Kreativsein." Harvard Business Manager 9 (2009): 98-101.
27. Fuller, J. "Why Consumers Engage in Virtual New Product Developments Initiated by
Producers." Advances in Consumer Research 33 (2006): 639-47.
28. Gallmeister, Ute, and Birgit Lutz. "Engagement and Retention: Essentials of Idea
Management." Handbook of Human Resources Management, 2016, 1-20.
29. Garriga, Helena, Georg Von Krogh, and Sebastian Spaeth. "How constraints and knowledge
impact open innovation." Strategic Management Journal 34, no. 9 (2013): 1134-144.
30. Gassmann, O., and E. Enkel. "Open Innovation: Die Öffnung des Innovationsprozesses erhöht
das Innovationspotential." Zeitschrift für Führung und Organisation 75, (2006): 132-38.
31. Green, Stephen G., Bean, Alden S. and Snavely, Kay B. ‘’Idea management in R&D as a
human information processing analog’’, Human Systems Management 4, no. 2 (1983): 98-112.
32. Hossain, Mokter, and Ilkka Kauranen. "Crowdsourcing: a comprehensive literature
review." Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 8, no. 1 (2015): 2-22.
33. Howe, Jeff. "The Rise of Crowdsourcing." Wired. June 01, 2006. Accessed August 14, 2017.
https://www.wired.com/2006/06/crowds/.
34. Howe, Jeff. Crowdsourcing: How the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business.
London: Random House Business Books, 2008.
35. Hrastinski, Stefan, Niklas Z. Kviselius, Håkan Ozan, and Mats Edenius. "A Review of
Technologies for Open Innovation: Characteristics and Future Trends." 2010 43rd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, 2010.
36. Hrastinski, Stefan, Niklas Z. Kviselius, Håkan Ozan, and Mats Edenius. "A Review of
Technologies for Open Innovation: Characteristics and Future Trends." 2010 43rd Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, 2010.
37. HYVE Crowd. 2017. Accessed September 2, 2017. https://www.hyvecrowd.net/home.php
38. Innosite.dk. Accessed August 5, 2017. https://www.innosite.dk
39. Instant Views for Everyone & a $200K Contest. Telegram. May 18, 2017. Accessed September
5, 2017. https://telegram.org/blog/instant-view-contest-200K.
49
40. Iversen, Hakon, Kjetil Kristensen, Christine Schei Liland, Thomas Berman, Nina Enger, and
Tom Losnedahl. "Idea management: A life-cycle perspective on innovation." 2009 IEEE
International Technology Management Conference (ICE), 2009.
41. Klein, Mark, and Gregorio Convertino. "An embarrassment of riches." Communications of the
ACM 57, no. 11 (2014): 40-42.
42. LEGO Ideas. 2017. Accessed August 8, 2017. https://ideas.lego.com
43. Leimeister, Jan Marco, Michael Huber, Ulrich Bretschneider, and Helmut Krcmar.
"Leveraging Crowdsourcing: Activation-Supporting Components for IT-Based Ideas
Competition." Journal of Management Information Systems 26, no. 1 (2009): 197-224.
44. Marjanovic, S., C. Fry, and J. Chataway. "Crowdsourcing based business models: In search of
evidence for innovation 2.0." Science and Public Policy 39, no. 3 (2012): 318-32.
45. Miecznik, Bert. ‘’Ideen Management’’ im Able, T. (Ed.). Suchfeldbestimmung und
Ideenbewertung :Methoden und Prozesse in den frühen Phasen des Innovationsprozesses.
London: Springer-Gabler, (2013): 143-68.
46. Mikelsone, Elina, and Elita Liela. "Literature Review of Idea Management: Focuses and
Gaps". Journal of Business Management, no. 9 (2015): 107-121.
47. Miles, Matthew B., and Michaek A. Huberman. Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new
methods. Newbury Park: SAGE Publ., 1991.
48. Morgan, J., and R. Wang. "Tournament of Ideas." California Management Review 52, (2010):
77-97.
49. Mortara, Letizia, and Tim Minshall. "How do large multinational companies implement open
innovation?" Technovation 31, no. 10-11 (2011): 586-97.
50. Netflix Prize. Netflix Prize. Accessed August 1, 2017. http://netflixprize.com/.
51. Nilsson, Lars, Mattias Elg, and Bo Bergman. "Managing ideas for the development of new
products." International Journal of Technology Management 24, no. 5/6 (2002): 498.
52. Pedersen, Jay, David Kocsis, Abhishek Tripathi, Alvin Tarrell, Aruna Weerakoon, Nargess
Tahmasbi, Jie Xiong, Wei Deng, Onook Oh, and Gert-Jan De Vreede. "Conceptual
Foundations of Crowdsourcing: A Review of IS Research." 2013 46th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 2013.
50
53. Perkmann, Markus, and Kathryn Walsh. "University–industry relationships and open
innovation: Towards a research agenda." International Journal of Management Reviews 9, no.
4 (2007): 259-80.
54. Rowbotham, Lucy, and Nils Bohlin. "Structured Idea Management as a Value-Adding
Process."
Accessed
September
10,
2017.
http://www.
adlittle.com/uploads/tx_extprism/1996_q2_31-36.pdf.
55. Saldivar, Jorge, Marcos Baez, Carlos Rodriguez, Gregorio Convertino, and Grzegorz Kowalik.
"Idea Management Communities in the Wild: An Exploratory Study of 166 Online
Communities." 2016 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems
(CTS), 2016.
56. Sandstrom, Christian, and Jennie Bjork. "Idea management systems for a changing innovation
landscape." International Journal of Product Development 11, no. 3/4 (2010): 310.
57. Sawyer, John E. "Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role
ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences." Journal of
Applied Psychology 77, no. 2 (1992): 130-42.
58. Selart, Marcus, and Svein Tvedt Johansen. "Understanding the Role of Value-Focused
Thinking in Idea Management." Creativity and Innovation Management 20, no. 3 (2011): 196206.
59. Shani, N., and P. Divyapriya. "A Role of Innovative Idea Management in HRM." International
Journal of Management 2, no. 1 (2011): 69-78.
60. Sloane, Paul. "The brave new world of open innovation." Strategic Direction 27, no. 5 (2011):
3-4.
61. Sloane, Paul. A guide to open innovation and crowdsourcing: practical tips, advice and
examples from leading experts in the field. London: Kogan Page, 2011.
62. Smith, A., A. Banzaert, and S. Susnowitz. "The MIT ideas competition: promoting innovation
for public service." 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003., 2003.
63. Sundic,
Milicia,
and
Karl-Heinz
Leitner.
"Innovation
Crowdsourcing
Platforms." Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining, 2013, 737.
64. Terwiesch, Christian, and Karl T. Ulrich. Innovation tournaments: creating and selecting
exceptional opportunities. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Press, 2009.
51
65. Tidd, Joe. "Open Innovation Research, Management and Practice." Series on Technology
Management, 2014.
66. Troll, Julia, and Ivo Blohm. "How does workplace contribute to early experience of burnout
and
engagement?
A
motivational
analysis."
13Th
International
Conference
On
Wirtschaftsinformatik, 2017, 1047.
67. Vagn, Anna Rose, Christian Clausen, and Liv Gish. "Towards A New Perspective of Managing
Ideas in Front-End Innovation as Actor Networks. In Proceedings of the 19Th International
Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13)." Design for Harmonies, 2013, 181-90.
68. Vandenbosch, Betty, Argun Saatcioglu, and Sharon Fay. "Idea management: A systematic
view." Journal of Management Studies 43, no. 2 (2006): 259-88.
69. Vreede, Triparna De, Cuong Nguyen, Gert-Jan De Vreede, Imed Boughzala, Onook Oh, and
Roni Reiter-Palmon. "A Theoretical Model of User Engagement in Crowdsourcing." Lecture
Notes in Computer Science Collaboration and Technology, 2013, 94-109.
70. West, Joel, and Marcel Bogers. "Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of
Research on Open Innovation." Journal of Product Innovation Management 31, no. 4 (2014):
814-31.
71. Westerski, Adam, Carlos A. Iglesias, and Tadhg Nagle. "The road from community ideas to
organisational innovation: a life cycle survey of idea management systems." International
Journal of Web Based Communities 7, no. 4 (2011): 493.
72. Westerski, Adam, Carlos A. Iglesias, and Tadhg Nagle. "The road from community ideas to
organisational innovation: a life cycle survey of idea management systems." International
Journal of Web Based Communities 7, no. 4 (2011): 493.
73. Wikhamn, Bjorn Remneland, and Wajda Wikhamn. "Structuring of the Open Innovation
Field." Journal of technology management & innovation 8, no. 3 (2013): 31-32.
74. Xie, Luning, and Pengzhu Zhang. "Idea Management System for Team Creation." Journal of
Software 5, no. 11 (2010).
75. Ye, Hua (Jonathan), and Atreyi Kankanhalli. "Investigating the antecedents of organizational
task crowdsourcing." Information & Management 52, no. 1 (2015): 98-110.
76. Yin, Robert K. Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage Publication, 2014.
77. Zejnilovic, Leid, Pedro Oliveira, and Francisco M. Veloso. "Employees as User Innovators:
An Empirical Investigation of an Idea Management System." SSRN Electronic Journal, 2012.
52
78. Zhao, Yuxiang, and Qinghua Zhu. "Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and
future direction." Information Systems Frontiers 16, no. 3 (2012): 417-34.
79. Zheng, Haichao, Dahui Li, and Wenhua Hou. "Task Design, Motivation, and Participation in
Crowdsourcing Contests." International Journal of Electronic Commerce 15, no. 4 (2011): 5788.
53
Отзывы:
Авторизуйтесь, чтобы оставить отзыв