As academic and practitioner studies on crowdsourcing have been building up since 2006, the subject itself has progressively gained in importance within the broad field of management. No systematic review on the topic has so far appeared in management journals, however; moreover, the field suffers from ambiguity in the topic's definition, which in turn has led to its largely unstructured evolution. The authors therefore investigate the existing body of knowledge on crowdsourcing systematically through a penetrating review in which the strengths and weakness of this literature stream are presented clearly and then future avenues of research are set out. The review is based on 121 scientific articles published between January 2006 and January 2015. The review recognizes that crowdsourcing is ingrained in two mainstream disciplines within the broader subject matter of innovation and management: (1) open innovation; and (2) co-creation. The review, in addition, also touches on several issues covered in other theoretical streams: (3) information systems management; (4) organizational theory and design; (5) marketing; and (6) strategy. The authors adopt a process perspective, applying the 'Input-Process-Output' framework to interpret research on crowdsourcing within the broad lines of: (1) Input (Problem/Task); (2) Process (session management; problem management; knowledge management; technology); and (3) Outcome (solution/completed task; seekers' benefits; solvers' benefits). This framework provides a detailed description of how the topic has evolved over time, and suggestions concerning the future direction of research are proposed in the form of research questions that are valuable for both academics and managers

Innovation is one of the most critical means in supporting and improving the competitive position of the firm, in particular, and a firm’s survival and growth depend greatly on its ability to balance the exploitation of existing knowledge with the exploration of new possibilities, by building ambidexterity capability. While different alternatives to realize the simultaneous reconciliation of exploration and exploitation at an operational level have been proposed, how organizations build ambidexterity capability is not fully understood. The aim of this paper is thus to explore how exploration and exploitation balancing can be achieved in practice. We decided to focus on the early phase of the process where firms search for new ideas with which to renew themselves. To this end, we analysed the search phase of a highly innovative technology-based company by investigating structural design choices combined with the presence of specific roles and searching practices. The results show how the exploration and exploitation balancing act can actually be achieved and maintained through a multi-level approach that integrates both the operational and the strategic levels. Our findings thus contribute to the organizational ambidexterity literature, by proposing a first interpretative model for dealing with ambidexterity in the search phase of the innovation process

No abstract

Recognizing a serious lack of research on routinized individual actions and organizational adaptation in the stability-change paradox, we intend to provide an in-depth explanation of the way in which agile methods affect organizational learning in self-managed, team-based organizations, taking a multi-level evolutionary approach. We explore learning in agile organizations by breaking the analysis of organizational routines down into different levels -individual, team and organization -and describing the process of variation, selection and retention of routines at each level. Leveraging on multiple case studies, we discuss how team members learn and gain knowledge, from both direct and indirect experience, and analyze how teams develop conceptual frameworks and interpret those experiences. Finally, we discuss how organizational memory develops and how teams in agile organizations adapt simultaneously within an ecological structure that also comprises the changing environment. Our findings reveal substantial flaws in the capacity of agile methods to foster organizational learning.

No abstract