Crowdsourcing without profit: the role of the seeker in open social innovation

Abstract

Crowdsourcing has increasingly been studied as an open innovation (OI) mechanism by which organizations (seekers) engage with an external crowd of potential solvers. Previous crowdsourcing research has focused on solvers and their individual motivations, providing few insights as to why and how seekers use crowdsourcing, and how these choices affect the value that might be realized from these efforts. Prior research has also emphasized profitseeking firms, despite the use of OI practices by public sector organizations to achieve societal benefits. This paper examines the organizational and project-level choices of government agencies that crowdsource from citizens to drive open social innovation, and thus develop new ways to address societal problems, a process sometimes termed 'citizensourcing.' Using rich data from 18 local government seekers that use the same intermediary, we develop a model of seeker crowdsourcing implementation that links a previously unstudied variance in seeker intent and engagement strategies to differences in project team motivation and capabilities, in turn leading to varying online engagement behaviors and ultimately project outcomes. Our study compares and contrasts governmental and corporate crowdsourcing to reveal that the non-pecuniary orientation of both seekers and solvers means that the motives of government crowdsourcing are fundamentally different from corporate crowdsourcing, but the process in our sample more closely resembles that of a firm-sponsored community rather than government sponsored contests. More generally, we show how seeker organizational factors and choices shape project-level implementation and success of crowdsourcing efforts, as well as provide insights for OI activities of other smaller, geographically bound organizations.

Innovative marketing approach in project management: A market orientation perspective

“…In this case, the relationship with the customer becomes personal, as the interaction includes project personnel (Pitelis, & Teece, 2018;Randhawa et al, 2017;Randhawa et al, 2018;Randhawa et al, 2019;Renko et al, 2009;Schoemaker et al, 2018;Spieth, & Schneider, 2016).…”

60 Years of March and Simon’s Organizations: An Empirical Examination of its Impact and Influence on Subsequent Research

“…On the other hand, when R&D employees try to implement open innovation without changing their own identity, R&D processes will not change. Related, Randhawa et al () find that organizational open innovation success depends on the degree of project team motivation to implement crowdsourcing. More specifically, motivated employees feel a sense of ‘reciprocal responsibility’ (Hamel et al, ), inspires ‘organizational members to higher levels of achievement’ (Hart, , p. 337), in turn leading to better engagement in open innovation and positive innovation outcomes.…”

“…An example of how M&S can inform multilevel issues is the impact of new organizational forms on the behaviour of and consequences for the individual employee (Randhawa et al, ). Opening firm boundaries has also affected traditional employment models, which requires reinterpretation of some of M&S’s core concepts, such as individuals’ motivations, goals, decisions to contribute to or leave the organization, as well as employee turnover.…”

“…Consequently, research has looked at innovation as the result of intentional and planned inflows and outflows of knowledge between partners (Chesbrough, ; Enkel et al, ). This research stream is yet to resolve questions around optimal organizational structures to motivate and incentivize employees to share and absorb innovation across organizational boundaries (Randhawa et al, ), for which it could draw on some of M&S ’s key ideas.…”

Stochastic hybrid decision‐making based on interval type 2 fuzzy sets for measuring the innovation capacities of financial institutions

“…They determined that innovative products should be profitable. Also, Carlson and Usher (2016), Douglas and Prentice (2019), Randhawa, Wilden, and West (2019) and Zhang and Zhou (2016) underlined the importance of cost analysis in the process of generating innovative products or services. Similar to them, Abbate et al (2019), Krasnopolskaya and Meijs (2019) and Nishimura (2019) defined that high cost of innovative products increases the risk of failure.…”