User Motivation and Knowledge Sharing in Idea Crowdsourcing

Kosonen, Miia; Gan, Chunmei; Vanhala, Mika; Blomqvist, Kirsimarja

doi:10.1142/9781786346490_0002

Cited by 17 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, for session management to be effective, seekers have to develop new orchestration skills and also take on the role of ‘client’ within the process (Nevo and Kotlarsky ); they must inspire learning and creativity through feedback from professionals and experts (Kosonen et al . ; Zhu et al . ); and set futuristic contexts in which ideas can be generated (Graham and Mehmood ).…”

Section: Mapping the Literature Through The I–p–o Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crowdsourcing: A Review and Suggestions for Future Research

Ghezzi

Gabelloni

Martini

et al. 2017

Int J Management Reviews

259

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: Mapping the Literature Through The I–p–o Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crowdsourcing: A Review and Suggestions for Future Research

Ghezzi

Gabelloni

Martini

et al. 2017

Int J Management Reviews

259

183

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the literature on OSS suggests, innovative and collaborative communities need a means of orchestrating the collaborative effort of their participants (Lakhani and von Hippel, 2003). This is in line with the literature on feedback interventions and organisational support in open innovation, which highlights the positive effects of appropriate feedback on performance (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996;Kosonen et al, 2013Kosonen et al, , 2014Dahlander and Piezunka, 2014). Hence, participants need some kind of guidance to make the right decision in choosing which idea to further elaborate.…”

Section: Boss R Kleer and A Vossenmentioning

confidence: 55%

Walking Parallel Paths or Taking the Same Road? The Effect of Collaborative Incentives in Innovation Contests

Boss

Kleer

Vossen

2017

Int. J. Innov. Mgt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the role of participants' interactions in innovation contests. In contrast to the dominant view of a competitive organisation of innovation contests, we suggest that, especially for ideation projects, a collaborative setting may be beneficial in terms of the amount of ideation activity and the quality of the generated ideas. Using two experiments, we show the usefulness of a collaborative approach when two particular conditions are met: first, the overall effort must be compensated according to performance criteria in such a way that participants are aware of the impact of their actions. Thus, the reward mechanism has to ensure that all contributors to a specific idea benefit from their involvement. Second, the host has to provide feedback throughout the contest to make it clear for participants what idea(s) to focus on. Our results show that, while the elaboration effort can be increased by introducing a collaborative reward mechanism alone, the best results are achieved when both conditions are met. Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO on 11/26/16. For personal use only. Int. J. Innov. Mgt. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com by UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO on 11/26/16. For personal use only.

show abstract

“…Few authors, based upon the existing theories, developed their own measuring tools -the model of online knowledge sharing by Ma & Yuen (2011), which however does not include people's behavior in learning. It seems that the most complete and useful is the tool developed by Kosonen et al (2014) -since it takes into account the findings of the predecessors and the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. In addition, it contains not only forming individual intentions to share knowledge, but also the actual knowledgesharing behavior, in the light of current research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The scale takes into account the intention to share knowledge Marett & Joshi (2009) ("KSI1" If I had some knowledge about a topic, I would consider posting it on the online community website", "KSI2 If I had some knowledge regarding a question someone asked, I would share this knowledge with others") -which does not reflect the idea of virtual knowledge sharing. Kosonen et al (2014), based on the above-mentioned theories, constructed their own research tool -a questionnaire posted on the Internet (Likert's 7-point scale). 283 Internet users participated in the research study (39 questionnaires were rejected; the return rate was 83.3%).…”

Section: Measurement Of Virtual Knowledge Sharing In Crowdsourcingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2017

JEMI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

User Motivation and Knowledge Sharing in Idea Crowdsourcing

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Crowdsourcing: A Review and Suggestions for Future Research

Crowdsourcing: A Review and Suggestions for Future Research

Walking Parallel Paths or Taking the Same Road? The Effect of Collaborative Incentives in Innovation Contests

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About