Virtual customer environment design and organizational innovation: An exploration–exploitation perspective

Roberts, Nicholas; Dinger, Michael

doi:10.1080/10919392.2018.1410632

Cited by 4 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also a cheaper and safer option for users (Enkel and Gassmann, 2010;Yeganegi et al, 2019). Exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation have differences regarding task difficulty, technical tools and outputs, competency and input demands on participants, and the resulting impacts (Benner and Tushman, 2003;Roberts and Dinger, 2018;Zhang et al, 2022). Owing to the diverse innovation activities, participants' psychological perceptions may vary in online user innovation communities.…”

Section: Exploratory Innovation and Exploitative Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All participants had access to a "design toolkit" provided by the online user innovation community, which allowed participants to input information in a form that is easy to quantify and measure (Di Gangi et al, 2010). Because these tools are built around the company's existing products and services, using these one-way information exchange tools will facilitate the development of exploitative innovation (Roberts and Dinger, 2018). Meanwhile, the participants in the "creative design of an app" activity could also use two-way information exchange tools (e.g.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, 2019). Exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation have differences regarding task difficulty, technical tools and outputs, competency and input demands on participants, and the resulting impacts (Benner and Tushman, 2003; Roberts and Dinger, 2018; Zhang et al. , 2022).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different types of innovation activities (exploratory innovation vs. exploitative innovation) have different demands (e.g. expertise, effort) from users and also have different impacts on them (Benner and Tushman, 2003;Roberts and Dinger, 2018;Zhang et al, 2022). It remains to be explored how user participation in different types of innovation activities leads to different psychological perceptions and continuous knowledge sharing intention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

How innovation types affect users' continuous knowledge sharing intention: a self-determination perspective

Chen

Zhang²

2022

AJIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis research aims to investigate the effects of innovation types (exploratory innovation vs. exploitative innovation) on users' psychological perceptions (perceived self-improvement and prosocial impact) and continuous knowledge sharing intention and the moderating effects of monetary incentives.Design/methodology/approachThe research model was developed based on the self-determination theory. A two-study approach involving an online survey (n = 338) and an online experiment (n = 160) was employed to collect quantitative data. Structural equation modeling and variance analysis were adapted to analyze the data.FindingsThe results show that exploratory innovation leads to higher perceived self-improvement among users than exploitative innovation, whereas exploitative innovation leads to higher perceived prosocial impact than exploratory innovation. The perceived self-improvement and perceived prosocial impact positively affects users' continuous knowledge sharing intention. Monetary incentives moderate the relationships among perceived self-improvement, perceived prosocial impact and continuous knowledge sharing intention.Originality/valueThis research highlights the role of users' experience of initial participation in forming continuous knowledge sharing intentions and also reveals the effectiveness of monetary incentives in different types of innovation activities. The findings provide a more comprehensive understanding of the antecedents of users' continuous knowledge sharing behavior, offering new insights and recommendations for managerial practitioners.

show abstract