IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v50y2021i8s0048733320302481.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge diversity and team creativity: How hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games

Author

Listed:
  • Pollok, Patrick
  • Amft, André
  • Diener, Kathleen
  • Lüttgens, Dirk
  • Piller, Frank T.

Abstract

This study adds to the literature on household sector (HHS) innovation by investigating how user and professional designer teams differ in their ability to translate knowledge diversity into collective creative output. We test our hypotheses on a unique data set of more than 5,000 board game design projects conducted by either teams of professional game designers or by hobbyist (user) designers. Our study lends support for the notion that knowledge diversity is a double-edged sword that has opposing effects on the two dimensions of team creativity, novelty and usefulness. We argue and find that teams composed of self-rewarded users in the household sector are better able than teams of professionals to translate the informational benefits of knowledge diversity into novel concepts and game designs. Finally, we find that user teams are in general more likely to create truly creative (i.e. novel and useful) game designs. This particular result emphasizes the relevance of research on HHS innovation and shows that user designers from the HHS are able to conduct collective development work more effectively than teams of professional designers.

Suggested Citation

  • Pollok, Patrick & Amft, André & Diener, Kathleen & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2021. "Knowledge diversity and team creativity: How hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:50:y:2021:i:8:s0048733320302481
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.104174
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733320302481
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104174?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huo, Dong & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Gong, Han, 2019. "Team diversity as dissimilarity and variety in organizational innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1564-1572.
    2. Harmon, Joel & Rohrbaugh, John, 1990. "Social judgment analysis and small group decision making: Cognitive feedback effects on individual and collective performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 34-54, June.
    3. Miron-Spektor, Ella & Beenen, Gerard, 2015. "Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 53-65.
    4. Hienerth, Christoph & von Hippel, Eric & Berg Jensen, Morten, 2014. "User community vs. producer innovation development efficiency: A first empirical study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 190-201.
    5. Gautam Ahuja, 2000. "The duality of collaboration: inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 317-343, March.
    6. Alfonso Gambardella & Christina Raasch & Eric von Hippel, 2017. "The User Innovation Paradigm: Impacts on Markets and Welfare," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1450-1468, May.
    7. Shengwang Du & Junyi Li & Naizheng Bian, 2020. "A compression method for DNA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-8, November.
    8. Hjort, Jonas & Li, Xuan & Sarsons, Heather, 2020. "Across-Country Wage Compression in Multinationals," CEPR Discussion Papers 14465, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Sam Arts & Lee Fleming, 2018. "Paradise of Novelty—Or Loss of Human Capital? Exploring New Fields and Inventive Output," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1074-1092, December.
    10. Georg von Krogh & Ikujiro Nonaka & Lise Rechsteiner, 2012. "Leadership in Organizational Knowledge Creation: A Review and Framework," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 240-277, January.
    11. Mollick, Ethan, 2014. "The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-16.
    12. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Gillert, Nils Lennart & Stock, Ruth M., 2018. "First adoption of consumer innovations: Exploring market failure and alleviating factors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 487-497.
    13. Pamela D. Morrison & John H. Roberts & Eric von Hippel, 2000. "Determinants of User Innovation and Innovation Sharing in a Local Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(12), pages 1513-1527, December.
    14. Harhoff, Dietmar & Henkel, Joachim & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1753-1769, December.
    15. Darren W. Dahl & Christoph Fuchs & Martin Schreier, 2015. "Why and When Consumers Prefer Products of User-Driven Firms: A Social Identification Account," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(8), pages 1978-1988, August.
    16. Sherae Daniel & Ritu Agarwal & Katherine J. Stewart, 2013. "The Effects of Diversity in Global, Distributed Collectives: A Study of Open Source Project Success," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 312-333, June.
    17. Franke, Nikolaus & Shah, Sonali, 2003. "How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 157-178, January.
    18. Barry L. Bayus, 2013. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(1), pages 226-244, June.
    19. Jasjit Singh & Lee Fleming, 2010. "Lone Inventors as Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 41-56, January.
    20. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    21. Sarooghi, Hessamoddin & Libaers, Dirk & Burkemper, Andrew, 2015. "Examining the relationship between creativity and innovation: A meta-analysis of organizational, cultural, and environmental factors," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 714-731.
    22. Ishani Aggarwal & Anita Williams Woolley, 2019. "Team Creativity, Cognition, and Cognitive Style Diversity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(4), pages 1586-1599, April.
    23. Stock, Ruth & Oliveira, Pedro & Hippel, Eric von, 2015. "Impacts of the Hedonic and Utilitarian User Motives on the Innovativeness of User-Developed Solutions," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 77349, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    24. Gina Colarelli O'Connor & Mark P. Rice & Lois Peters & Robert W. Veryzer, 2003. "Managing Interdisciplinary, Longitudinal Research Teams: Extending Grounded Theory-Building Methodologies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(4), pages 353-373, August.
    25. Stock, Ruth & Oliveira, Pedro & Hippel, Eric von, 2015. "Impacts of the Hedonic and Utilitarian User Motives on the Innovativeness of User-Developed Solutions," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 71022, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    26. Carliss Baldwin & Eric von Hippel, 2011. "Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1399-1417, December.
    27. Linus Dahlander & Siobhan O'Mahony & David M. Gann, 2016. "One foot in, one foot out: how does individuals' external search breadth affect innovation outcomes?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 280-302, February.
    28. Stock, Ruth & Oliveira, Pedro & Hippel, Eric von, 2015. "Impacts of the Hedonic and Utilitarian User Motives on the Innovativeness of User-Developed Solutions," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 76764, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    29. Füller, Johann & Schroll, Roland & von Hippel, Eric, 2013. "User generated brands and their contribution to the diffusion of user innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1197-1209.
    30. Henrik Bresman & Mary Zellmer-Bruhn, 2013. "The Structural Context of Team Learning: Effects of Organizational and Team Structure on Internal and External Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 1120-1139, August.
    31. Jungpil Hahn & Jae Yun Moon & Chen Zhang, 2008. "Emergence of New Project Teams from Open Source Software Developer Networks: Impact of Prior Collaboration Ties," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 369-391, September.
    32. Dahlander, Linus & Wallin, Martin W., 2006. "A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1243-1259, October.
    33. Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P. & Wang, Jian, 2015. "Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 684-697.
    34. Boris Groysberg & Jeffrey T. Polzer & Hillary Anger Elfenbein, 2011. "Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth: How High-Status Individuals Decrease Group Effectiveness," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 722-737, June.
    35. Eric von Hippel & Jeroen P. J. de Jong & Stephen Flowers, 2012. "Comparing Business and Household Sector Innovation in Consumer Products: Findings from a Representative Study in the United Kingdom," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(9), pages 1669-1681, September.
    36. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Karim R. Lakhani, 2010. "Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(5), pages 1016-1033, October.
    37. Stock, Ruth & Oliveira, Pedro & Hippel, Eric von, 2015. "Impacts of the Hedonic and Utilitarian User Motives on the Innovativeness of User-Developed Solutions," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 71821, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    38. Yuqing Ren & Jilin Chen & John Riedl, 2016. "The Impact and Evolution of Group Diversity in Online Open Collaboration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(6), pages 1668-1686, June.
    39. Jong, Jeroen de & Gillert, Lennart & Stock, Ruth, 2018. "First Adoption of Consumer Innovations: Exploring Market Failure and Alleviating Factors," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 110834, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    40. Nishikawa, Hidehiko & Schreier, Martin & Ogawa, Susumu, 2013. "User-generated versus designer-generated products: A performance assessment at Muji," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 160-167.
    41. Michael Jensen & Heeyon Kim, 2015. "The Real Oscar Curse: The Negative Consequences of Positive Status Shifts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 1-21, February.
    42. Sonali K. Shah, 2006. "Motivation, Governance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1000-1014, July.
    43. Colombelli, Alessandra & Quatraro, Francesco, 2018. "New firm formation and regional knowledge production modes: Italian evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 139-157.
    44. Eric von Hippel & Georg von Krogh, 2003. "Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 209-223, April.
    45. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Lars Frederiksen, 2006. "Why Do Users Contribute to Firm-Hosted User Communities? The Case of Computer-Controlled Music Instruments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 45-63, February.
    46. Dongil D. Keum & Kelly E. See, 2017. "The Influence of Hierarchy on Idea Generation and Selection in the Innovation Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 653-669, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John T. Scott, 2023. "Research Diversity and Invention," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 62(2), pages 179-197, March.
    2. Borner, Kathrin & Berends, Hans & Deken, Fleur & Feldberg, Frans, 2023. "Another pathway to complementarity: How users and intermediaries identify and create new combinations in innovation ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    3. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Ben-Menahem, Shiko M. & Franke, Nikolaus & Füller, Johann & von Krogh, Georg, 2021. "Treading new ground in household sector innovation research: Scope, emergence, business implications, and diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    4. van der Wouden, Frank & Youn, Hyejin, 2023. "The impact of geographical distance on learning through collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    5. Yujie Wang & Guijie Qi, 2022. "Sustainable Knowledge Contribution in Open Innovation Platforms: An Absorptive Capacity Perspective on Network Effects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-17, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Preißner, Stephanie & Raasch, Christina & Schweisfurth, Tim, 2017. "Is necessity the mother of disruption?," Kiel Working Papers 2097, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Ebbing, Tobias & Lüthje, Christian, 2021. "Pricing decisions of consumer innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    3. Jeppesen, Lars Bo, 2021. "Social movements and free innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    4. Jeppesen, Lars Bo, 2021. "Reprint of: Social movements and free innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    5. Svensson, Peter O. & Hartmann, Rasmus Koss, 2018. "Policies to promote user innovation: Makerspaces and clinician innovation in Swedish hospitals," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 277-288.
    6. Nikolaus Franke & Peter Keinz & Katharina Klausberger, 2013. "“Does This Sound Like a Fair Deal?”: Antecedents and Consequences of Fairness Expectations in the Individual’s Decision to Participate in Firm Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1495-1516, October.
    7. Ghasemzadeh, Khatereh & Bortoluzzi, Guido & Yordanova, Zornitsa, 2022. "Collaborating with users to innovate: A systematic literature review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    8. Robson, Karen & Wilson, Matthew & Pitt, Leyland, 2019. "Creating new products from old ones: Consumer motivations for innovating autonomously from firms," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    9. Lukoschek, Carmen Sabrina & Stock-Homburg, Ruth Maria, 2021. "Integrating Home and Work: How the Work Environment Enhances Household-Sector Innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    10. Resch, Christian & Kock, Alexander, 2021. "The influence of information depth and information breadth on brokers’ idea newness in online maker communities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    11. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Ben-Menahem, Shiko M. & Franke, Nikolaus & Füller, Johann & von Krogh, Georg, 2021. "Treading new ground in household sector innovation research: Scope, emergence, business implications, and diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    12. Orelj, Ana & Torfason, Magnus Thor, 2022. "They didn't ask: Online innovation communities as a latent dynamic capability," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    13. Claussen, Jörg & Halbinger, Maria A., 2021. "The role of pre-innovation platform activity for diffusion success: Evidence from consumer innovations on a 3D printing platform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    14. Stanko, Michael A. & Allen, B.J., 2022. "Disentangling the collective motivations for user innovation in a 3D printing community," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    15. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula, 2014. "Open Collaboration for Innovation: Principles and Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1414-1433, October.
    16. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    17. Lettl, Christopher & Rost, Katja & von Wartburg, Iwan, 2009. "Why are some independent inventors 'heroes' and others 'hobbyists'? The moderating role of technological diversity and specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 243-254, March.
    18. Alfonso Gambardella & Christina Raasch & Eric von Hippel, 2017. "The User Innovation Paradigm: Impacts on Markets and Welfare," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1450-1468, May.
    19. Stock, Ruth Maria & von Hippel, Eric & Gillert, Nils Lennart, 2016. "Impacts of personality traits on consumer innovation success," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 757-769.
    20. Dahlander, Linus & Piezunka, Henning, 2014. "Open to suggestions: How organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 812-827.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Team creativity; User innovation; Free innovation; Household sector; Knowledge diversity; Information processing; Shared mental models JEL: L20; L67; O30; O31;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L20 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - General
    • L67 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Other Consumer Nondurables: Clothing, Textiles, Shoes, and Leather Goods; Household Goods; Sports Equipment
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:50:y:2021:i:8:s0048733320302481. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.