IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v120y2023ics0166497222002309.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Let me choose what I want: The influence of incentive choice flexibility on the quality of crowdsourcing solutions to innovation problems

Author

Listed:
  • Moghaddam, Ehsan Noorzad
  • Aliahmadi, Alireza
  • Bagherzadeh, Mehdi
  • Markovic, Stefan
  • Micevski, Milena
  • Saghafi, Fatemeh

Abstract

Organizations increasingly engage in crowdsourcing to find solutions to their innovation problems, but many of these solutions are of low quality. This could be because organizations do not really know what motivates each individual participant to engage in crowdsourcing, and thus offer the same incentives to all. As a ‘one-size-fits-all’ incentive structure is not optimal due to divergent participant motives, in this paper, we aim to empirically investigate how providing participants with incentive choice flexibility impacts solution quality. Based on a between-subject field experiment, we find that participants who have an opportunity to choose their preferred incentive spend much more time developing their solutions and come up with higher quality solutions than those who are offered a single incentive option. Our study contributes to the literature by highlighting the importance of adopting a flexible incentive structure to improve the quality of the crowdsourced solutions, and by suggesting that an exclusive focus on how a single incentive type (either non-monetary or monetary) impacts solution quality is unsuitable for estimating such impact correctly.

Suggested Citation

  • Moghaddam, Ehsan Noorzad & Aliahmadi, Alireza & Bagherzadeh, Mehdi & Markovic, Stefan & Micevski, Milena & Saghafi, Fatemeh, 2023. "Let me choose what I want: The influence of incentive choice flexibility on the quality of crowdsourcing solutions to innovation problems," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:120:y:2023:i:c:s0166497222002309
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102679
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497222002309
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102679?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. Deichmann, Dirk & Gillier, Thomas & Tonellato, Marco, 2021. "Getting on board with new ideas: An analysis of idea commitments on a crowdsourcing platform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    2. Alfonso Gambardella & Pooyan Khashabi & Claudio Panico, 2020. "Managing Autonomy in Industrial Research and Development: A Project-Level Investigation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 165-181, January.
    3. Pei‐Yu Chen & Paul Pavlou & Shinyi Wu & Yang Yang, 2021. "Attracting High‐Quality Contestants to Contest in the Context of Crowdsourcing Contest Platform," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(6), pages 1751-1771, June.
    4. Felin, Teppo & Zenger, Todd R., 2014. "Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 914-925.
    5. Ivo Blohm & Ulrich Bretschneider & Jan Marco Leimeister & Helmut Krcmar, 2011. "Does collaboration among participants lead to better ideas in IT-based idea competitions? An empirical investigation," International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(2), pages 106-122.
    6. Dan Li & Longying Hu, 2017. "Exploring the effects of reward and competition intensity on participation in crowdsourcing contests," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(3), pages 199-210, August.
    7. Linus Dahlander & Henning Piezunka, 2020. "Why crowdsourcing fails," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    8. Cohen-Charash, Yochi & Spector, Paul E., 2001. "The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 278-321, November.
    9. Beck, Susanne & Brasseur, Tiare-Maria & Poetz, Marion & Sauermann, Henry, 2022. "Crowdsourcing research questions in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    10. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(3), pages 489-520.
    11. Ghasemzadeh, Khatereh & Bortoluzzi, Guido & Yordanova, Zornitsa, 2022. "Collaborating with users to innovate: A systematic literature review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Seo, Myeong-gu & Ilies, Remus, 2009. "The role of self-efficacy, goal, and affect in dynamic motivational self-regulation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 120-133, July.
    14. Adler, Paul S. & Chen, Clara Xiaoling, 2011. "Combining creativity and control: Understanding individual motivation in large-scale collaborative creativity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 63-85, February.
    15. Natalicchio, A. & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. & Garavelli, A.C., 2017. "Innovation problems and search for solutions in crowdsourcing platforms – A simulation approach," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 64, pages 28-42.
    16. Acar, Oguz A., 2019. "Motivations and solution appropriateness in crowdsourcing challenges for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    17. Nicholas Ind & Oriol Iglesias & Stefan Markovic, 2017. "The co-creation continuum: from tactical market research tool to strategic collaborative innovation method," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(4), pages 310-321, August.
    18. Christian Terwiesch & Yi Xu, 2008. "Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1529-1543, September.
    19. Markovic, Stefan & Koporcic, Nikolina & Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, Maja & Kadic-Maglajlic, Selma & Bagherzadeh, Mehdi & Islam, Nazrul, 2021. "Business-to-business open innovation: COVID-19 lessons for small and medium-sized enterprises from emerging markets," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    20. A. C. Garavelli & A. Messeni Petruzzelli & A. Natalicchio & W. Vanhaverbeke, 2013. "Benefiting From Markets For Ideas — An Investigation Across Different Typologies," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(06), pages 1-37.
    21. 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.
    22. Markovic, Stefan & Bagherzadeh, Mehdi, 2018. "How does breadth of external stakeholder co-creation influence innovation performance? Analyzing the mediating roles of knowledge sharing and product innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 173-186.
    23. repec:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:8:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    25. Tracy Xiao Liu & Jiang Yang & Lada A. Adamic & Yan Chen, 2014. "Crowdsourcing with All-Pay Auctions: A Field Experiment on Taskcn," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(8), pages 2020-2037, August.
    26. Pollok, Patrick & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2019. "Attracting solutions in crowdsourcing contests: The role of knowledge distance, identity disclosure, and seeker status," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 98-114.
    27. Oriol Iglesias & Stefan Markovic & Mehdi Bagherzadeh & Jatinder Jit Singh, 2020. "Co-creation: A Key Link Between Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Trust, and Customer Loyalty," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 151-166, April.
    28. Oguz Ali Acar, 2018. "Harnessing the creative potential of consumers: money, participation, and creativity in idea crowdsourcing," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 177-188, June.
    29. 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.
    30. Bjorn Lovas & Sumantra Ghoshal, 2000. "Strategy as guided evolution," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(9), pages 875-896, September.
    31. Marc Gruber & Dietmar Harhoff & Karin Hoisl, 2013. "Knowledge Recombination Across Technological Boundaries: Scientists vs. Engineers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 837-851, April.
    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. Wang, Xue & Fan, Li-Wei & Zhang, Hongyan, 2023. "Policies for enhancing patent quality: Evidence from renewable energy technology in China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    2. Dabić, Marina & Daim, Tugrul & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Mention, Anne-Laure, 2023. "The limits of open innovation: Failures, risks, and costs in open innovation practice and theory," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).

    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. Patel, Chirag & Ahmad Husairi, Mariyani & Haon, Christophe & Oberoi, Poonam, 2023. "Monetary rewards and self-selection in design crowdsourcing contests: Managing participation, contribution appropriateness, and winning trade-offs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    2. Natalicchio, A. & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. & Garavelli, A.C., 2017. "Innovation problems and search for solutions in crowdsourcing platforms – A simulation approach," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 64, pages 28-42.
    3. Jiao, Yuanyuan & Wu, Yepeng & Lu, Steven, 2021. "The role of crowdsourcing in product design: The moderating effect of user expertise and network connectivity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    4. Swanand J. Deodhar & Samrat Gupta, 2023. "The Impact of Social Reputation Features in Innovation Tournaments: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 178-193, March.
    5. Hossain, Mokter, 2018. "Motivations, challenges, and opportunities of successful solvers on an innovation intermediary platform," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 67-73.
    6. repec:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:8:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Hu, Feng & Bijmolt, Tammo H.A. & Huizingh, Eelko K.R.E., 2020. "The impact of innovation contest briefs on the quality of solvers and solutions," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 90.
    8. Elina H. Hwang & Param Vir Singh & Linda Argote, 2019. "Jack of All, Master of Some: Information Network and Innovation in Crowdsourcing Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 389-410, June.
    9. Dargahi, Rambod & Namin, Aidin & Ketron, Seth C. & Saint Clair, Julian K., 2021. "Is self-knowledge the ultimate prize? A quantitative analysis of participation choice in online ideation crowdsourcing contests," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    10. Tat Koon Koh & Muller Y. M. Cheung, 2022. "Seeker Exemplars and Quantitative Ideation Outcomes in Crowdsourcing Contests," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 265-284, March.
    11. Thuy Seran & Sea Matilda Bez, 2019. "Managing Open-Innovation between Competitors: A Project-Level Approach," Post-Print hal-02427680, HAL.
    12. Jesse Bockstedt & Cheryl Druehl & Anant Mishra, 2022. "Incentives and Stars: Competition in Innovation Contests with Participant and Submission Visibility," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(3), pages 1372-1393, March.
    13. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500142 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Pollok, Patrick & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2019. "Attracting solutions in crowdsourcing contests: The role of knowledge distance, identity disclosure, and seeker status," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 98-114.
    15. Kokshagina, Olga & Le Masson, Pascal & Bories, Florent, 2017. "Fast-connecting search practices: On the role of open innovation intermediary to accelerate the absorptive capacity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 232-239.
    16. Kathleen Diener & Dirk Luettgens & Frank Thomas Piller, 2019. "Intermediation For Open Innovation: Comparing Direct Versus Delegated Search Strategies Of Innovation Intermediaries," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(04), pages 1-20, June.
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. Ann Majchrzak & Arvind Malhotra, 2016. "Effect of Knowledge-Sharing Trajectories on Innovative Outcomes in Temporary Online Crowds," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 685-703, December.
    20. Yang, Xi & Zhao, Quanwu & Sun, Heshan, 2022. "Seekers’ complaint behavior in crowdsourcing: An uncertainty perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    21. Dahlander, Linus & Beretta, Michela & Thomas, Arne & Kazemi, Shahab & Fenger, Morten H.J. & Frederiksen, Lars, 2023. "Weeding out or picking winners in open innovation? Factors driving multi-stage crowd selection on LEGO ideas," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    22. Beck, Susanne & Brasseur, Tiare-Maria & Poetz, Marion & Sauermann, Henry, 2022. "Crowdsourcing research questions in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).

    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:techno:v:120:y:2023:i:c:s0166497222002309. 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.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    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.