IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v21y2010i5p1016-1033.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search

Author

Listed:
  • Lars Bo Jeppesen

    (Department of Innovation and Organizational Economics, Copenhagen Business School, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark)

  • Karim R. Lakhani

    (Technology and Operations Management Unit, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

Abstract

We examine who the winners are in science problem-solving contests characterized by open broadcast of problem information, self-selection of external solvers to discrete problems from the laboratories of large research and development intensive companies, and blind review of solution submissions. Analyzing a unique data set of 166 science challenges involving over 12,000 scientists revealed that technical and social marginality, being a source of different perspectives and heuristics, plays an important role in explaining individual success in problem solving. The provision of a winning solution was positively related to increasing distance between the solver's field of technical expertise and the focal field of the problem. Female solvers---known to be in the “outer circle” of the scientific establishment---performed significantly better than men in developing successful solutions. Our findings contribute to the emerging literature on open and distributed innovation by demonstrating the value of openness, at least narrowly defined by disclosing problems, in removing barriers to entry to nonobvious individuals. We also contribute to the knowledge-based theory of the firm by showing the effectiveness of a market mechanism to draw out knowledge from diverse external sources to solve internal problems.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:21:y:2010:i:5:p:1016-1033
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0491
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0491
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1090.0491?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Gavetti & Daniel A. Levinthal & Jan W. Rivkin, 2005. "Strategy making in novel and complex worlds: the power of analogy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(8), pages 691-712, August.
    2. Marengo, Luigi, et al, 2000. "The Structure of Problem-Solving Knowledge and the Structure of Organizations," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 9(4), pages 757-788, December.
    3. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    4. Giovanni Dosi & Daniel A. Levinthal & Luigi Marengo, 2003. "Bridging contested terrain: linking incentive-based and learning perspectives on organizational evolution," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 12(2), pages 413-436, April.
    5. Ikujiro Nonaka, 1994. "A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(1), pages 14-37, February.
    6. Deborah Dougherty, 1992. "Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(2), pages 179-202, May.
    7. Hong, Lu & Page, Scott E., 2001. "Problem Solving by Heterogeneous Agents," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 123-163, March.
    8. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    9. Jack A. Nickerson & Todd R. Zenger, 2004. "A Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm—The Problem-Solving Perspective," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(6), pages 617-632, December.
    10. Ikujiro Nonaka & Georg von Krogh, 2009. "Perspective---Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 635-652, June.
    11. Christian Terwiesch & Yi Xu, 2008. "Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1529-1543, September.
    12. Yeon-Koo Che & Ian Gale, 2003. "Optimal Design of Research Contests," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 646-671, June.
    13. Richard L. Fullerton & R. Preston McAfee, 1999. "Auctioning Entry into Tournaments," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(3), pages 573-605, June.
    14. Taylor, Curtis R, 1995. "Digging for Golden Carrots: An Analysis of Research Tournaments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 872-890, September.
    15. Cecilia Rouse & Claudia Goldin, 2000. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 715-741, September.
    16. Van de Ven, Wynand P. M. M. & Van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1981. "The demand for deductibles in private health insurance : A probit model with sample selection," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 229-252, November.
    17. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    18. Daniel A. Levinthal, 1997. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 934-950, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Luigi Marengo & Corrado Pasquali, 2012. "How to Get What You Want When You Do Not Know What You Want: A Model of Incentives, Organizational Structure, and Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1298-1310, October.
    2. Heuschneider, Sara & Herstatt, Cornelius, 2016. "External search for exploration of future discontinuities and trends: Implications from the literature using co-citation and content analysis," Working Papers 92, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    3. Pavel Kireyev, 2016. "Markets for Ideas: Prize Structure, Entry Limits, and the Design of Ideation Contests," Harvard Business School Working Papers 16-129, Harvard Business School.
    4. Felipe A. Csaszar & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2016. "Mental representation and the discovery of new strategies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(10), pages 2031-2049, October.
    5. John C. Butler & Jovan Grahovac, 2012. "Learning, Imitation, and the Use of Knowledge: A Comparison of Markets, Hierarchies, and Teams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1249-1263, October.
    6. Stephan Billinger & Kannan Srikanth & Nils Stieglitz & Terry R. Schumacher, 2021. "Exploration and exploitation in complex search tasks: How feedback influences whether and where human agents search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(2), pages 361-385, February.
    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. Kevin J. Boudreau & Nicola Lacetera & Karim R. Lakhani, 2011. "Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 843-863, May.
    9. Phanish Puranam & Murali Swamy, 2016. "How Initial Representations Shape Coupled Learning Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 323-335, April.
    10. Juha Uotila, 2018. "Punctuated equilibrium or ambidexterity: dynamics of incremental and radical organizational change over time," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 131-148.
    11. 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.
    12. Xu Tian & Gongbing Bi, 2022. "Multiplicative output form and its applications to problems in the homogenous innovation contest model," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 44(3), pages 709-732, September.
    13. Laurence Ales & Soo-Haeng Cho & Ersin Körpeoğlu, 2017. "Optimal Award Scheme in Innovation Tournaments," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 693-702, June.
    14. Sanjiv Erat & Vish Krishnan, 2012. "Managing Delegated Search Over Design Spaces," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(3), pages 606-623, March.
    15. Chila, Vilma, 2021. "Knowledge dynamics in employee entrepreneurship : Implications for parents and offspring," Other publications TiSEM a1f5d18c-783b-4af6-8414-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Friederike Wall, 2016. "Agent-based modeling in managerial science: an illustrative survey and study," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 135-193, January.
    17. Konstantinos I. Stouras & Jeremy Hutchison-Krupat & Raul O. Chao, 2022. "The Role of Participation in Innovation Contests," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4135-4150, June.
    18. Ming Hu & Lu Wang, 2021. "Joint vs. Separate Crowdsourcing Contests," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2711-2728, May.
    19. Jonas Send, 2021. "Contest Copycats: Adversarial Duplication of Effort in Contests," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2021-17, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    20. Koh, Youngwoo, 2017. "Incentive and sampling effects in procurement auctions with endogenous number of bidders," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 393-426.

    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:inm:ororsc:v:21:y:2010:i:5:p:1016-1033. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.