IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v22y2020i5d10.1007_s10796-019-09926-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding Crowdsourcing Contest Fitness Strategic Decision Factors and Performance: An Expectation-Confirmation Theory Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Emmanuel W. Ayaburi

    (The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley)

  • Jaeung Lee

    (Louisiana Tech University)

  • Michele Maasberg

    (Louisiana Tech University)

Abstract

Contest-based intermediary crowdsourcing represents a powerful new business model for generating ideas or solutions by engaging the crowd through an online competition. Prior research has examined motivating factors such as increased monetary reward or demotivating factors such as project requirement ambiguity. However, problematic issues related to crowd contest fitness have received little attention, particularly with regard to crowd strategic decision-making and contest outcomes that are critical for success of crowdsourcing platforms as well as implementation of crowdsourcing models in organizations. Using Expectation-Confirmation Theory (ECT), we take a different approach that focuses on contest level outcomes by developing a model to explain contest duration and performance. We postulate these contest outcomes are a function of managing crowdsourcing participant contest-fitness expectations and disconfirmation, particularly during the bidding process. Our empirical results show that contest fitness expectations and disconfirmation have an overall positive effect on contest performance. This study contributes to theory by demonstrating the adaptability of ECT literature to the online crowdsourcing domain at the level of the project contest. For practice, important insights regarding strategic decision making and understanding how crowd contest-fitness are observed for enhancing outcomes related to platform viability and successful organizational implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Emmanuel W. Ayaburi & Jaeung Lee & Michele Maasberg, 2020. "Understanding Crowdsourcing Contest Fitness Strategic Decision Factors and Performance: An Expectation-Confirmation Theory Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 1227-1240, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:22:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s10796-019-09926-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-019-09926-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-019-09926-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10796-019-09926-w?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. Simon, Herbert A, 1978. "Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Ernan Haruvy & Peter T. L. Popkowski Leszczyc, 2010. "The Impact of Online Auction Duration," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(1), pages 99-106, March.
    3. Lu Xiao, 2014. "Effects of rationale awareness in online ideation crowdsourcing tasks," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(8), pages 1707-1720, August.
    4. Ei Pa Pa Pe-Than & Dion Hoe-Lian Goh & Chei Sian Lee, 2017. "Does it matter how you play? The effects of collaboration and competition among players of human computation games," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(8), pages 1823-1835, August.
    5. Eugene W. Anderson & Mary W. Sullivan, 1993. "The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer Satisfaction for Firms," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 125-143.
    6. Valérie Chanal & Marie-Laurence Caron-Fasan, 2010. "The difficulties involved in developing business models open to innovation communities: the case of a crowdsourcing platform," Post-Print halshs-00544357, HAL.
    7. 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.
    8. Vicki McKinney & Kanghyun Yoon & Fatemeh “Mariam” Zahedi, 2002. "The Measurement of Web-Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation and Disconfirmation Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 296-315, September.
    9. Lionel P. Robert Jr & Daniel M. Romero, 2017. "The influence of diversity and experience on the effects of crowd size," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(2), pages 321-332, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Nancy K. Lankton & D. Harrison McKnight & Ryan T. Wright & Jason Bennett Thatcher, 2016. "Research Note—Using Expectation Disconfirmation Theory and Polynomial Modeling to Understand Trust in Technology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 197-213, March.
    12. Kidwell, Roland E., 2010. "Loafing in the 21st century: Enhanced opportunities--and remedies--for withholding job effort in the new workplace," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 543-552, November.
    13. Matthias Gräuler & Michael Freundlieb & Kerstin Ortwerth & Frank Teuteberg, 2013. "Understanding the beliefs, actions and outcomes of sustainability reporting: An experimental approach," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 779-797, November.
    14. Stefan Klein & Rolf Alexander Teubner, 2000. "Web-based Procurement New Roles for Intermediaries," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 19-30, January.
    15. Susan A. Brown & Viswanath Venkatesh & Sandeep Goyal, 2012. "Expectation Confirmation in Technology Use," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 474-487, June.
    16. 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.
    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. Till Blesik & Markus Bick & Tyge-F. Kummer, 2022. "A Conceptualisation of Crowd Knowledge," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1647-1665, October.
    2. Naudé, Wim & Bray, Amy & Lee, Celina, 2021. "Crowdsourcing Artificial Intelligence in Africa: Findings from a Machine Learning Contest," IZA Discussion Papers 14545, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Olivera Marjanovic & Vijaya Murthy, 2022. "The Emerging Liquid IT Workforce: Theorizing Their Personal Competitive Advantage," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 1775-1793, December.

    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. Emmanuel W. Ayaburi & Jaeung Lee & Michele Maasberg, 0. "Understanding Crowdsourcing Contest Fitness Strategic Decision Factors and Performance: An Expectation-Confirmation Theory Perspective," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-14.
    2. 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.
    3. Cheng, Xi & Gou, Qinglong & Yue, Jinfeng & Zhang, Yan, 2019. "Equilibrium decisions for an innovation crowdsourcing platform," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 241-260.
    4. 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).
    5. 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).
    6. Ho Cheung Brian Lee & Sulin Ba & Xinxin Li & Jan Stallaert, 2018. "Salience Bias in Crowdsourcing Contests," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 401-418, June.
    7. 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.
    8. Philipp B. Cornelius & Bilal Gokpinar, 2020. "The Role of Customer Investor Involvement in Crowdfunding Success," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 452-472, January.
    9. Juncai Jiang & Yu Wang, 2020. "A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation of Feedback in Ideation Contests," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(2), pages 481-500, February.
    10. Kristin Masuch & Maike Greve & Simon Trang, 2021. "What to do after a data breach? Examining apology and compensation as response strategies for health service providers," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(4), pages 829-848, December.
    11. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500142 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. Yan Huang & Param Vir Singh & Kannan Srinivasan, 2014. "Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas Under Consumer Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(9), pages 2138-2159, September.
    14. Dr. Neelotpaul Banerjee & Santosh Sah, 2012. "A Comparative Study of Customers¡¯ Perceptions of Service Quality Dimensions between Public and Private Banks in India," International Journal of Business Administration, International Journal of Business Administration, Sciedu Press, vol. 3(5), pages 33-44, September.
    15. Lars Hornuf & Sabrina Jeworrek, 2018. "How Community Managers Affect Online Idea Crowdsourcing Activities," CESifo Working Paper Series 7153, CESifo.
    16. repec:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:8:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    17. 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.
    18. Dan J. Kim & Donald L. Ferrin & H. Raghav Rao, 2009. "Trust and Satisfaction, Two Stepping Stones for Successful E-Commerce Relationships: A Longitudinal Exploration," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 237-257, June.
    19. Laura J. Kornish & Jeremy Hutchison‐Krupat, 2017. "Research on Idea Generation and Selection: Implications for Management of Technology," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(4), pages 633-651, April.
    20. 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.
    21. Dominik Mahr & Aric Rindfleisch & Rebecca Slotegraaf, 2015. "Enhancing Crowdsourcing Success: the Role of Creative and Deliberate Problem-Solving Styles," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(3), pages 209-221, September.
    22. Her-Sen Doong & Hsiangchu Lai, 2008. "Exploring usage continuance of e-negotiation systems: expectation and disconfirmation approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 111-126, March.

    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:spr:infosf:v:22:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s10796-019-09926-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.