IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v138y2019icp21-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to facilitate knowledge collaboration in OCs: An integrated perspective of technological and institutional measures

Author

Listed:
  • Yang, Wei
  • Zhou, Qing
  • Yu, Xianyun
  • Wang, Dongpeng
  • Li, Hui

Abstract

Knowledge collaboration in online communities (OCs) is popular and important for companies who are aiming to survive in the digital age, but it has a high failure rate. Most of the existing research and practice have focused only on facilitating knowledge collaboration in OCs through institutional measures, neglecting the role of technological measures. This paper aims to fill this gap by employing a differential equation model as well as case analyses. The research results indicate that increasing knowledge sharing by institutional measures does not lead to knowledge collaboration without continuously advancing technology. It is necessary to simultaneously employ technological and institutional measures. Companies can select a technology-oriented strategy or institution-oriented strategy according to their available resources and strategic positioning. These research results are helpful for remedying the imbalance of existing research and some shortages in practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Yang, Wei & Zhou, Qing & Yu, Xianyun & Wang, Dongpeng & Li, Hui, 2019. "How to facilitate knowledge collaboration in OCs: An integrated perspective of technological and institutional measures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 21-28.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:138:y:2019:i:c:p:21-28
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518308503
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.030?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. Stam, Wouter, 2009. "When does community participation enhance the performance of open source software companies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1288-1299, October.
    2. Zeng, Michael A., 2018. "Foresight by online communities – The case of renewable energies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 27-42.
    3. Samer Faraj & Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa & Ann Majchrzak, 2011. "Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1224-1239, October.
    4. Chen, Peng-Ting & Kuo, Shu-Chen, 2017. "Innovation resistance and strategic implications of enterprise social media websites in Taiwan through knowledge sharing perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 55-69.
    5. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Rossi, Cristina, 2003. "Why Open Source software can succeed," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1243-1258, July.
    6. Yan Chen & F. Maxwell Harper & Joseph Konstan & Sherry Xin Li, 2010. "Social Comparisons and Contributions to Online Communities: A Field Experiment on MovieLens," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1358-1398, September.
    7. David, Paul A. & Shapiro, Joseph S., 2008. "Community-based production of open-source software: What do we know about the developers who participate?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 364-398, December.
    8. Allen, Robert C., 1983. "Collective invention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, March.
    9. Lauto, Giancarlo & Valentin, Finn, 2016. "The knowledge production model of the New Sciences: The case of Translational Medicine," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 12-21.
    10. Olivier Toubia & Andrew T. Stephen, 2013. "Intrinsic vs. Image-Related Utility in Social Media: Why Do People Contribute Content to Twitter?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 368-392, May.
    11. Muñoz, Pablo & Cohen, Boyd, 2017. "Mapping out the sharing economy: A configurational approach to sharing business modeling," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 21-37.
    12. Soumya Ray & Sung S. Kim & James G. Morris, 2014. "The Central Role of Engagement in Online Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 528-546, September.
    13. Paulo B. Goes & Chenhui Guo & Mingfeng Lin, 2016. "Do Incentive Hierarchies Induce User Effort? Evidence from an Online Knowledge Exchange," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 497-516, September.
    14. Sims, Julian M., 2018. "Communities of practice: Telemedicine and online medical communities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 53-63.
    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. Feng, Yuanyue & Yi, Zihui & Yang, Congcong & Chen, Ruoyi & Feng, Ye, 2022. "How do gamification mechanics drive solvers’ Knowledge contribution? A study of collaborative knowledge crowdsourcing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    2. Zhang, Xi & Cheng, Yihang & Chen, Aoshuang & Lytras, Miltiadis & de Pablos, Patricia Ordóñez & Zhang, Renyu, 2022. "How rumors diffuse in the infodemic: Evidence from the healthy online social change in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    3. Xiao Yu & Yangfeng Dai & Qian Xu & Qilin Ye, 2024. "Knowledge Collaboration and Benefits of Standard Implementation of Enterprise in Technology Standard Alliance," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(2), pages 8534-8562, June.

    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. Shan, Wei & Qiao, Tong & Zhang, Mingli, 2020. "Getting more resources for better performance: The effect of user-owned resources on the value of user-generated content," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    2. Zaggl, Michael A., 2017. "Manipulation of explicit reputation in innovation and knowledge exchange communities: The example of referencing in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 970-983.
    3. Marchenko, Maria & Sonnabend, Hendrik, 2022. "The Never Ending Book: The role of external stimuli and peer feedback in user-generated content production," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 320, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    4. Hinnosaar, Marit, 2019. "Gender inequality in new media: Evidence from Wikipedia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 262-276.
    5. Smirnova, Inna & Reitzig, Markus & Alexy, Oliver, 2022. "What makes the right OSS contributor tick? Treatments to motivate high-skilled developers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    6. Chenhui (Julian) Guo & Tae Hun Kim & Anjana Susarla & Vallabh Sambamurthy, 2020. "Understanding Content Contribution Behavior in a Geosegmented Mobile Virtual Community: The Context of Waze," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1398-1420, December.
    7. F. Rullani & L. Zirulia, 2011. "A supply side story for a threshold model: Endogenous growth of the free and open source community," Working Papers wp781, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    8. Ni Huang & Gordon Burtch & Bin Gu & Yili Hong & Chen Liang & Kanliang Wang & Dongpu Fu & Bo Yang, 2019. "Motivating User-Generated Content with Performance Feedback: Evidence from Randomized Field Experiments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 327-345, January.
    9. Samer Faraj & Georg von Krogh & Eric Monteiro & Karim R. Lakhani, 2016. "Special Section Introduction—Online Community as Space for Knowledge Flows," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 668-684, December.
    10. Lena Abou El-Komboz & Anna Kerkhof & Johannes Loh, 2023. "Platform Partnership Programs and Content Supply: Evidence from the YouTube “Adpocalypse”," CESifo Working Paper Series 10363, CESifo.
    11. 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.
    12. Blecker, Thorsten & Abdelkafi, Nizar & Raasch, Christina, 2008. "Enabling and sustaining collaborative innovation," Working Papers 52, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute for Technology and Innovation Management.
    13. Tamaddoni, Ali & Seenivasan, Satheesh & Pallant, Jason I. & Skiera, Bernd, 2023. "Investigating the effect of status changes in review platforms," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 189-209.
    14. Liangfei Qiu & Subodha Kumar, 2017. "Understanding Voluntary Knowledge Provision and Content Contribution Through a Social-Media-Based Prediction Market: A Field Experiment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(3), pages 529-546, September.
    15. Maha Shaikh & Emmanuelle Vaast, 2016. "Folding and Unfolding: Balancing Openness and Transparency in Open Source Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 813-833, December.
    16. Muninger, Marie-Isabelle & Mahr, Dominik & Hammedi, Wafa, 2022. "Social media use: A review of innovation management practices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 140-156.
    17. Ghafele, Roya & Gibert, Benjamin, 2012. "Efficiency through openness: the economic value proposition of open source software," MPRA Paper 38088, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Dandan Qiao & Shun-Yang Lee & Andrew B. Whinston & Qiang Wei, 2020. "Financial Incentives Dampen Altruism in Online Prosocial Contributions: A Study of Online Reviews," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1361-1375, December.
    19. Wilkin, Carla L. & Campbell, John & Moore, Stephen & Simpson, Jason, 2018. "Creating value in online communities through governance and stakeholder engagement," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 56-68.
    20. Guodong Gao & Tianshu Sun & Ginger Zhe Jin, 2015. "Mobile Messaging for Offline Social Interactions: A Large Field Expeiment," Natural Field Experiments 00571, The Field Experiments Website.

    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:tefoso:v:138:y:2019:i:c:p:21-28. 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/00401625 .

    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.