IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v68y2022i4p3008-3025.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Crowdsourcing Ideas Using Product Prototypes: The Joint Effect of Prototype Enhancement and the Product Design Goal on Idea Novelty

Author

Listed:
  • Niek Althuizen

    (Montpellier Business School, Montpellier Research in Management, University of Montpellier, 34185 Montpellier, France)

  • Bo Chen

    (Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul 0306, South Korea)

Abstract

When soliciting novel product ideas from the “crowd,” companies may opt to show a prototype in order to steer the generation of ideas in the desired direction. On the one hand, the more features the prototype incorporates, the larger the potential for activating relevant knowledge in memory that may serve as a basis for generating novel ideas. On the other hand, it increases the risk of fixation on the incorporated features, which may inhibit the generation of novel ideas. Based on the “dual pathway to creativity” theory, which identifies the depth and breadth of exploration of one’s knowledge base as cognitive pathways to the generation of novel ideas, we argue that the number (and type) of features included in the prototype in combination with the design goal, that is, generating ideas for functional versus aesthetic product improvements, determines whether the positive effects outweigh the negative effects. With a functional design goal, we find that exposure to a prototype with more features leads to more novel ideas as a result of a more thorough exploration of one’s knowledge base. However, with an aesthetic design goal, exposure to a prototype with more features leads to less novel ideas because of a narrower exploration. The latter effect is driven by people’s tendency to consider the whole or gestalt of the prototype when generating aesthetic ideas. This negative effect can, thus, be mitigated by stimulating people to employ a nonholistic, piecemeal thinking style.

Suggested Citation

  • Niek Althuizen & Bo Chen, 2022. "Crowdsourcing Ideas Using Product Prototypes: The Joint Effect of Prototype Enhancement and the Product Design Goal on Idea Novelty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 3008-3025, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:4:p:3008-3025
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2021.4030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4030
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4030?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. Alokparna (Sonia) Basu Monga & Deborah Roedder John, 2008. "WHEN DOES NEGATIVE BRAND PUBLICITY HURT? The Moderating Influence of Analytic Versus Holistic Thinking," Working Papers 0044, College of Business, University of Texas at San Antonio.
    2. Yiangos Papanastasiou & Kostas Bimpikis & Nicos Savva, 2018. "Crowdsourcing Exploration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 1727-1746, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Laura J. Kornish & Karl T. Ulrich, 2011. "Opportunity Spaces in Innovation: Empirical Analysis of Large Samples of Ideas," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(1), pages 107-128, January.
    5. Timothy B. Heath & Michael S. Mccarthy & David L. Mothersbaugh, 1994. "Spokesperson Fame and Vividness Effects in the Context of Issue-Relevant Thinking: The Moderating Role of Competitive Setting," Post-Print hal-00670493, HAL.
    6. C. Page Moreau & Darren W. Dahl, 2005. "Designing the Solution: The Impact of Constraints on Consumers' Creativity," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(1), pages 13-22, June.
    7. Heath, Timothy B & McCarthy, Michael S & Mothersbaugh, David L, 1994. "Spokesperson Fame and Vividness Effects in the Context of Issue-Relevant Thinking: The Moderating Role of Competitive Setting," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(4), pages 520-534, March.
    8. Joel O. Wooten & Karl T. Ulrich, 2017. "Idea Generation and the Role of Feedback: Evidence from Field Experiments with Innovation Tournaments," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(1), pages 80-99, January.
    9. C. Page Moreau & Kelly B. Herd, 2010. "To Each His Own? How Comparisons with Others Influence Consumers' Evaluations of Their Self-Designed Products," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 36(5), pages 806-819, February.
    10. Olivier Toubia & Oded Netzer, 2017. "Idea Generation, Creativity, and Prototypicality," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 1-20, January.
    11. 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.
    12. Karan Girotra & Christian Terwiesch & Karl T. Ulrich, 2010. "Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 591-605, April.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Chan, Kimmy Wa & Li, Stella Yiyan & Zhu, John Jianjun, 2018. "Good to Be Novel? Understanding How Idea Feasibility Affects Idea Adoption Decision Making in Crowdsourcing," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 52-68.
    4. Laura J. Kornish & Sharaya M. Jones, 2021. "Raw Ideas in the Fuzzy Front End: Verbosity Increases Perceived Creativity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 1106-1122, November.
    5. 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.
    6. J. Jason Bell & Christian Pescher & Gerard J. Tellis & Johann Füller, 2024. "Can AI Help in Ideation? A Theory-Based Model for Idea Screening in Crowdsourcing Contests," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 54-72, January.
    7. Vipul Aggarwal & Elina H. Hwang & Yong Tan, 2021. "Learning to Be Creative: A Mutually Exciting Spatiotemporal Point Process Model for Idea Generation in Open Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1214-1235, December.
    8. Gillier, Thomas & Chaffois, Cédric & Belkhouja, Mustapha & Roth, Yannig & Bayus, Barry L., 2018. "The effects of task instructions in crowdsourcing innovative ideas," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 35-44.
    9. Kimmy Wa Chan & Stella Yiyan Li & Jian Ni & John JianJun Zhu, 2021. "What Feedback Matters? The Role of Experience in Motivating Crowdsourcing Innovation," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(1), pages 103-126, January.
    10. Nirup Menon & Anant Mishra & Shun Ye, 2020. "Beyond Related Experience: Upstream vs. Downstream Experience in Innovation Contest Platforms with Interdependent Problem Domains," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1045-1065, September.
    11. Thomas Görzen, 2019. "“What’s the Point of the Task?” Exploring the Influence of Task Meaning on Creativity in Crowdsourcing," Working Papers Dissertations 54, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    12. 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).
    13. Tat Koon Koh, 2019. "Adopting Seekers’ Solution Exemplars in Crowdsourcing Ideation Contests: Antecedents and Consequences," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 486-506, June.
    14. Zhuojun Gu & Ravi Bapna & Jason Chan & Alok Gupta, 2022. "Measuring the Impact of Crowdsourcing Features on Mobile App User Engagement and Retention: A Randomized Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1297-1329, February.
    15. Evgeny Kagan & Stephen Leider & William S. Lovejoy, 2018. "Ideation–Execution Transition in Product Development: An Experimental Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2238-2262, May.
    16. 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.
    17. Keng Yang, 2019. "Research on Factors Affecting Solvers’ Participation Time in Online Crowdsourcing Contests," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-13, August.
    18. 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).
    19. Stallen, Mirre & Smidts, Ale & Rijpkema, Mark & Smit, Gitty & Klucharev, Vasily & Fernández, Guillén, 2010. "Celebrities and shoes on the female brain: The neural correlates of product evaluation in the context of fame," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 802-811, October.
    20. Das, Kallol & Patel, Jayesh D. & Sharma, Anuj & Shukla, Yupal, 2023. "Creativity in marketing: Examining the intellectual structure using scientometric analysis and topic modeling," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    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:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:4:p:3008-3025. 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.