IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijimxx/v21y2017i03ns1363919617500244.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Walking Parallel Paths Or Taking The Same Road? The Effect Of Collaborative Incentives In Innovation Contests

Author

Listed:
  • VIKTORIA BOSS

    (Hamburg University of Technology, Am Irrgarten 3-9, 21073 Hamburg, Germany)

  • ROBIN KLEER

    (Technical University of Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, Berlin, Germany)

  • ALEXANDER VOSSEN

    (University of Siegen, Kohlbettstr. 15, 57072 Siegen, Germany)

Abstract

We examine the role of participants’ interactions in innovation contests. In contrast to the dominant view of a competitive organisation of innovation contests, we suggest that, especially for ideation projects, a collaborative setting may be beneficial in terms of the amount of ideation activity and the quality of the generated ideas. Using two experiments, we show the usefulness of a collaborative approach when two particular conditions are met: first, the overall effort must be compensated according to performance criteria in such a way that participants are aware of the impact of their actions. Thus, the reward mechanism has to ensure that all contributors to a specific idea benefit from their involvement. Second, the host has to provide feedback throughout the contest to make it clear for participants what idea(s) to focus on. Our results show that, while the elaboration effort can be increased by introducing a collaborative reward mechanism alone, the best results are achieved when both conditions are met.

Suggested Citation

  • Viktoria Boss & Robin Kleer & Alexander Vossen, 2017. "Walking Parallel Paths Or Taking The Same Road? The Effect Of Collaborative Incentives In Innovation Contests," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(03), pages 1-34, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijimxx:v:21:y:2017:i:03:n:s1363919617500244
    DOI: 10.1142/S1363919617500244
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1363919617500244
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S1363919617500244?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. Miia Kosonen & Chunmei Gan & Mika Vanhala & Kirsimarja Blomqvist, 2014. "User Motivation And Knowledge Sharing In Idea Crowdsourcing," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(05), pages 1-23.
    2. Uri Gneezy & Aldo Rustichini, 2000. "Pay Enough or Don't Pay at All," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(3), pages 791-810.
    3. Frey, Bruno S & Oberholzer-Gee, Felix, 1997. "The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of Motivation Crowding-Out," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 746-755, September.
    4. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    5. Hangzi Zhu & Katharina Djurjagina & Jens Leker, 2014. "Innovative Behaviour Types And Their Influence On Individual Crowdsourcing Performances," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1-18.
    6. Karim R. Lakhani & Jill A. Panetta, 2007. "The Principles of Distributed Innovation," Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, MIT Press, vol. 2(3), pages 97-112, July.
    7. Olivier Toubia, 2006. "Idea Generation, Creativity, and Incentives," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 411-425, September.
    8. Bulte, Erwin H. & Lipper, Leslie & Stringer, Randy & Zilberman, David, 2008. "Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 245-254, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Christian Terwiesch & Yi Xu, 2008. "Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1529-1543, September.
    11. Elena Pellizzoni & Tommaso Buganza & Gabriele Colombo, 2015. "Motivation Orientations In Innovation Contests: Why People Participate," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(04), pages 1-26.
    12. 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.
    13. J. H. Jung & Christoph Schneider & Joseph Valacich, 2010. "Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Information Systems: The Effects of Real-Time Performance Feedback and Goal Setting in Group Collaboration Environments," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 724-742, April.
    14. Anthony M. Marino & Ján Zábojník, 2004. "Internal Competition for Corporate Resources and Incentives in Teams," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(4), pages 710-727, Winter.
    15. Stefan Szymanski, 2010. "The Economic Design of Sporting Contests," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: The Comparative Economics of Sport, chapter 1, pages 1-78, Palgrave Macmillan.
    16. Paulus, Paul B. & Yang, Huei-Chuan, 2000. "Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organizations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 76-87, May.
    17. Cameron, A. Colin & Trivedi, Pravin K., 1990. "Regression-based tests for overdispersion in the Poisson model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 347-364, December.
    18. Ely Dahan & Haim Mendelson, 2001. "An Extreme-Value Model of Concept Testing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 102-116, January.
    19. Harhoff, Dietmar & Henkel, Joachim & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1753-1769, December.
    20. Dan Ariely & Uri Gneezy & George Loewenstein & Nina Mazar, 2009. "Large Stakes and Big Mistakes," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(2), pages 451-469.
    21. Miia Kosonen & Chunmei Gan & Heidi Olander & Kirsimarja Blomqvist, 2013. "My Idea Is Our Idea! Supporting User-Driven Innovation Activities In Crowdsourcing Communities," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 1-18.
    22. Dahlander, Linus & Piezunka, Henning, 2014. "Open to suggestions: How organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 812-827.
    23. Eric von Hippel & Georg von Krogh, 2003. "Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 209-223, April.
    24. Dixit, Avinash K, 1987. "Strategic Behavior in Contests," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 891-898, December.
    25. Lakhani, Karim R. & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "How open source software works: "free" user-to-user assistance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 923-943, June.
    26. Jasjit Singh & Lee Fleming, 2010. "Lone Inventors as Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 41-56, January.
    27. 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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christofer F. Daiberl & Sascha Julian Oks & Angela Roth & Kathrin M. Möslein & Steven Alter, 2019. "Design principles for establishing a multi-sided open innovation platform: lessons learned from an action research study in the medical technology industry," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(4), pages 711-728, December.
    2. Christian W. Scheiner & Christian V. Baccarella & John Bessant & Kai-Ingo Voigt, 2018. "Participation Motives, Moral Disengagement, And Unethical Behaviour In Idea Competitions," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(06), pages 1-24, August.
    3. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500142 is not listed 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. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500142 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Piller, Frank & Vossen, Alexander & Ihl, Christoph, 2012. "From Social Media to Social Product Development: The Impact of Social Media on Co-Creation of Innovation," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 66(1), pages 7-27.
    7. Julia Bauer & Nikolaus Franke & Philipp Tuertscher, 2016. "Intellectual Property Norms in Online Communities: How User-Organized Intellectual Property Regulation Supports Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 724-750, December.
    8. Christian W. Scheiner & Christian V. Baccarella & John Bessant & Kai-Ingo Voigt, 2018. "Participation Motives, Moral Disengagement, And Unethical Behaviour In Idea Competitions," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(06), pages 1-24, August.
    9. 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.
    10. Salgado, Stéphane & Hemonnet-Goujot, Aurelie & Henard, David H. & de Barnier, Virginie, 2020. "The dynamics of innovation contest experience: An integrated framework from the customer’s perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 29-43.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Haibo Liu & Jürgen Mihm & Manuel E. Sosa & Manuel E. Sosa, 2018. "Where Do Stars Come From? The Role of Star vs. Nonstar Collaborators in Creative Settings," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1149-1169, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Sanjiv Erat & Vish Krishnan, 2012. "Managing Delegated Search Over Design Spaces," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(3), pages 606-623, March.
    17. Ming Hu & Lu Wang, 2021. "Joint vs. Separate Crowdsourcing Contests," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2711-2728, May.
    18. 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).
    19. Hyeon Jo & Youngsok Bang, 2023. "Factors influencing continuance intention of participants in crowdsourcing," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    20. Zimmerling, Eric & Höllig, Christoph E. & Sandner, Philipp G. & Welpe, Isabell M., 2019. "Exploring the influence of common game elements on ideation output and motivation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 302-312.
    21. J. Andrei Villarroel & John E. Taylor & Christopher L. Tucci, 2013. "Innovation and learning performance implications of free revealing and knowledge brokering in competing communities: insights from the Netflix Prize challenge," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 42-77, 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:wsi:ijimxx:v:21:y:2017:i:03:n:s1363919617500244. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijim/ijim.shtml .

    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.