IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v119y2023ics0166497222001602.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aligning the crowdsourcing type with the problem attributes to improve solution search efficacy

Author

Listed:
  • Gurca, Andrei
  • Bagherzadeh, Mehdi
  • Velayati, Rezvan

Abstract

Drawing on the concept of bounded rationality and extant evidence, we argue that for specific problems (broad and ill-defined, urgent, highly technical), the prevailing approach to crowdsourcing (metaphorically labeled as “fishing” in this study) has several limitations that affect the quality of emerging solutions. For such problems, we argue that other types of crowdsourcing (i.e., collective production and “hunting”) may generate more appropriate solutions. Our insights regarding the solution search process advance the literature by highlighting the importance of alignment between crowdsourcing type and problem attributes. We also provide a decision framework for managers suggesting how they can select the most appropriate type of crowdsourcing for their solution searching efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • Gurca, Andrei & Bagherzadeh, Mehdi & Velayati, Rezvan, 2023. "Aligning the crowdsourcing type with the problem attributes to improve solution search efficacy," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:119:y:2023:i:c:s0166497222001602
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102613
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497222001602
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102613?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. Youngjin Yoo & Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Ann Majchrzak, 2012. "Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1398-1408, October.
    3. Ren, Jie & Han, Yue & Genc, Yegin & Yeoh, William & Popovič, Aleš, 2021. "The boundary of crowdsourcing in the domain of creativity✰," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Teppo Felin & Todd R. Zenger, 2016. "CROSSROADS—Strategy, Problems, and a Theory for the Firm," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 222-231, February.
    6. Linus Dahlander & Henning Piezunka, 2020. "Why crowdsourcing fails," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    7. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    8. Boons, Mark & Stam, Daan, 2019. "Crowdsourcing for innovation: How related and unrelated perspectives interact to increase creative performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1758-1770.
    9. Haeussler, Carolin & Vieth, Sabrina, 2022. "A question worth a million: The expert, the crowd, or myself? An investigation of problem solving," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    10. Kokshagina, Olga & Le Masson, Pascal & Bories, Florent, 2017. "Fast-connecting search practices: On the role of open innovation intermediary to accelerate the absorptive capacity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 232-239.
    11. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    12. 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.
    13. Ann Majchrzak & Lynne P. Cooper & Olivia E. Neece, 2004. "Knowledge Reuse for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(2), pages 174-188, February.
    14. Amanda J. Porter & Philipp Tuertscher & Marleen Huysman, 2020. "Saving Our Oceans: Scaling the Impact of Robust Action Through Crowdsourcing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 246-286, March.
    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. Mahotra, Arvind & Majchrzak, Ann, 2024. "Digital innovations in crowdsourcing using AI tools," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    2. Bonazzi, Riccardo & Viscusi, Gianluigi & Solidoro, Adriano, 2024. "Crowd mining as a strategic resource for innovation seekers," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. Moghaddam, Ehsan Noorzad & Aliahmadi, Alireza & Bagherzadeh, Mehdi & Markovic, Stefan & Micevski, Milena & Saghafi, Fatemeh, 2023. "Let me choose what I want: The influence of incentive choice flexibility on the quality of crowdsourcing solutions to innovation problems," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Bonazzi, Riccardo & Viscusi, Gianluigi & Solidoro, Adriano, 2024. "Crowd mining as a strategic resource for innovation seekers," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    5. Shastitko, Andrey & Golovanova, Svetlana, 2016. "Meeting blindly… Is Austrian economics useful for dynamic capabilities theory?," Russian Journal of Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 86-110.
    6. David Stadelmann & Benno Torgler, 2012. "Bounded Rationality and Voting Decisions Exploring a 160-Year Period," Working Papers 2012.70, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    7. Nolan Ritter & Julia Anna Bingler, 2021. "Do homo sapiens know their prices? Insights on dysfunctional price mechanisms from a large field experiment," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 21/348, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    8. Robin M. Hogarth & Natalia Karelaia, 2006. "Regions of Rationality: Maps for Bounded Agents," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 124-144, September.
    9. Conroy, Kieran M. & Jacobs, Simon & Liu, Yang, 2023. "The dual knowledge role of open innovation intermediaries: Internal weaving and external filtering for MNE subsidiaries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    10. Tiziana Assenza & Alberto Cardaci & Domenico Delli Gatti, 2019. "Perceived Wealth, Cognitive Sophistication and Behavioral Inattention," CESifo Working Paper Series 7992, CESifo.
    11. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    12. Brendan Markey-Towler, 2018. "A formal psychological theory for evolutionary economics," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 691-725, September.
    13. Boons, Mark & Stam, Daan, 2019. "Crowdsourcing for innovation: How related and unrelated perspectives interact to increase creative performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1758-1770.
    14. Altman, Morris, 2014. "Insights from behavioral economics on how labor markets work," Working Paper Series 3466, Victoria University of Wellington, School of Economics and Finance.
    15. Bidisha Chakraborty & Souparna Maji & Anamika Sen & Isha Mallik & Sayantan Baidya & Esha Dwibedi, 2019. "A Study on Happiness and Related Factors Among Indian College Students," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 17(1), pages 215-236, March.
    16. Rhodes, Charles, 2012. "A Dynamic Model of Failure to Maximize Utility in the Chronic Consumer Choice to Consume Foods High in Added Sugars," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124693, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Berg, Nathan & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2006. "Peacemaking among inconsistent rationalities?," MPRA Paper 26588, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Brendan Markey-Towler, 2018. "Salience, chains and anchoring. Reducing complexity and enhancing the practicality of behavioural economics," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 2(1), pages 83-90, March.
    19. Reiter, Andreas & Stonig, Joachim & Frankenberger, Karolin, 2024. "Managing multi-tiered innovation ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).
    20. Ardalan, Kavous, 2018. "Neurofinance versus the efficient markets hypothesis," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 170-176.

    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:techno:v:119:y:2023:i:c:s0166497222001602. 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/01664972 .

    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.