IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v134y2018icp35-44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of task instructions in crowdsourcing innovative ideas

Author

Listed:
  • Gillier, Thomas
  • Chaffois, Cédric
  • Belkhouja, Mustapha
  • Roth, Yannig
  • Bayus, Barry L.

Abstract

The existing literature offers conflicting advice regarding the types of task instructions that increase the quality of ideas during idea generation. Our research examines three types of task instructions: unbounded (participants are asked to generate any ideas they want), suggestive (participants are asked to propose ideas that improve current product benefits), and prohibitive (participants are asked to propose ideas that do not involve current product benefits). We explore the effectiveness of these three types of task instructions in a field study involving 6406 ideas from eYeka, a global crowdsourcing platform. As compared to unbounded task instructions, we find that suggestive task instructions are significantly related to lower idea originality, feasibility, and value. In addition, we find that idea originality and value are statistically equivalent for unbounded and prohibitive task instructions. Together, our results suggest that either unbounded or prohibitive task instructions should be used when crowdsourcing innovative ideas.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:134:y:2018:i:c:p:35-44
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517318401
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.005?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. Alan R. Dennis & Joseph S. Valacich & Terry Connolly & Bayard E. Wynne, 1996. "Process Structuring in Electronic Brainstorming," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 268-277, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Anne-Laure Sellier & Darren W. Dahl, 2011. "Focus! Creative Success Is Enjoyed Through Restricted Choice," Post-Print hal-00668631, HAL.
    4. Hirunyawipada, Tanawat & Paswan, Audhesh K., 2013. "Effects of team cognition and constraint on new product ideation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(11), pages 2332-2337.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Natalicchio, A. & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. & Garavelli, A.C., 2017. "Innovation problems and search for solutions in crowdsourcing platforms – A simulation approach," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 64, pages 28-42.
    8. Christian Terwiesch & Yi Xu, 2008. "Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1529-1543, September.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Roger J. Volkema, 1983. "Problem Formulation in Planning and Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 639-652, June.
    12. Palacios, Miguel & Martinez-Corral, Alberto & Nisar, Arsalan & Grijalvo, Mercedes, 2016. "Crowdsourcing and organizational forms: Emerging trends and research implications," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1834-1839.
    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. Fu, Shihui & Sun, Yi & Gao, Xue, 2022. "Balancing openness and control to improve the performance of crowdsourcing contests for product innovation: A configurational perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    2. 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).

    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. Steils, Nadia & Hanine, Salwa, 2019. "Recruiting valuable participants in online IDEA generation: The role of brief instructions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 14-25.
    2. 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.
    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 & 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Hossain, Mokter, 2018. "Motivations, challenges, and opportunities of successful solvers on an innovation intermediary platform," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 67-73.
    9. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500142 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Ivan Fedorenko & Pierre Berthon, 2017. "Beyond the expected benefits: unpacking value co-creation in crowdsourcing business models," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 7(3), pages 183-194, December.
    11. repec:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:8:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. Natalicchio, A. & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. & Garavelli, A.C., 2017. "Innovation problems and search for solutions in crowdsourcing platforms – A simulation approach," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 64, pages 28-42.
    14. Nikolaus Franke & Marion K. Poetz & Martin Schreier, 2014. "Integrating Problem Solvers from Analogous Markets in New Product Ideation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 1063-1081, April.
    15. 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.
    16. Yang, Mu & Han, Chunjia, 2021. "Stimulating innovation: Managing peer interaction for idea generation on digital innovation platforms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 456-465.
    17. Pallab Sanyal & Shun Ye, 2024. "An Examination of the Dynamics of Crowdsourcing Contests: Role of Feedback Type," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 394-413, March.
    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. "RETRACTED ARTICLE: Factors influencing continuance intention of participants in crowdsourcing," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    20. 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).
    21. 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.
    22. 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.

    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:134:y:2018:i:c:p:35-44. 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.