IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v174y2022ics0040162521006272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balancing openness and control to improve the performance of crowdsourcing contests for product innovation: A configurational perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Fu, Shihui
  • Sun, Yi
  • Gao, Xue

Abstract

This study inductively explores the interplay between openness and control and their impact on the performance of crowdsourcing contests for product innovation. Building on an analysis of crowdsourcing literature, we conceptualize openness and control in terms of six management practices: rewards, feedback, community building, access restrictions, task instructions and evaluation rights. For greater clarity on the units of analysis, an explicit distinction is made between different contextual settings in terms of the locus of innovation, i.e., core or peripheral subsystem innovation. A sample of 159 crowdsourcing contests for consumer electronics innovation is analyzed through a configurational approach, which identifies four high-performing solutions. The results indicate that openness and control are deeply interrelated and their appropriate combination may depend on the locus of innovation. Propositions associated with the openness/control issue of crowdsourcing contests are developed according to the results. The findings provide integrative insights into how particular combinations of management practices can help strike the right balance between openness and control in crowdsourcing contests.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:174:y:2022:i:c:s0040162521006272
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121194
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521006272
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121194?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. Aversa, Paolo & Guillotin, Olivier, 2018. "Firm technological responses to regulatory changes: A longitudinal study in the Le Mans Prototype racing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1655-1673.
    2. Foege, J. Nils & Lauritzen, Ghita Dragsdahl & Tietze, Frank & Salge, Torsten Oliver, 2019. "Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1323-1339.
    3. 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.
    4. Habib, Tufail & Kristiansen, Jimmi Normann & Rana, Mohammad Bakhtiar & Ritala, Paavo, 2020. "Revisiting the role of modular innovation in technological radicalness and architectural change of products: The case of Tesla X and Roomba," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    5. Garcia Martinez, Marian, 2015. "Solver engagement in knowledge sharing in crowdsourcing communities: Exploring the link to creativity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1419-1430.
    6. Hubert Gatignon & Michael L. Tushman & Wendy Smith & Philip Anderson, 2002. "A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation Locus, Type, and Characteristics," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(9), pages 1103-1122, September.
    7. Felin, Teppo & Zenger, Todd R., 2014. "Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 914-925.
    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. De Rooij, Mariska M.G. & Janowicz-Panjaitan, Martyna & Mannak, Remco S., 2019. "A configurational explanation for performance management systems' design in project-based organizations," Other publications TiSEM edcb4bed-2636-4985-97ab-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Arora, Ashish & Athreye, Suma & Huang, Can, 2016. "The paradox of openness revisited: Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1352-1361.
    11. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    12. Ragin, Charles C., 2000. "Fuzzy-Set Social Science," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226702773, April.
    13. Baldwin, Carliss & MacCormack, Alan & Rusnak, John, 2014. "Hidden structure: Using network methods to map system architecture," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1381-1397.
    14. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M., 2010. "How open is innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 699-709, July.
    15. 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.
    16. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    17. Nadia Steils & Salwa Hanine, 2019. "Recruiting valuable participants in online IDEA generation: The role of brief instructions," Post-Print hal-02117668, HAL.
    18. Lopez-Vega, Henry & Tell, Fredrik & Vanhaverbeke, Wim, 2016. "Where and how to search? Search paths in open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 125-136.
    19. Joel West & Siobhan O'mahony, 2008. "The Role of Participation Architecture in Growing Sponsored Open Source Communities," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 145-168.
    20. Christian Terwiesch & Yi Xu, 2008. "Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1529-1543, September.
    21. 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.
    22. Gautam Ahuja & Riitta Katila, 2004. "Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 887-907, August.
    23. Garcia Martinez, Marian, 2017. "Inspiring crowdsourcing communities to create novel solutions: Competition design and the mediating role of trust," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 296-304.
    24. Ulrich, Karl, 1995. "The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 419-440, May.
    25. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226702766 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Tekic, Anja & Alfonzo Pacheco, Diana Vilma, 2024. "Contest design and solvers' engagement behaviour in crowdsourcing: The neo-configurational perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    2. Franzò, Simone & Doppio, Nicola & Natalicchio, Angelo & Frattini, Federico & Mion, Luca, 2023. "Designing innovation contests to support external knowledge search in small and medium-sized enterprises," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(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. 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.
    2. Piazza, Mariangela & Mazzola, Erica & Perrone, Giovanni, 2022. "How can I signal my quality to emerge from the crowd? A study in the crowdsourcing context," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    3. Livio Cricelli & Michele Grimaldi & Silvia Vermicelli, 2022. "Crowdsourcing and open innovation: a systematic literature review, an integrated framework and a research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 1269-1310, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Schäper, Thomas & Jung, Christopher & Foege, Johann Nils & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Fainshmidt, Stav & Nüesch, Stephan, 2023. "The S-shaped relationship between open innovation and financial performance: A longitudinal perspective using a novel text-based measure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    6. 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).
    7. Cappa, Francesco & Oriani, Raffaele & Pinelli, Michele & De Massis, Alfredo, 2019. "When does crowdsourcing benefit firm stock market performance?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    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. 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.
    10. Lu, Qinli & Chesbrough, Henry, 2022. "Measuring open innovation practices through topic modelling: Revisiting their impact on firm financial performance," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    11. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    12. Langlois, Jonathan & BenMahmoud-Jouini, Sihem & Servajean-Hilst, Romaric, 2023. "Practicing secrecy in open innovation – The case of a military firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    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. Thuy Seran & Sea Matilda Bez, 2019. "Managing Open-Innovation between Competitors: A Project-Level Approach," Post-Print hal-02427680, HAL.
    15. Just, Julian, 2024. "Natural language processing for innovation search – Reviewing an emerging non-human innovation intermediary," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    16. Xu, Hui & Wu, Yang & Hamari, Juho, 2022. "What determines the successfulness of a crowdsourcing campaign: A study on the relationships between indicators of trustworthiness, popularity, and success," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 484-495.
    17. van Criekingen, Kristof & Freel, Mark & Czarnitzki, Dirk, 2021. "Open innovation deficiency: Evidence on project abandonment and delay," ZEW Discussion Papers 21-006, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    18. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500142 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    20. 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).
    21. Yuan Jin & Ho Cheung Brian Lee & Sulin Ba & Jan Stallaert, 2021. "Winning by Learning? Effect of Knowledge Sharing in Crowdsourcing Contests," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 836-859, September.

    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:174:y:2022:i:c:s0040162521006272. 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.