Identifying high quality ideas in the online context: evidence from a meta-analysis

Purpose - With the rapid development of web-based ideation platforms, firms are increasingly reaching outside their boundaries to obtain ideas, which makes idea evaluation tricky and ineffective. Numerous studies have investigated the antecedents of idea quality, but few have focused on the fragmented and contradictory conclusions these studies have drawn. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to disentangle conflicting findings regarding factors affecting idea quality. Design/methodology/approach - A total of 41 independent samples from 40 articles published between 2009 and 2020 were retrieved and encoded to conduct a meta-analysis. By using Comprehensive Meta-analysis 3.0 (CMA 3.0) software, the relationship between identified influencing factors and idea quality, and the moderating effects of potential variables were investigated. Findings - Factors affecting idea quality were summarized and divided into three categories: idea-related factors, ideator-related factors and platform-related factors. The results indicated that all proposed factors (idea length, supporting evidence, past success, past submissions, past comments, votes received and comments received) had significant positive effects on idea quality. Moreover, the measurement of idea quality and idea type was the causative factor for the inconsistent findings, whereas the moderating effect of platform type was not significant. Originality/value - This study systematically synthesized the existing research on the factors influencing idea quality and helped to reconcile the mixed results. The findings serve to enrich current knowledge of idea evaluation in the online context, which could have important implications for both scholars and practitioners.