IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jftint/v11y2019i8p176-d256805.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on Factors Affecting Solvers’ Participation Time in Online Crowdsourcing Contests

Author

Listed:
  • Keng Yang

    (School of Information, Central University of Finance and Economics, 39 South College Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100081, China)

Abstract

A crowdsourcing contest is one of the most popular modes of crowdsourcing and is also an important tool for an enterprise to implement open innovation. The solvers’ active participation is one of the major reasons for the success of crowdsourcing contests. Research on solvers’ participation behavior is helpful in understanding the sustainability and incentives of solvers’ participation in the online crowdsourcing platform. So, how to attract more solvers to participate and put in more effort is the focus of researchers. In this regard, previous studies mainly used the submission quantity to measure solvers’ participation behavior and lacked an effective measure on the degree of participation effort expended by a solver. For the first time, we use solvers’ participation time as a dependent variable to measure their effort in a crowdsourcing contest. Thus, we incorporate participation time into the solver’s participation research. With the data from Taskcn.com, we analyze how participation time is affected four key factors including task design, task description, task process, and environment, respectively. We found that, first, for task design, higher task rewards will attract solvers to invest more time in the participation process and the relationship between participation time and task duration is inverted U-shaped. Second, for task description, the length of the task description has a negative impact on participation time and the task description attachment will positively influence the participation time. Third, for the task process, communication and supplementary explanations in a crowdsourcing process positively affect participation time. Fourth, for environmental factors, the task density of the crowdsourcing platform and the market price of all crowdsourcing contests have respectively negative and positive effects on participation time.

Suggested Citation

  • Keng Yang, 2019. "Research on Factors Affecting Solvers’ Participation Time in Online Crowdsourcing Contests," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-13, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jftint:v:11:y:2019:i:8:p:176-:d:256805
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/11/8/176/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/11/8/176/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Boons & Daan Stam & Harry G. Barkema, 2015. "Feelings of Pride and Respect as Drivers of Ongoing Member Activity on Crowdsourcing Platforms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(6), pages 717-741, September.
    2. Mi (Jamie) Zhou & Baozhou Lu & Weiguo (Patrick) Fan & G. Alan Wang, 2018. "Project description and crowdfunding success: an exploratory study," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 259-274, April.
    3. Dan Li & Longying Hu, 2017. "Exploring the effects of reward and competition intensity on participation in crowdsourcing contests," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(3), pages 199-210, August.
    4. Jesse Bockstedt & Cheryl Druehl & Anant Mishra, 2016. "Heterogeneous Submission Behavior and its Implications for Success in Innovation Contests with Public Submissions," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 25(7), pages 1157-1176, July.
    5. Joel O. Wooten & Karl T. Ulrich, 2017. "Idea Generation and the Role of Feedback: Evidence from Field Experiments with Innovation Tournaments," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(1), pages 80-99, January.
    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. Mi (Jamie) Zhou & Baozhou Lu & Weiguo (Patrick) Fan & G. Alan Wang, 0. "Project description and crowdfunding success: an exploratory study," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-16.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Tracy Xiao Liu & Jiang Yang & Lada A. Adamic & Yan Chen, 2014. "Crowdsourcing with All-Pay Auctions: A Field Experiment on Taskcn," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(8), pages 2020-2037, August.
    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. Carlota Lorenzo-Romero & Efthymios Constantinides, 2019. "On-line Crowdsourcing: Motives of Customers to Participate in Online Collaborative Innovation Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-16, June.
    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. Camillo Donati & Andrea Guazzini & Giorgio Gronchi & Andrea Smorti, 2019. "About Linda Again: How Narratives and Group Reasoning Can Influence Conjunction Fallacy," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, October.

    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. Dargahi, Rambod & Namin, Aidin & Ketron, Seth C. & Saint Clair, Julian K., 2021. "Is self-knowledge the ultimate prize? A quantitative analysis of participation choice in online ideation crowdsourcing contests," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Jiao, Yuanyuan & Wu, Yepeng & Lu, Steven, 2021. "The role of crowdsourcing in product design: The moderating effect of user expertise and network connectivity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    8. Jesse Bockstedt & Cheryl Druehl & Anant Mishra, 2022. "Incentives and Stars: Competition in Innovation Contests with Participant and Submission Visibility," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(3), pages 1372-1393, March.
    9. Niek Althuizen & Bo Chen, 2022. "Crowdsourcing Ideas Using Product Prototypes: The Joint Effect of Prototype Enhancement and the Product Design Goal on Idea Novelty," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 3008-3025, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Liao, Junyun & Chen, Jiawen & Mou, Jian, 2021. "Examining the antecedents of idea contribution in online innovation communities: A perspective of creative self-efficacy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    12. Shunyuan Zhang & Param Vir Singh & Anindya Ghose, 2019. "A Structural Analysis of the Role of Superstars in Crowdsourcing Contests," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(1), pages 15-33, March.
    13. Christoph Riedl & Tom Grad & Christopher Lettl, 2024. "Competition and Collaboration in Crowdsourcing Communities: What happens when peers evaluate each other?," Papers 2404.14141, arXiv.org.
    14. Tekic, Anja & Alfonzo Pacheco, Diana Vilma, 2024. "Contest design and solvers' engagement behaviour in crowdsourcing: The neo-configurational perspective," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    15. Cheng, Xi & Gou, Qinglong & Yue, Jinfeng & Zhang, Yan, 2019. "Equilibrium decisions for an innovation crowdsourcing platform," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 241-260.
    16. Yang, Xi & Zhao, Quanwu & Sun, Heshan, 2022. "Seekers’ complaint behavior in crowdsourcing: An uncertainty perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    17. Pankaj Kumar & Swanand J. Deodhar & Srilata Zaheer, 2023. "Cognitive sources of liability of foreignness in crowdsourcing creative work," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 54(4), pages 686-716, June.
    18. Deichmann, Dirk & Gillier, Thomas & Tonellato, Marco, 2021. "Getting on board with new ideas: An analysis of idea commitments on a crowdsourcing platform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    19. 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).
    20. Segev, Ella, 2020. "Crowdsourcing contests," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(2), pages 241-255.

    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:gam:jftint:v:11:y:2019:i:8:p:176-:d:256805. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.