IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormsom/v23y2021i3p657-675.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Duration of Innovation Contests

Author

Listed:
  • C. Gizem Korpeoglu

    (Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, Netherlands)

  • Ersin Körpeoğlu

    (School of Management, University College London, London E14 5AA, United Kingdom)

  • Sıdıka Tunç

    (School of Management, University College London, London E14 5AA, United Kingdom)

Abstract

Problem definition : We study the contest duration and the award scheme of an innovation contest where an organizer elicits solutions to an innovation-related problem from a group of agents. Academic/practical relevance : Our interviews with practitioners at crowdsourcing platforms have revealed that the duration of a contest is an important operational decision. Yet, the theoretical literature has long overlooked this decision. Also, the literature fails to adequately explain why giving multiple unequal awards is so common in crowdsourcing platforms. We aim to fill these gaps between the theory and practice. We generate insights that seem consistent with both practice and empirical evidence. Methodology : We use a game-theoretic model where the organizer decides on the contest duration and the award scheme while each agent decides on her participation and determines her effort over the contest duration by considering potential changes in her productivity over time. The quality of an agent’s solution improves with her effort, but it is also subject to an output uncertainty. Results : We show that the optimal contest duration increases as the relative impact of the agent uncertainty on her output increases, and it decreases if the agent productivity increases over time. We characterize an optimal award scheme and show that giving multiple (almost always) unequal awards is optimal when the organizer’s urgency in obtaining solutions is below a certain threshold. We also show that this threshold is larger when the agent productivity increases over time. Finally, consistent with empirical findings, we show that there is a positive correlation between the optimal contest duration and the optimal total award. Managerial implications : Our results suggest that the optimal contest duration increases with the novelty or sophistication of solutions that the organizer seeks, and it decreases when the organizer can offer support tools that can increase the agent productivity over time. These insights and their drivers seem consistent with practice. Our findings also suggest that giving multiple unequal awards is advisable for an organizer who has low urgency in obtaining solutions. Finally, giving multiple awards goes hand in hand with offering support tools that increase the agent productivity over time. These results help explain why many contests on crowdsourcing platforms give multiple unequal awards.

Suggested Citation

  • C. Gizem Korpeoglu & Ersin Körpeoğlu & Sıdıka Tunç, 2021. "Optimal Duration of Innovation Contests," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 657-675, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormsom:v:23:y:2021:i:3:p:657-675
    DOI: 10.1287/msom.2020.0935
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/msom.2020.0935
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/msom.2020.0935?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sanjiv Erat & Vish Krishnan, 2012. "Managing Delegated Search Over Design Spaces," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(3), pages 606-623, March.
    2. Partha Dasgupta & Joseph Stiglitz, 1980. "Uncertainty, Industrial Structure, and the Speed of R&D," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(1), pages 1-28, Spring.
    3. Christoph H. Loch & Christian Terwiesch & Stefan Thomke, 2001. "Parallel and Sequential Testing of Design Alternatives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 663-678, May.
    4. Jürgen Mihm & Jochen Schlapp, 2019. "Sourcing Innovation: On Feedback in Contests," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 559-576, February.
    5. Tom Lee & Louis L. Wilde, 1980. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 94(2), pages 429-436.
    6. Sanjiv Erat & Stylianos Kavadias, 2008. "Sequential Testing of Product Designs: Implications for Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 956-968, May.
    7. Christian Terwiesch & Yi Xu, 2008. "Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(9), pages 1529-1543, September.
    8. Giuseppe Moscarini & Lones Smith, 2001. "The Optimal Level of Experimentation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(6), pages 1629-1644, November.
    9. Segev, Ella, 2020. "Crowdsourcing contests," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(2), pages 241-255.
    10. Glenn C. Loury, 1979. "Market Structure and Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 93(3), pages 395-410.
    11. Raul O. Chao & Stylianos Kavadias, 2008. "A Theoretical Framework for Managing the New Product Development Portfolio: When and How to Use Strategic Buckets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 907-921, May.
    12. Raul O. Chao & Stylianos Kavadias & Cheryl Gaimon, 2009. "Revenue Driven Resource Allocation: Funding Authority, Incentives, and New Product Development Portfolio Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(9), pages 1556-1569, September.
    13. Amit Jain, 2013. "Learning by Doing and the Locus of Innovative Capability in Biotechnology Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 1683-1700, December.
    14. Ying-Ju Chen & Tinglong Dai & C. Gizem Korpeoglu & Ersin Körpeoğlu & Ozge Sahin & Christopher S. Tang & Shihong Xiao, 2020. "OM Forum—Innovative Online Platforms: Research Opportunities," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 430-445, May.
    15. Yaozhong Wu & Karthik Ramachandran & Vish Krishnan, 2014. "Managing Cost Salience and Procrastination in Projects: Compensation and Team Composition," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 23(8), pages 1299-1311, August.
    16. Ely Dahan & Haim Mendelson, 2001. "An Extreme-Value Model of Concept Testing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 102-116, January.
    17. Ersin Körpeoğlu & Soo-Haeng Cho, 2018. "Incentives in Contests with Heterogeneous Solvers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2709-2715, June.
    18. Christian Seel, 2018. "Contests with endogenous deadlines," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 119-133, March.
    19. Lang, Matthias & Seel, Christian & Strack, Philipp, 2014. "Deadlines in stochastic contests," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 134-142.
    20. Panos Kouvelis & Joseph Milner & Zhili Tian, 2017. "Clinical Trials for New Drug Development: Optimal Investment and Application," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(3), pages 437-452, July.
    21. Elina H. Hwang & Param Vir Singh & Linda Argote, 2019. "Jack of All, Master of Some: Information Network and Innovation in Crowdsourcing Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 389-410, June.
    22. Ajay Kalra & Mengze Shi, 2001. "Designing Optimal Sales Contests: A Theoretical Perspective," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 170-193, December.
    23. Kostas Bimpikis & Shayan Ehsani & Mohamed Mostagir, 2019. "Designing Dynamic Contests," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(2), pages 339-356, 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. 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.

    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. Laurence Ales & Soo‐Haeng Cho & Ersin Körpeoğlu, 2021. "Innovation Tournaments with Multiple Contributors," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(6), pages 1772-1784, June.
    2. Xu Tian & Gongbing Bi, 2022. "Multiplicative output form and its applications to problems in the homogenous innovation contest model," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 44(3), pages 709-732, September.
    3. Stylianos Kavadias & Karl T. Ulrich, 2020. "Innovation and New Product Development: Reflections and Insights from the Research Published in the First 20 Years of Manufacturing & Service Operations Management," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 84-92, January.
    4. Svenja C. Sommer & Elliot Bendoly & Stylianos Kavadias, 2020. "How Do You Search for the Best Alternative? Experimental Evidence on Search Strategies to Solve Complex Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(3), pages 1395-1420, March.
    5. Pavel Kireyev, 2016. "Markets for Ideas: Prize Structure, Entry Limits, and the Design of Ideation Contests," Harvard Business School Working Papers 16-129, Harvard Business School.
    6. Thijssen, J.J.J., 2003. "Investment under uncertainty, market evolution and coalition spillovers in a game theoretic perspective," Other publications TiSEM 672073a6-492e-4621-8d4a-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Matros, Alexander & Smirnov, Vladimir, 2016. "Duplicative search," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-22.
    8. Pin Gao & Xiaoshuai Fan & Yangguang Huang & Ying-Ju Chen, 2022. "Resource Allocation Among Competing Innovators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(8), pages 6059-6074, August.
    9. Konrad, Kai A., 2014. "Search duplication in research and design spaces — Exploring the role of local competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 222-228.
    10. Bavly, Gilad & Heller, Yuval & Schreiber, Amnon, 2022. "Social welfare in search games with asymmetric information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    11. Zhaohui (Zoey) Jiang & Yan Huang & Damian R. Beil, 2021. "The Role of Problem Specification in Crowdsourcing Contests for Design Problems: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 637-656, May.
    12. Stylianos Kavadias & Svenja C. Sommer, 2009. "The Effects of Problem Structure and Team Diversity on Brainstorming Effectiveness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(12), pages 1899-1913, December.
    13. 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.
    14. de Roos, Nicolas & Matros, Alexander & Smirnov, Vladimir & Wait, Andrew, 2018. "Shipwrecks and treasure hunters," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 259-283.
    15. Sanjiv Erat & Vish Krishnan, 2012. "Managing Delegated Search Over Design Spaces," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(3), pages 606-623, March.
    16. 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.
    17. Jonas Send, 2021. "Contest Copycats: Adversarial Duplication of Effort in Contests," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2021-17, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    18. Ying-Ju Chen & Tinglong Dai & C. Gizem Korpeoglu & Ersin Körpeoğlu & Ozge Sahin & Christopher S. Tang & Shihong Xiao, 2020. "OM Forum—Innovative Online Platforms: Research Opportunities," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 430-445, May.
    19. Jürgen Mihm & Jochen Schlapp, 2019. "Sourcing Innovation: On Feedback in Contests," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 559-576, February.
    20. Joel O. Wooten, 2022. "Leaps in innovation and the Bannister effect in contests," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(6), pages 2646-2663, June.

    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:inm:ormsom:v:23:y:2021:i:3:p:657-675. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.