IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jknowl/v6y2015i3p611-624.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ideation through Online Open Innovation Platform: Dell IdeaStorm

Author

Listed:
  • Mokter Hossain
  • K. Islam

Abstract

The objective of this study is to identify factors associated with idea selection and implementation through online open innovation platforms. Analyzing data of implemented ideas from Dell IdeaStorm platform, we found that only a small fraction of the submitted ideas is implementable. Consequently, firms tend to adopt targeted open innovation for idea generation on online platforms. The number of implementable ideas increases steadily overtime; whereas, the number of community members grows very fast. Sole ideas get implemented quicker than those of linked with other ideas. However, sole ideas need longer time, more comments, and points for implementation. Higher number of idea submissions from a member increases his/her chance to achieve more implementable ideas. Active members are involved not only with idea submission but also in various other tasks such as commenting and voting. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Mokter Hossain & K. Islam, 2015. "Ideation through Online Open Innovation Platform: Dell IdeaStorm," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 6(3), pages 611-624, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:6:y:2015:i:3:p:611-624
    DOI: 10.1007/s13132-015-0262-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s13132-015-0262-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13132-015-0262-7?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. Elias Carayannis & Ruslan Rakhmatullin, 2014. "The Quadruple/Quintuple Innovation Helixes and Smart Specialisation Strategies for Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in Europe and Beyond," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 5(2), pages 212-239, June.
    2. Joel West & Karim Lakhani, 2008. "Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 223-231.
    3. Gibbert, Michael & Leibold, Marius & Probst, Gilbert, 2002. "Five Styles of Customer Knowledge Management, and How Smart Companies Use Them To Create Value," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 459-469, October.
    4. Ely Dahan & Haim Mendelson, 2001. "An Extreme-Value Model of Concept Testing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 102-116, January.
    5. Nicolai J. Foss & Keld Laursen & Torben Pedersen, 2011. "Linking Customer Interaction and Innovation: The Mediating Role of New Organizational Practices," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 980-999, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Schulze, Anja & Hoegl, Martin, 2008. "Organizational knowledge creation and the generation of new product ideas: A behavioral approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1742-1750, December.
    8. Dahlander, Linus & Piezunka, Henning, 2014. "Open to suggestions: How organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 812-827.
    9. Loet Leydesdorff, 2012. "The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 3(1), pages 25-35, March.
    10. Lars Bo Jeppesen & Lars Frederiksen, 2006. "Why Do Users Contribute to Firm-Hosted User Communities? The Case of Computer-Controlled Music Instruments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 45-63, February.
    11. Glen L. Urban & Eric von Hippel, 1988. "Lead User Analyses for the Development of New Industrial Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(5), pages 569-582, May.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Mohammad Daradkeh, 2022. "The Relationship Between Persuasion Cues and Idea Adoption in Virtual Crowdsourcing Communities: Evidence From a Business Analytics Community," International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM), IGI Global, vol. 18(1), pages 1-34, January.
    3. Jari Kolehmainen & Joe Irvine & Linda Stewart & Zoltan Karacsonyi & Tünde Szabó & Juha Alarinta & Anders Norberg, 2016. "Quadruple Helix, Innovation and the Knowledge-Based Development: Lessons from Remote, Rural and Less-Favoured Regions," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 7(1), pages 23-42, March.
    4. Lin, Jie & Wang, Chao & Zhou, Lixin & Jiang, Xiaoyan, 2022. "Converting consumer-generated content into an innovation resource: A user ideas processing framework in online user innovation communities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    5. Abril, Carmen & Gimenez-Fernandez, Elena M. & Camacho-Miñano, María-del-Mar, 2024. "Using gamification to overcome innovation process challenges: A literature review and future agenda," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    6. Ernesto Cardamone & Veronica Marozzo & Gaetano “Nino” Miceli & Maria Antonietta Raimondo, 2023. "Co-creating Through Win and Quick: the Role of Type of Contest and Constraints on Creativity," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(4), pages 4449-4465, December.
    7. Marion A. Weissenberger-Eibl & Tim Hampel, 2021. "Bridging the gap: integrating external knowledge from open innovation platforms," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 1(7), pages 1-32, July.
    8. Antonello Cammarano & Vincenzo Varriale & Francesca Michelino & Mauro Caputo, 2022. "Open and Crowd-Based Platforms: Impact on Organizational and Market Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-26, February.

    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. Dahlander, Linus & Piezunka, Henning, 2014. "Open to suggestions: How organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 812-827.
    2. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500142 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Vipul Aggarwal & Elina H. Hwang & Yong Tan, 2021. "Learning to Be Creative: A Mutually Exciting Spatiotemporal Point Process Model for Idea Generation in Open Innovation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(4), pages 1214-1235, December.
    6. 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).
    7. 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).
    8. Alireza Javanmardi Kashan & Kavoos Mohannak & Mirko Perano & Gian Luca Casali, 2018. "A Discovery of Multiple Levels of Open Innovation in Understanding the Economic Sustainability. A Case Study in the Manufacturing Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, December.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Dahlander, Linus & Gann, David M. & Wallin, Martin W., 2021. "How open is innovation? A retrospective and ideas forward," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    12. Boons, Mark & Stam, Daan, 2019. "Crowdsourcing for innovation: How related and unrelated perspectives interact to increase creative performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1758-1770.
    13. Ruo-Yu Liang & Wei Guo & Ling-Hao Zhang & Lei Wang, 2019. "Investigating Sustained Participation in Open Design Community in China: The Antecedents of User Loyalty," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, April.
    14. repec:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:8:p:- is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    16. Alfonso Gambardella & Christina Raasch & Eric von Hippel, 2017. "The User Innovation Paradigm: Impacts on Markets and Welfare," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1450-1468, May.
    17. Christoph Riedl & Victor P. Seidel, 2018. "Learning from Mixed Signals in Online Innovation Communities," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(6), pages 1010-1032, December.
    18. Pollok, Patrick & Amft, André & Diener, Kathleen & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2021. "Knowledge diversity and team creativity: How hobbyists beat professional designers in creating novel board games," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    19. Ramya K. Murthy & Anoop Madhok, 2021. "Overcoming the Early‐stage Conundrum of Digital Platform Ecosystem Emergence: A Problem‐Solving Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(7), pages 1899-1932, November.
    20. Nikolaus Franke & Peter Keinz & Katharina Klausberger, 2013. "“Does This Sound Like a Fair Deal?”: Antecedents and Consequences of Fairness Expectations in the Individual’s Decision to Participate in Firm Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1495-1516, October.
    21. Yang, Mu & Ooi, Yat Ming & Han, Chunjia, 2022. "Lead users as idea supplier in online community platform: How to choose the right ideas to implement?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    22. Ann Majchrzak & Arvind Malhotra, 2016. "Effect of Knowledge-Sharing Trajectories on Innovative Outcomes in Temporary Online Crowds," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 685-703, December.

    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:spr:jknowl:v:6:y:2015:i:3:p:611-624. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.