World Scientific
  • Search
  •   
Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×

System Upgrade on Tue, May 28th, 2024 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.

ALL FOR THE MONEY? THE LIMITS OF MONETARY REWARDS IN INNOVATION CONTESTS WITH USERS

    https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919619500142Cited by:11 (Source: Crossref)

    Practitioners increasingly use innovation contests to harness the knowledge of external crowds for internal innovation purposes in exchange for prize money. While some innovation contests have the objective to attract professional experts from distant fields to obtain technical solutions, other innovation contests primarily target customers or users in order to generate new product and service ideas. Hence, external crowds differ substantially across, but also within, innovation contests in terms of personal needs in the innovation domain. Drawing upon the private-collective model of innovation, we argue that participants’ “userness” in terms of personal needs gives rise to non-monetary reward expectations and collectively oriented participation as opposed to the private pursuit of monetary rewards emphasised in innovation contests. Hence, the effectiveness of monetary rewards in innovation contests is bound to certain participants and behaviours. In particular, participants weigh non-monetary rewards more strongly against monetary rewards (1) when their personal need in the innovation domain is high, and (2) when choosing to engage collectively in evaluating and commenting on other contributions as opposed to submitting own contributions. We find support for these hypotheses in an empirical study where user participation in a real innovation contest is regressed on survey-based measures of expected rewards that users perceive prior to the contest. The observed effect sizes of the proposed shifts from monetary to non-monetary rewards are so pronounced that for a given level of personal need and a given type of participation behaviour only either reward type is effective and a compensational relation between both types of rewards does not exist. Monetary rewards are even detrimental and lower user participation if the two proposed boundary conditions are taken together.

    References

    • Aaker, J, KD Vohs and C Mogilner [2010] Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (2), 224–237. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Ai, C and EC Norton [2003] Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80, 123–129. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Ajzen, I [1991] The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human-Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Aldrich, J and F Nelson [1984] Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models, Vol. 7, p. 95. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
    • Allen, RC [1983] Collective invention. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 4, 1–24. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Bayus, BL [2013] Crowdsourcing new product ideas over time: An analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm community. Management Science, 59 (1), 226–244. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Benkler, Y [2002] Coase’s penguin, or, linux and “the nature of the firm”. Yale Law Journal, 369–446. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Bogers, M, A Afuah and B Bastian [2010] Users as innovators: A review, critique, and future research directions. Journal of Management, 36 (4), 857–875. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Boss, V, R Kleer and A Vossen [2017] Walking parallel paths or taking the same road? The effect of collaborative incentives in innovation contests. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21 (3), 1750024. Link, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Boudreau, KJ, N Lacetera and KR Lakhani [2011] Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 2010, 1–21. Google Scholar
    • Boudreau, KJ and KR Lakhani [2009] How to manage outside innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50 (4), 69–76. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Boudreau, KJ and KR Lakhani [2013] Using the crowd as an innovation partner. Harvard Business Review, 91 (4), 60–69. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Bowen, HP [2012] Testing moderating hypotheses in limited dependent variable and other nonlinear models secondary versus total interactions. Journal of Management, 38 (3), 860–889. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Chesbrough, H [2003] The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45 (3), 33–58. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Chesbrough, HW [2006] Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Chin, HC and MA Quddus [2003] Modeling count data with excess zeroes: An empirical application to traffic accidents. Sociological Methods & Research, 32 (1), 90–116. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Dahlander, L and DM Gann [2010] How open is innovation?. Research Policy, 39 (6), 699–709. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Dellaert, BGC and PA Dabholkar [2009] Increasing the attractiveness of mass customization: The role of complementary on-line services and range of options. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 13 (3), 43–70. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Ebner, W, JM Leimeister and H Krcmar [2009] Community engineering for innovations:The ideas competition as a method to nurture a virtual community for innovations. R&D Management, 39 (4), 342–356. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Franke, N, E Von Hippel and M Schreier [2006] Finding commercially attractive user innovations: A test of lead-user theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23 (4), 301–315. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Füller, J [2010] Refining virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective. California Management Review, 52 (2), 98–122. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Gneezy, U and A Rustichini [2000] Pay enough or don’t pay at all. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (3), 791–810. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Greene, WH (1994). Accounting for excess zeros and sample selection in poisson and negative binomial regression models. NYU Working Paper No. EC-94-10. Google Scholar
    • Greene, WH [2000] Econometric Analysis, 4th edn. New York: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
    • Greene, WH [2010] Testing hypotheses about interaction terms in nonlinear models. Economic Letters, 107 (2), 291–296. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Harbring, C, and B Irlenbusch [2008] How many winners are good to have?: On tournaments with sabotage. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65 (3–4), 682–702. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Harhoff, D and P Mayrhofer [2010] Managing user communities and hybrid innovation processes: Concepts and design implications. Organizational Dynamics, 39 (2), 137–144. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Harhoff, D, J Henkel and E Von Hippel [2003] Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Research Policy, 32, 1753–1769. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Hars, A and S Ou [2002] Working for free? Motivations of participating in open source projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6 (3), 25–39. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Herstatt, C and E Von Hippel [1992] From experience: Developing new product concepts via the lead user method: A case study in a “Low-Tech” Field. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 9 (3), 213–221. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Hoetker, G [2007] The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strategic Management Journal, 28 (4), 331–343. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Howe, J [2008] Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business. New York, NY: Random House. Google Scholar
    • Irlenbusch, B, and GK Ruchala [2008] Relative rewards within team-based compensation. Labour Economics, 15 (2), 141–167. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Jeppessen, LB and L Frederiksen [2006], Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? the case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organization Science, 17 (1), 45–63. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Jeppesen, LB and KR Lakhani [2010] Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21 (5), 1016–1033. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Lakhani, K and RG Wolf [2005] Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. In Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, J Feller, B Fitzergerald, S Hissam and KR Lakhani (Eds.), pp. 3–22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Lambert, D [1992] Zero-inflated poisson regression, with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics, 34 (1), 1–14. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Lazear, EP and S Rosen [1981] Rank-order tournaments as optimum labor contracts. Journal of Political Economy, 89 (5), 841–864. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • O’Hern, MS and A Rindfleisch [2010] Customer co-creation: A typology and research agenda. Review of Marketing Research, 6, 84–106. Google Scholar
    • Piller, FT and D Walcher [2006] Toolkits for idea competitions: A novel method to integrate users in new product development. R & D Management, 36 (3), 307–318. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Prendergast, C [1999] The provision of incentives in firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 37 (1), 7–63. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Roberts, JA, IH Hann and S Slaughter [2006] Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: A longitudinal study of the apache projects. Management Science, 52 (7), 984–999. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Schreier, M and R Pruegl [2008] Extending lead-user theory: Antecedents and consequences of consumers’ lead userness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25 (4), 331–346. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Scotchmer, S. [1991] Standing on the shoulders of giants: Cumulative research and the patent law. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 29–41. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Terwiesch, C and Y Xu [2008] Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Science, 54 (9), 1529–1543. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Toubia, O [2006] Idea generation, creativity, and incentives. Marketing Science, 25 (5), 411–425. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Urban, GL and E Von Hippel [1988] Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Management Science, 34 (5), 569–582. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Von Hippel, E [1976] The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy, 5 (3), 212–239. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Von Hippel, E [1986] Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32 (7), 791–805. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Von Hippel, E [2005] Democratizing Innovation. Boston, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar
    • Von Hippel, E and G von Krogh [2003] Open source software and the private-collective innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14 (2), 209–223. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Von Hippel, E and G von Krogh [2006] Free revealing and the private-collective model for innovation incentives. R&D Management, 36 (3), 295–306. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Vuong, QH [1989] Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57 (2), 307–333. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • West, J and M Bogers [2014] Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31 (4), 814–831. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • Zirger, BJ and MA Maidique [1990] A model of new product development: An empirical test. Management Science, 36 (7), 867–884. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    Remember to check out the Most Cited Articles!

    Be inspired by these New Titles in Business and Management