Self-organized or meta-organized contests? The two faces of innovation contests in digital product innovation

IF 9 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL

Computers in Human Behavior Pub Date : 2024-10-21 DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2024.108477

Ting Xiao , Yu Zeng , Cai Yang , Haowen Xiao , Yueyan Wu

{"title":"Self-organized or meta-organized contests? The two faces of innovation contests in digital product innovation","authors":"Ting Xiao , Yu Zeng , Cai Yang , Haowen Xiao , Yueyan Wu","doi":"10.1016/j.chb.2024.108477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Unlike traditional centralized innovation within a firm, digital innovation is more distributed and involves many heterogeneous innovators within a society. A key challenge is the personalized governance of different innovators. We explored how innovation contests affected digital product innovation across multiple innovators, using a self- or meta-organized contest. Using a dataset of 17,985 innovators, 14,734 innovation contests, and 212,767 digital products from 2015 to 2022, we found that a self-organized contest increases the originality and popularity of digital products, whereas a meta-organized contest decreases these outcomes. An innovation contest is a valuable governance tool for digital innovation, but it backfires when there is a mismatch with a particular innovator. Specifically, the self-organized contest is more helpful for experts' and openers' digital product innovation, but not for novices' or conservatives’ innovation. The opposite is true for meta-organized contests. This study contributes to contest management and personalized governance in digital innovation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48471,"journal":{"name":"Computers in Human Behavior","volume":"163 ","pages":"Article 108477"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computers in Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563224003455","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Unlike traditional centralized innovation within a firm, digital innovation is more distributed and involves many heterogeneous innovators within a society. A key challenge is the personalized governance of different innovators. We explored how innovation contests affected digital product innovation across multiple innovators, using a self- or meta-organized contest. Using a dataset of 17,985 innovators, 14,734 innovation contests, and 212,767 digital products from 2015 to 2022, we found that a self-organized contest increases the originality and popularity of digital products, whereas a meta-organized contest decreases these outcomes. An innovation contest is a valuable governance tool for digital innovation, but it backfires when there is a mismatch with a particular innovator. Specifically, the self-organized contest is more helpful for experts' and openers' digital product innovation, but not for novices' or conservatives’ innovation. The opposite is true for meta-organized contests. This study contributes to contest management and personalized governance in digital innovation.

查看原文本刊更多论文

自组织竞赛还是元组织竞赛？数字产品创新竞赛的两面性

与企业内部的传统集中式创新不同，数字创新更加分散，涉及社会中的许多异质创新者。一个关键的挑战是如何对不同的创新者进行个性化管理。我们利用自组织或元组织的竞赛，探讨了创新竞赛如何影响多个创新者的数字产品创新。通过对2015年至2022年期间17985名创新者、14734场创新竞赛和212767件数字产品的数据集进行分析，我们发现，自发组织的竞赛会提高数字产品的原创性和受欢迎程度，而元组织的竞赛则会降低这些结果。创新大赛是数字创新的重要治理工具，但如果与特定创新者不匹配，则会适得其反。具体来说，自发组织的竞赛更有助于专家和开放者的数字产品创新，但对新手或保守者的创新却没有帮助。元组织竞赛的情况则恰恰相反。这项研究有助于数字创新中的竞赛管理和个性化治理。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Computers in Human Behavior Multiple-

CiteScore

19.10

自引率

4.00%

发文量

381

审稿时长

40 days

期刊介绍： Computers in Human Behavior is a scholarly journal that explores the psychological aspects of computer use. It covers original theoretical works, research reports, literature reviews, and software and book reviews. The journal examines both the use of computers in psychology, psychiatry, and related fields, and the psychological impact of computer use on individuals, groups, and society. Articles discuss topics such as professional practice, training, research, human development, learning, cognition, personality, and social interactions. It focuses on human interactions with computers, considering the computer as a medium through which human behaviors are shaped and expressed. Professionals interested in the psychological aspects of computer use will find this journal valuable, even with limited knowledge of computers.