新奇的两种面貌:众包挑战中的创意选择

T. Eapen, Rajdeep Grewal
{"title":"新奇的两种面貌:众包挑战中的创意选择","authors":"T. Eapen, Rajdeep Grewal","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3412593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The selection of novel ideas is vital to the development of truly innovative products. Firms often turn to idea crowdsourcing challenges, in which both ideators and the seeker firms participate in the idea selection process. Yet prior research cautions that ideators and seeker firms may not select novel ideas. To address the links between idea novelty and selection, this study proposes a bi-faceted notion of idea novelty and probes the role of task structure. Novelty may be local or global, in line with information processing literature. Using semantic analyses of data on 12,079 ideas shared on OpenIDEO during 47 contests held between 2010–2017, the authors find that the selection of novel ideas differs according to the selector, the form of novelty, and the challenge task structure. The results help explain some paradoxical findings in previous studies, with key implications for both ideators and seeker firms. In particular, this research uses measures of local and global novelty, along with additional linguistic measures, to produce a predictive model that seeker firms can leverage when ideator selection metrics such as likes are unavailable.","PeriodicalId":414091,"journal":{"name":"Innovation & Management Science eJournal","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two Faces of Novelty: Idea Selection in Crowdsourcing Challenges\",\"authors\":\"T. Eapen, Rajdeep Grewal\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3412593\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The selection of novel ideas is vital to the development of truly innovative products. Firms often turn to idea crowdsourcing challenges, in which both ideators and the seeker firms participate in the idea selection process. Yet prior research cautions that ideators and seeker firms may not select novel ideas. To address the links between idea novelty and selection, this study proposes a bi-faceted notion of idea novelty and probes the role of task structure. Novelty may be local or global, in line with information processing literature. Using semantic analyses of data on 12,079 ideas shared on OpenIDEO during 47 contests held between 2010–2017, the authors find that the selection of novel ideas differs according to the selector, the form of novelty, and the challenge task structure. The results help explain some paradoxical findings in previous studies, with key implications for both ideators and seeker firms. In particular, this research uses measures of local and global novelty, along with additional linguistic measures, to produce a predictive model that seeker firms can leverage when ideator selection metrics such as likes are unavailable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":414091,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Innovation & Management Science eJournal\",\"volume\":\"98 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Innovation & Management Science eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3412593\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovation & Management Science eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3412593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

选择新颖的想法对于开发真正创新的产品至关重要。公司经常转向创意众包挑战,在这种挑战中,创意者和寻求者公司都参与到创意选择过程中来。然而,先前的研究警告说,创意者和寻求者公司可能不会选择新颖的想法。为探讨创意新颖性与选择之间的关系,本研究提出了创意新颖性的双重概念,并探讨了任务结构的作用。新颖性可能是地方性的,也可能是全球性的,这与信息处理文献一致。通过对OpenIDEO在2010-2017年间举办的47场竞赛中分享的12,079个创意数据进行语义分析,作者发现,根据选择器、新颖性形式和挑战任务结构,新创意的选择有所不同。这些结果有助于解释之前研究中一些自相矛盾的发现,对创意者和寻求者公司都具有重要意义。特别是,这项研究使用了本地和全球新颖性的衡量标准,以及额外的语言衡量标准,以产生一个预测模型,当寻找者选择指标(如点赞)不可用时,公司可以利用这个模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Two Faces of Novelty: Idea Selection in Crowdsourcing Challenges
The selection of novel ideas is vital to the development of truly innovative products. Firms often turn to idea crowdsourcing challenges, in which both ideators and the seeker firms participate in the idea selection process. Yet prior research cautions that ideators and seeker firms may not select novel ideas. To address the links between idea novelty and selection, this study proposes a bi-faceted notion of idea novelty and probes the role of task structure. Novelty may be local or global, in line with information processing literature. Using semantic analyses of data on 12,079 ideas shared on OpenIDEO during 47 contests held between 2010–2017, the authors find that the selection of novel ideas differs according to the selector, the form of novelty, and the challenge task structure. The results help explain some paradoxical findings in previous studies, with key implications for both ideators and seeker firms. In particular, this research uses measures of local and global novelty, along with additional linguistic measures, to produce a predictive model that seeker firms can leverage when ideator selection metrics such as likes are unavailable.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信