Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wisdom of the crowd and capabilities of a few: internal success factors of crowdsourcing for innovation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Crowdsourcing has been demonstrated to be an effective strategy to enhance the efficiency of a firm’s innovation process. In this paper, we focus on tournament-based crowdsourcing (also referred to as “broadcast search”), a method to solve technical problems in form of an open call for solutions to a large network of experts. Based on a longitudinal study of six companies piloting this application of crowdsourcing, we identify barriers and sources of resistance that hinder its implementation in firms. Our paper contributes to the state of research by analyzing crowdsourcing on the level of pilot projects, hence providing a workflow perspective that considers the creation of dedicated processes and operations of crowdsourcing. This project level analysis enables the identification of specific challenges managers face when implementing crowdsourcing within an established R&D organization. Following a design science approach, we derive suggestions for organizational interventions to overcome these barriers. We find that dedicated promoter roles strongly contribute to a successful implementation of crowdsourcing, turning pilot projects into an organizational routine.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Afuah A, Tucci CL (2012) Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Acad Manage Rev 37(3):355–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almirall E, Casadesus-Masanell R (2010) Open vs. closed innovation: a model of discovery and divergence. Acad Manage Rev 35(1):27–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer M, Nohria N (2000) Cracking the code of change. Harv Bus Rev 78(3):133–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi M, Cavaliere A, Chiaroni D, Frattini F, Chiesa V (2011) Organisational modes for open innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical industry: an exploratory analysis. Technovation 31(1):22–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond EU, Houston MB (2003) Barriers to matching new technologies and market opportunities in established firms. J Prod Innov Manage 20(2):120–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bontis N, Crossan MM, Hulland J (2002) Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. J Manage Stud 39(4):437–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau KJ, Lacetera N, Lakhani KR (2011) Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: an empirical analysis. Manage Sci 57(5):843–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunswicker S, Hutschek U (2010) Crossing horizons: leveraging cross-industry innovation search in the front-end of the innovation process. Int J Innov Manage 14(4):683–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough HW (2006) Open business models—how to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Harvard Business School Publishing, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough HW, Crowther AK (2006) Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Manage 36(3):229–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiaroni D, Chiesa V, Frattini F (2010) Unravelling the process from closed to open innovation: evidence from mature. Asset-intensive industries. R&D Manage 40(3):222–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan MM, Lane HW, White RE (1999) An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Acad Manage Rev 24(3):522–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis S, Gesler W, Smith G, Washburn S (2000) Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative research. Soc Sci Med 50:1001–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander L, Gann AM (2010) How open is open innovation? Res Policy 39(6):699–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darke P, Shanks G, Broadbent M (1998) Successfully completing case study research: rigour. Relevance and pragmatism. Inform Syst J 8(4):273–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison RM, Martinsons MG, Ou CX (2012) The roles of theory in canonical action research. MIS Quart 36(3):763–786

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener K, Piller F (2013) The market for open innovation, 2nd edn. Lulu, Raleigh

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1991) Better stories and better constructs: the case for rigor and comparative logic. Acad Manage Rev 16(3):620–627

    Google Scholar 

  • Feitler D, van Beelen D, Kielstra H, Taylor P (2012) Global network platform evaluation within a large multi-national company. In: Proceedings of the XXIII ISPIM conference 2012, Barcelona

  • Fey C, Birkinshaw J (2005) External sources of knowledge, governance mode and R&D performance. J Manage 31(4):597–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Fichter K (2009) Innovation communities: the role of networks of promoters in open innovation. R&D Manage 39(4):357–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finbarr D, Teague P, Kitchen P (2003) Exploring the role of internal communication during organisational change. Corp Commun Int J 8(3):153–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss NJ, Laursen K, Pedersen T (2011) Linking customer interaction and innovation: the mediating role of new organizational practices. Organ Sci 22(4):980–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemünden H, Salomo S, Hölzle K (2007) Role models for radical innovations in times of open innovation. Creat Innov Manage 16(4):408–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gummesson E (2000) Qualitative methods in management research. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta AK, Govindarajan V (2000) Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strateg Manage J 21(4):473–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadjimanolis A, Dickson K (2001) Development of national innovation policy in small developing countries. Res Policy 30(5):805–817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt J (1999) Promoters and champions in innovations—development of a research paradigm. In: Brockhoff K, Chakrabarti A, Hauschildt J (eds) The dynamics of innovation—strategic and managerial implications. Springer, New York, pp 167–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauschildt J, Kirchmann E (2001) Teamwork for innovation—the troika of promoters. R&D Manage 31(1):41–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich B, Henneberger M, Leist S, Zellner G (2009a) The process map as an instrument to standardize processes: design and application at a financial service provider. Inf Syst e-Bus Manage 7(1):81–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich B, Kaiser M, Klier M (2009b) A procedure to develop metrics for currency and its application in CRM. J Data Inf Qual 1(1):1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hevner AR, March ST, Park J, Ram S (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Quart 28(1):75–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsti OR (1969) Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe J (2006) The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired 14(6):176–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell JM, Shea CM, Higgins CA (2005) Champions of product innovations: defining, developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior. J Bus Ventur 20(5):641–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells J (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res Policy 35(5):715–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeppesen LB, Lakhani KR (2010) Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organ Sci 21(5):1016–1033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale P, Dyer JH, Singh H (2002) Alliance capability, stock market response, and long term alliance success. Strateg Manage J 23(8):747–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler EH, Chakrabarti AK (1996) Innovation speed: a conceptual model of context, antecedents, and outcomes. Acad Manage Rev 21(1):1143–1191

    Google Scholar 

  • Keupp MM, Gassmann O (2009) Determinants and archetype users of open innovation. R&D Manage 39(4):331–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein KJ, Knight AP (2005) Innovation implementation—overcoming the challenge. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 14(5):243–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein KJ, Sorra JS (1996) The challenge of innovation implementation. Acad Manage Rev 21(4):1055–1080

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein KJ, Conn AB, Sorra JS (2001) Implementing computerized technology: an organizational analysis. J Appl Psychol 85(5):811–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakhani KR, Panetta JA (2007) The principles of distributed innovation. Innov Technol Gov Glob 2(3):97–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen K, Salter A (2006) Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strateg Manage J 27:131–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lechner C, Floyd W (2007) Searching, processing, codifying and practicing key learning activities in exploratory initiatives. Long Range Plann 40(1):9–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee A (2007) Action is an artifact—what action research and design science offer to each other. In: Kock N (ed) Information systems action research. Springer, New York, pp 43–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leiponen A, Helfat CE (2010) Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strateg Manage J 31(2):224–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren R, Henfridsson O, Schultze U (2004) Design principles for competence management systems. MIS Quart 28(3):435–472

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Vega H (2009) How demand-driven technological systems of innovation work? The role of intermediary organizations. In: Proceedings of the DRUID-DIME academy Winter 2009 conference, Aalborg

  • Maxwell JA (1996) Qualitative research design. Sage, Thousand Oaks

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirow C, Hölzle K, Gemünden HG (2007) Systematisierung, Erklärungsbeiträge und Effekte von Innovationsbarrieren. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft 57(2):101–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Numagami T (1998) The infeasibility of invariant laws in management studies: a reflective dialogue in defense of case studies. Organ Sci 9(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oke A (2004) Barriers to innovation management in service companies. J Change Manage 4(1):31–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Peffers K, Tuunanen T, Rothenberger MA, Chatterjee S (2007) A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manage Inform Syst 24(3):45–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piller F, Walcher D (2006) Toolkits for idea competitions: a novel method to integrate users in new product development. R&D Manage 36(3):307–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn RE, Spreitzer GM (1997) The road to empowerment. Organ Dyn 26:37–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randolph WA, Sashkin M (2002) Can organizational empowerment work in multinational settings? Acad Manage Exec 16:102–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichwald R, Piller F (2009) Interaktive Wertschöpfung: Open Innovation, Individualisierung und neue Formen der Arbeitsteilung, 2nd edn. Gabler, Wiesbaden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf L, Almeida P (2003) Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Manage Sci 49(6):751–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf L, Nerkar A (2001) Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strateg Manage J 22(4):287–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rost K, Hölzle K, Gemünden HG (2007) Promoters or champions? Pros and cons of role specialization for economic progress. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 59:340–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon D (1963) Champions for radical new innovations. Harv Bus Rev 41(2):77–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz H, Davis S (1981) Matching corporate culture and business strategy. Organ Dyn 10(1):30–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shakir M (2002) The selection of case studies: strategies and applications to IS implementation. Res Lett Inf Math Sci 3(1):191–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieg JH, Wallin MW, von Krogh G (2010) Managerial challenges in open innovation: a study of innovation intermediation in the chemical industry. R&D Manage 40(3):281–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N, Levinthal DA (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ Sci 14(6):650–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spradlin D (2012) Are you solving the right problem? Asking the right questions is crucial. Harv Bus Rev 90(9):84–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Sproull LS, Hofmeister KR (1986) Thinking about implementation. J Manage 12(1):43–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart TE, Podolny JM (1996) Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strateg Manage J 17(1):21–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Takeda H, Veerkamp P, Tomiyama T, Yoshikawam H (1990) Modeling design processes. AI Mag 11(4):37–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (1996) Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation. J Econ Behav Organ 31(2):193–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terwiesch C, Xu Y (2008) Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Manage Sci 54(9):1529–1543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tranekjer T, Søndergaard H (2013) Sources of innovation, their combinations and strengths—benefits at the NPD project level. Int J Technol Manage 61(3/4):205–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner JR (2005) The role of pilot studies in reducing risk on projects and programs. Int J Project Manage 23(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Aken J (2005) Management research as a design science: articulating the research products of mode 2 knowledge production in management. Br J Manage 16(1):19–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vrande V, de Jong JP, Vanhaverbeke W, de Rochemont M (2009) Open innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation 29:423–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Krogh G, Wallin M, Sieg JH (2012) A problem in becoming: How firms formulate sharable problems for innovation contests. Working Paper. ETH Zürich

  • Ward TB, Patterson MJ, Sifonis CM (2004) The role of specificity and abstraction in creative idea generation. Creat Res J 16(1):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witte E (1973) Organisation für Innovationsentscheidungen: Das Promoteren-Modell. Vahlen, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Witte E (1997) Feldexperimente als Innovationstest: die Pilotprojekte zu neuen Medien. Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 49(5):419–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (2008) Case study research, 4th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Baden-Fuller C (2010) The influence of technological knowledge base and organizational structure on technology collaboration. J Manage Stud 47(4):679–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the VDMA (Verband Deutscher Maschinen- und Anlagenbau) for their support of this project; we are especially grateful to Bruno Scherb for his guidance and advice. The input and ideas by two anonymous reviewers and by the editors of this special issue have significantly improved this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technology and Innovation Management Group, RWTH Aachen University, Kackertstr. 7, 52072, Aachen, Germany

    Dirk Lüttgens, Patrick Pollok, David Antons & Frank Piller

Authors
  1. Dirk Lüttgens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick Pollok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Antons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frank Piller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dirk Lüttgens.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Overview of informants and interviews

Interview no.

Case

Position

Company tenure (years)

Main task in pilot project

Promoter role

Interview duration (min)

1

1

Manager, Innovation Management

4

RFP drafting, project owner

–

72

2

1

Head of Innovation Management

12

Project leader

–

65

3

1

Engineer, R&D

4

Evaluator

–

80

4

2

Engineer, R&D

5

Evaluator

–

110

5

2

Business Unit Manager, Innovation Management

2

RFP drafting

–

103

6

2

Head of R&D

12

Evaluator

–

91

7

2

Manager, Innovation Management

3

Project leader

 

65

8

3

Engineer, R&D

7

Project owner and leader

–

89

9

3

Team Leader, R&D

10

Evaluator

–

60

10

3

Manager, Business Development

2

RFP drafting

–

63

11

4

Head of Marketing

9

Project leader

–

63

12

4

Manager, Innovation Management

6

Evaluator

–

74

13

4

Engineer, R&D

9

RFP drafting

–

85

14

4

Head of Innovation Management

3

Project leader

–

120

15

5

Manager, Innovation Management

8

Project leader

Process promoter, searching for other promoters

100

16

5

Business Unit Manager, R&D

17

RFP drafting and evaluator

Expert promoter

60

17

6

Head of Business Development

15

Evaluator

Power promoter, searching for other promoters

115

18

6

Manager, R&D

6

Contract negotiations

Process promoter

60

19

6

Engineer, R&D

4

Project owner, evaluator

Expert promoter

100

20

9S

Program (project) manager of OI intermediary Nine Sigma

8

Client coordination and RFP execution

 

92

Appendix 2: Interview guide

Reference data

  • What is your official position within the company and how long have you been working in this particular position?

  • Could you please indicate to us how exactly you were involved in planning and setting up the open innovation project in your company? What were your responsibilities?

  • Apart from you, who else was involved in planning and conducting the project?

In the following, I will ask you a number of questions structured around six typical stages of an open innovation process: I Initiation; II Contract negotiations; III Problem formulation; IV Call for proposals; V Evaluation of responses; VI Reintegration.

Stage I: Initiation

  • Where and when did you/your company first learn about open innovation in general and using RFPs in particular?

  • Who came up with the idea of applying open innovation via RFPs within you company and what was the rationale behind applying the method in the context of R&D?

  • Where and when did you/your company first learn about NineSigma?

  • Why did you choose to collaborate with this particular intermediary? What were the selection criteria?

  • How did you, or did you at all, prepare your employees for the collaboration with the intermediary?

  • Did you face any challenges when trying to initiate open innovation via RFPs within your company?

  • If yes, please describe these challenges in detail! How were these challenges solved?

  • What did you do in order to convince people who had reservations about the method, what were your counterarguments?

  • Did you provide any incentives for employees to participate in the project?

  • Recapitulating the initiation process: What were the most important steps and activities in order to get the project running? Do you see any potential for improvement of this stage?

Stage II: Contract negotiations

  • Please give a brief description of the contract negotiations with NineSigma.

  • How long did it take to set up such a contract?

  • Who, which departments and persons have been involved in the contract negotiations?

  • What hierarchical levels were involved in the negotiations and what were their specific contributions?

Stages III & IV: Problem formulation & call for proposals

  • Please give a brief summary of the RFP-formulation process.

  • What were the different contributions of every party involved in this process?

  • How long did it take to generate the RFP?

  • Were there any restrictions to the use of the method? (e.g. was the process restricted to certain topics?)

  • Did you face any problems during the process of generating the RFP? How did you deal with these problems?

  • Do you see any potential for improvement of the RFP-formulation process?

6 Stage V: Evaluation of responses

  • Please provide a brief description of the evaluation process (screening of proposals)?

  • Please elaborate on the evaluation criteria that you used and on what persons and departments were involved in the process.

  • Were you satisfied with the number and quality of the generated proposals?

  • How long did it take for you to evaluate all the proposals?

  • Did the process meet your expectations?

  • Do you see any potential for improving the evaluation process?

7 Stage VI: Reintegration

  • Did challenge owners or other internal stakeholders refuse to collaborate with certain solution providers? What kind of arguments did they raise?

  • Were these arguments reasonable and understandable?

  • Did you get the impression to deal with some kind of “not-invented-here” attitude?

  • How did you deal with these attitudes?

  • Have you already contacted or started working with one (or more) solution providers?

8 Cost-benefit analysis

  • From a cost-benefit perspective, how would you evaluate the performance of the pilot project?

  • Please draw a comparison between your internal problem solving approaches and open innovation via RFPs in terms of costs and benefits for your company.

  • Do you think that your experience with open innovation via RFPs will influence your internal R&D in the future?

  • Do you intend to apply open innovation via RFPs again in your company?

  • Please provide a brief summary of your experience with open innovation via RFPs: What was especially surprising for you? What was unexpected in the course of the project?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lüttgens, D., Pollok, P., Antons, D. et al. Wisdom of the crowd and capabilities of a few: internal success factors of crowdsourcing for innovation. J Bus Econ 84, 339–374 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-014-0723-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-014-0723-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation