Open Tourism pp 109-120 | Cite as

Motivation for Open Innovation and Crowdsourcing: Why Does the Crowd Engage in Virtual Ideas Communities?

Part of the Tourism on the Verge book series (TV)

Abstract

More and more firms run Virtual Ideas Communities (VIC), such as Dell’s “Ideastorm”, in which customers, namely the crowd, focus on submitting innovative ideas for firms’ new product development and jointly developing these ideas. This Open Innovation- or rather Crowdsourcing-model seems very attractive because customers are highly motivated to freely contribute their creative ideas. However, little is known about customer motives in detail. In this research, empirical data from SAP’s VIC is used to explore and explain which motivations make customers engage in VIC. It has been found evidence that customers wish to demonstrate personal capabilities and skills through their ideas (self-marketing-motive); customers wish to get recognition of third parties through their ideas (recognition-motive); customers wish to create individual knowledge and expertise when participating in collaborative idea generation (learning-motive); and customers have fun in developing ideas (fun-motive). Further motivations are the wish to innovate and enhance new or existing products (product innovation and enhancement-motive) as well as to make new friends or to socialize with others (contact to peers-motive).

Keywords

Open innovation Crowdsourcing Virtual ideas community (VIC) Motivation 

References

  1. Afuah, A. N., & Tucci, C. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37, 355–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antikainen, M., Mäkipää, M., & Ahonen, M. (2010). Motivating and supporting collaboration in open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13, 100–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 16, 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogazzi, R., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Chesbrough, H. (2003). The era of open innovation. Sloan Management Review, 44, 35–41.Google Scholar
  7. Cureton, E. E., & D’Agostino, R. B. (1983). Factor analysis: An applied approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Di Gangi, P. M., & Wasko, M. (2009). Steal my idea! Organizational adoption of user innovations from a user innovation community: A case study of dell IdeaStorm. Decision Support Systems, 48, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fern, E. F. (1982). The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of group size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghosh, R. A., Glott, R., Kreiger, B., & Robles, G. (2002). The free/libre and open source software developers survey and study-FLOSS. International Institute of Infonomics, University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  12. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Hars, A., & Ou, S. (2002). Working for free? Motivations for participating in open-source projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6, 25–39.Google Scholar
  14. Hertel, G., Niedner, S., & Herrmann, S. (2003). Motivation of software developers in open source projects: An internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Research Policy, 32, 1159–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hestad, M., & Keitsch, M. (2009). Not always a victim! On seeing users as active consumers. International Journal of Product Development, 9, 396–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Homburg, C., & Giering, A. (1996). Konzeptionalisierung und Operationalisierung komplexer Konstrukte: Ein Leitfaden für die Marketingforschung. Marketing Zeitschrift für Forschung und Praxis, 18, 5–24.Google Scholar
  17. Jeppesen, L., & Frederiksen, L. (2006). Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? The case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organizational Science, 17, 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kipp, P., Wieck, E., Bretschneider, U., & Leimeister, J. M. (2013). 12 years of GENEX framework: What did practice learn from science in terms of web-based ideation? In 11th international conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik (WI2013) (pp. 565–576), Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
  19. Lakhani, K. R., & Wolf, B. (2005). Why Hackers do what they do. Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. In J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam, & K. R. Lakhani (Eds.), Perspectives on free and open source software. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  20. Leimeister, J. M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Leveraging crowdsourcing: Activation-supporting components for IT-based ideas competitions. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Muhdi, L., & Boutellier, R. (2011). Motivational factors affecting participation and contribution of members in two different Swiss innovation communities. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15, 543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  23. Öberg, C. (2010). Customer roles in innovations. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14, 989–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Osterloh, M., Rota, S., & Kuster, B. (2002). Open source software production: Climbing on the shoulders of giants. MIT Working Paper. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  25. Raymond, E. S. (1996). In the new Hacker’s dictionary (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  26. Sandström, C., & Bjork, J. (2010). Idea management systems for a changing innovation landscape. International Journal of Product Development, 11, 310–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shah, S. K. (2005). Motivation, governance & the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development. Working paper, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  28. Ståhlbröst, A., & Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. (2011). Exploring users motivation in innovation communities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 14, 298–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Straub, D., Boudreau, M. C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Communication of the ACM, 13, 380–427.Google Scholar
  30. von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of KasselKasselGermany
  2. 2.University of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations