Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Unleashing the Crowd pp 109–134Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Practice 2: Crowds Offering a Variety of Types of Knowledge Are More Innovative Than Crowds Suggesting More Ideas

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 685 Accesses

Abstract

We coded the knowledge traces contributed by the crowds. We were looking for the presence of any of four different types of knowledge shared about the problem description and solutions: facts, examples, paradoxical objectives, and ideas for solving the problem. We found that innovative ideas were NOT preceded by a larger variety of ideas! Instead, innovative ideas were preceded by the crowd posting a greater variety of different knowledge TYPES. Thus, it is not simply diversity of opinions that matter, it is the diversity in how each member frames their knowledge when they are sharing it during the crowdsourcing.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   37.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Porter, A. J., Tuertscher, P., & Huysman, M. (2018). Saving our oceans: Tackling grand challenges through crowdsourcing. In 34th European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) Colloquium: Surprise in and around Organizations: Journeys to the Unexpected. EGOS.

  2. 2.

    Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The problem of emergence. In J. F. Padgett & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The Emergence of Organizations and Markets (pp. 1–29). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  3. 3.

    Porter et al., p. 10

  4. 4.

    Porter et al. p. 24.

  5. 5.

    Frey, K., Lüthje, C., & Haag, S. (2011). Whom should firms attract to open innovation platforms? The role of knowledge diversity and motivation. Long Range Planning, 44(5), 397–420; Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. (Technology, Organizations, and Innovation). Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152; Tsoukas, H. (2002). Introduction: Knowledge-based perspectives on organizations: situated knowledge, novelty, and communities of practice. Management Learning, 33(4), 419–426; Mitchell, R., & Nicholas, S. (2006). Knowledge creation in groups: The value of cognitive diversity, transactive memory and open-mindedness norms. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 67–74; Solomon, M. (2006). Groupthink versus the wisdom of crowds: The social epistemology of deliberation and dissent. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44, 28–42; Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Niemiec, R. (2017). Using public crowds for open strategy formulation: Mitigating the risks of knowledge gaps. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 397–410.

  6. 6.

    Cronin, M., & Weingart, L. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. The Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761–773; Baer, M., Dirks, K., & Nickerson, J. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197–214; Smith, G. (1989). Defining managerial problems: A framework for prescriptive theorizing. Management science, 35(8), 963–98; Firth, B., Hollenbeck, J., Miles, J., Ilgen, D., & Barnes, C. (2015). Same page, different books: Extending representational gaps theory to enhance performance in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 813–835.

  7. 7.

    Kohn, N., & Smith, S. (2011). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359–371; Smith, S. (2003). The constraining effects of initial ideas. In Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration (pp. 15–31). Oxford University Press; Smith, S., Linsey, J., & Kerne, A. (2011). Using evolved analogies to overcome creative design fixation. In Design Creativity 2010 (pp. 35–39). Springer, London; Michinov, N., Jamet, E., Métayer, N., & Le Hénaff, B. (2015). The eyes of creativity: Impact of social comparison and individual creativity on performance and attention to others’ ideas during electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 42(C), 57–67.

  8. 8.

    Kohn, N. W., & Smith, S. M. (2011). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359–371.

  9. 9.

    Perttula, M., & Sipilä, P. (2007). The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(1), 93–102; Sio, U., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2015). Fixation or inspiration? A meta-analytic review of the role of examples on design processes. Design Studies, 39, 70–99; Goldschmidt, G. (2011). Avoiding design fixation: Transformation and abstraction in mapping from source to target. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(2), 92–100; Viswanathan, V., & Linsey, J. (2013). Examining design fixation in engineering idea generation: the role of example modality. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 1(2), 109–129.

  10. 10.

    Smith, S. (2003). The constraining effects of initial ideas. In Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration (pp. 15–31). Oxford University Press.

  11. 11.

    Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–342; Putnam, L., Fairhurst, G., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171; Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2008). Innovation and SMEs: Misaligned perspectives and goals among entrepreneurs, academics, and policy makers. Technovation, 28(7), 393–407.

  12. 12.

    Leimeister, J., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Leveraging crowdsourcing: Activation-supporting components for it-based ideas competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 197–224; Poetz, M., & Schreier, M. (2012). The value of crowdsourcing: Can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 245–256; Bayus, B. L. (2013) Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community. (2013). Management Science, 59(1), 226–244; Schemmann, B., Herrmann, A., Chappin, M., & Heimeriks, G. (2016). Crowdsourcing ideas: Involving ordinary users in the ideation phase of new product development. Research Policy, 45(6), 1145–1154; Di, P., Wasko, M., & Hooker, R. (2010). Getting customers’ ideas to work for you: Learning from dell how to succeed with online user innovation communities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(4), 213–228; Füller, J., Jawecki, G., & Mühlbacher, H. (2007). Innovation creation by online basketball communities. Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 60–71.

  13. 13.

    Carlile, P. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568; Giaccardi, E., & Fischer, G. (2008). Creativity and evolution: a metadesign perspective. Digital Creativity, 19(1), 19–32; Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229–240; Montag, T., Maertz, C., & Baer, M. (2012). A critical analysis of the workplace creativity criterion space. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1362–1386.

  14. 14.

    Brabham, D. (2008). Moving the crowd at iStockphoto: The composition of the crowd and motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application. First Monday, 13(6); Frey, K., Lüthje, C., & Haag, S. (2011). Whom should firms attract to open innovation platforms? The role of knowledge diversity and motivation. Long Range Planning, 44(5), 397–420; Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2013). Towards an information systems perspective and research agenda on crowdsourcing for innovation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22(4), 257–268; Prpić, J., Shukla, P., Kietzmann, J., & Mccarthy, I. (2015). How to work a crowd: Developing crowd capital through crowdsourcing. Business Horizons, 58(1), 77–85; Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. (2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54(4), 44–68.

  15. 15.

    Jeppesen, L., & Lakhani, K. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.

  16. 16.

    Harrison, D., & Klein, K. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.

  17. 17.

    Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E., & Levine, J. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 496–521; Ensley, M., & Pearce, C. (2001). Shared cognition in top management teams: Implications for new venture performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 22(2), 145–160; Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). Group dynamics and shared mental model development. In M. London (Ed.), How People Evaluate Others in Organizations, (pp. 309–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Hinds, P., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: the moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307; Lau, R., & Cobb, A. (2010). Understanding the connections between relationship conflict and performance: The intervening roles of trust and exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 898–917; Park, H. (2008). The effects of shared cognition on group satisfaction and performance: Politeness and efficiency in group interaction. Communication Research, 35(1), 88–108; Peterson, E., Mitchell, T., Thompson, L., & Burr, R. (2000). Collective efficacy and aspects of shared mental models as predictors of performance over time in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 296–316; van Ginkel, W., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Group information elaboration and group decision making: The role of shared task representations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 82–97.

  18. 18.

    Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S., & Hollingshead, A. (2007). Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organization Science, 18(1), 147–161.

  19. 19.

    Majchrzak, A., More, P., & Faraj, S. (2012). Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organization Science, 23(4), 951–970.

  20. 20.

    Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–342.

  21. 21.

    Harrison, D., Price, K., & Bell, M. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107; Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface-and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(8), 1015–1039; Harrison, D., Price, K., Gavin, J., & Florey, A. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045; Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. L. (2006). When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 143–160.

References

  • Baer, M., Dirks, K., & Nickerson, J. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayus, B. L. (2013). Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community. Management Science, 59(1), 226–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brabham, D. (2008). Moving the Crowd at iStockphoto: The Composition of the Crowd and Motivations for Participation in a Crowdsourcing Application. First Monday. Retrieved from https://firstmonday.org/article/%20view/2159/1969.

  • Carlile, P. (2004). Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. (Technology, Organizations, and Innovation). Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, M., & Weingart, L. (2007). Representational Gaps, Information Processing, and Conflict in Functionally Diverse Teams. The Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di, P., Wasko, M., & Hooker, R. (2010). Getting Customers’ Ideas to Work for You: Learning from Dell How to Succeed with Online User Innovation Communities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(4), 213–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupont. (2015). Winners of the 2015 DuPont Safety and Sustainability Awards. Retrieved from http://www.dupont.com/dss/dss-awards-2015/winners-2015.html.

  • Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E., & Levine, J. (2009). Shared Reality: Experiencing Commonality with Others’ Inner States About the World. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 496–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensley, M., & Pearce, C. (2001). Shared Cognition in Top Management Teams: Implications for New Venture Performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 22(2), 145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). Group Dynamics and Shared Mental Model Development. In M. London (Ed.), How People Evaluate Others in Organizations (pp. 309–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firth, B., Hollenbeck, J., Miles, J., Ilgen, D., & Barnes, C. (2015). Same Page, Different Books: Extending Representational Gaps Theory to Enhance Performance in Multiteam Systems. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 813–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, K., Lüthje, C., & Haag, S. (2011). Whom Should Firms Attract to Open Innovation Platforms? The Role of Knowledge Diversity and Motivation. Long Range Planning, 44(5), 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Füller, J., Jawecki, G., & Mühlbacher, H. (2007). Innovation Creation by Online Basketball Communities. Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giaccardi, E., & Fischer, G. (2008). Creativity and Evolution: A Metadesign Perspective. Digital Creativity, 19(1), 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, G. (2011). Avoiding Design Fixation: Transformation and Abstraction in Mapping from Source to Target. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(2), 92–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D., & Klein, K. (2007). What’s the Difference? Diversity Constructs as Separation, Variety, or Disparity in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D., Price, K., & Bell, M. (1998). Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D., Price, K., Gavin, J., & Florey, A. (2002). Time, Teams, and Task Performance: Changing Effects of Surface-and Deep-Level Diversity on Group Functioning. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, S. (2014). Creative Synthesis: Exploring the Process of Extraordinary Group Creativity. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, P., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous Communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeppesen, L., & Lakhani, K. (2010). Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, N., & Smith, S. (2011). Collaborative Fixation: Effects of Others’ Ideas on Brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, R., & Cobb, A. (2010). Understanding the Connections Between Relationship Conflict and Performance: The Intervening Roles of Trust and Exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 898–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leimeister, J., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Leveraging Crowdsourcing: Activation-Supporting Components for It-Based Ideas Competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 197–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2013). Towards an Information Systems Perspective and Research Agenda on Crowdsourcing for Innovation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22(4), 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S., & Hollingshead, A. (2007). Coordinating Expertise Among Emergent Groups Responding to Disasters. Organization Science, 18(1), 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak, A., More, P., & Faraj, S. (2012). Transcending Knowledge Differences in Cross-Functional Teams. Organization Science, 23(4), 951–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Niemiec, R. (2017). Using Public Crowds for Open Strategy Formulation: Mitigating the Risks of Knowledge Gaps. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 397–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2008). Innovation and SMEs: Misaligned Perspectives and Goals Among Entrepreneurs, Academics, and Policy Makers. Technovation, 28(7), 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michinov, N., Jamet, E., Metayer, N., & Le Henaff, B. (2015a). The Eyes of Creativity: Impact of Social Comparisons and Individual Creativity on Performance and Attention to Others’ Ideas During Electronic Brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 42(C), 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michinov, N., Jamet, E., Métayer, N., & Le Hénaff, B. (2015b). The Eyes of Creativity: Impact of Social Comparison and Individual Creativity on Performance and Attention to Others’ Ideas During Electronic Brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 42(C), 57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical Frames and Creative Sparks: Enhancing Individual Creativity Through Conflict and Integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., & Nicholas, S. (2006). Knowledge Creation in Groups: The Value of Cognitive Diversity, Transactive Memory and Open-Mindedness Norms. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 67–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface-and Deep-Level Diversity in Workgroups: Examining the Moderating Effects of Team Orientation and Team Process on Relationship Conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(8), 1015–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montag, T., Maertz, C., & Baer, M. (2012). A Critical Analysis of the Workplace Creativity Criterion Space. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1362–1386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The Problem of Emergence. In J. F. Padgett & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The Emergence of Organizations and Markets (pp. 1–29). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, H. (2008). The Effects of Shared Cognition on Group Satisfaction and Performance: Politeness and Efficiency in Group Interaction. Communication Research, 35(1), 88–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pertula, M., & Sipilä, P. (2007). The Idea Exposure Paradigm in Design Idea Generation. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(1), 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, E., Mitchell, T., Thompson, L., & Burr, R. (2000). Collective Efficacy and Aspects of Shared Mental Models as Predictors of Performance Over Time in Work Groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 296–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. L. (2006). When Surface and Deep-Level Diversity Collide: The Effects on Dissenting Group Members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 143–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poetz, M., & Schreier, M. (2012). The Value of Crowdsourcing: Can Users Really Compete with Professionals in Generating New Product Ideas? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 245–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, A. J., Tuertscher, P., & Huysman, M. (2018). Saving Our Oceans: Tackling Grand Challenges through Crowdsourcing. In 34th European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) Colloquium: Surprise in and around Organizations: Journeys to the Unexpected. EGOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prpić, J., Shukla, P., Kietzmann, J., & Mccarthy, I. (2015). How to Work a Crowd: Developing Crowd Capital Through Crowdsourcing. Business Horizons, 58(1), 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L., Fairhurst, G., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schemmann, B., Herrmann, A., Chappin, M., & Heimeriks, G. (2016). Crowdsourcing Ideas: Involving Ordinary Users in the Ideation Phase of New Product Development. Research Policy, 45(6), 1145–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sio, U., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2015). Fixation or Inspiration? A Meta-analytic Review of the Role of Examples on Design Processes. Design Studies, 39, 70–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. (1989). Defining Managerial Problems: A Framework for Prescriptive Theorizing. Management Science, 35(8), 963–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. (2003). The Constraining Effects of Initial Ideas. In Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., Linsey, J., & Kerne, A. (2011). Using Evolved Analogies to Overcome Creative Design Fixation. In Design Creativity 2010 (pp. 35–39). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. (2006). Groupthink Versus the Wisdom of Crowds: The Social Epistemology of Deliberation and Dissent. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44, 28–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. (2012). Democratizing Strategy: How Crowdsourcing Can Be Used for Strategy Dialogues. California Management Review, 54(4), 44–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (2002). Introduction: Knowledge-Based Perspectives on Organizations: Situated Knowledge, Novelty, and Communities of Practice. Management Learning, 33(4), 419–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2017b). Goal 14: Conserve and Sustainably Use the Oceans, Seas, and Marine Resources. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/oceans/.

  • van Ginkel, W., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Group Information Elaboration and Group Decision Making: The Role of Shared Task Representations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 82–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viswanathan, V., & Linsey, J. (2013). Examining Design Fixation in Engineering Idea Generation: The Role of Example Modality. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 1(2), 109–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Ann Majchrzak

  2. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    Arvind Malhotra

Authors
  1. Ann Majchrzak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arvind Malhotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann Majchrzak .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A. (2020). Practice 2: Crowds Offering a Variety of Types of Knowledge Are More Innovative Than Crowds Suggesting More Ideas. In: Unleashing the Crowd. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25557-2_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation