The Choice Is Yours: The Role of Cognitive Processes for IT-Supported Idea Selection
The selection of good ideas out of hundreds or even thousands has proven to be the next big challenge for organizations that conduct open idea contests for innovation. Cognitive load and attention loss hinder crowds to effectively run their idea selection process. Facilitation techniques for the reduction and clarification of ideas could help with such problems, but have not yet been researched in crowd settings that are prevalent in idea contests. This research-in-progress paper aims to contribute to this research gap by investigating IT-supported selection techniques that differ in terms of selection direction and selection type. A laboratory experiment using eye-tracking will investigate variations in selection type and selection direction. Moreover, the experiment will test the effects on the decision-making process and the number and quality of ideas in a filtered set. Findings will provide explanations why certain mechanisms work for idea selection. Potential implications for theory and practice are discussed.
KeywordsIdea contest Idea quality Idea selection Open innovation Screening rules
The research was partially funded by the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF): P 29765-GBL.
- 2.Bjelland, O.M., Wood, R.C.: An inside view of IBM’s Innovation Jam. MIT Sloan Manage. Rev. 50, 32–40 (2008)Google Scholar
- 4.Jouret, G.: Inside cisco’s search for the next big idea. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2009)Google Scholar
- 5.Boudreau, K.J., Lakhani, K.R.: Using the crowd as an innovation partner. Harvard Bus. Rev. 91, 60–69 (2013)Google Scholar
- 6.Dean, D.L., Hender, J.M., Rodgers, T.L., Santanen, E.L.: Identifying quality, novel, and creative ideas: constructs and scales for idea evaluation. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 7, 30 (2006)Google Scholar
- 8.Velamuri, V.K., Schneckenberg, D., Haller, J., Moeslein, K.M.: Open evaluation of new product concepts at the front end of innovation: objectives and contingency factors. R&D Manag. (2015)Google Scholar
- 9.Merz, A., Seeber, I., Maier, R., Richter, A., Schimpf, R., Füller, J., Schwabe, G.: Exploring the effects of contest mechanisms on idea shortlisting in an open idea competition. In: 37th International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin, Ireland (2016)Google Scholar
- 11.Yoon, P.K., Hwang, C.-L.: Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (2011)Google Scholar
- 14.Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T.: The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19, 123–205 (1986)Google Scholar
- 18.Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Kühberger, A., Ranyard, R.: A handbook of process tracing methods for decision research: a critical review and user’s guide. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis (2011)Google Scholar
- 20.De Vreede, G.J., Briggs, R.O., Massey, A.P.: Collaboration engineering: foundations and opportunities: editorial to the special issue on the journal of the association of information systems. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10, 121–137 (2009)Google Scholar
- 21.Levine, J.M., Moreland, R.L.: A history of small group research. In: Kruglanski A.W., Stroebe, W. (eds) Handbook of the history of social psychology, New York, NY: Psychology Press (2012)Google Scholar
- 26.Wang, W., Benbasat, I.: Interactive decision aids for consumer decision making in e-commerce: the influence of perceived strategy restrictiveness. MISQ 33, 293 (2009)Google Scholar