Journal of Information Technology Services (한국IT서비스학회지)

Korea Society of IT Services (한국IT서비스학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of Organizational-Adoptable and User-favorable Ideas in a Crowdsourcing Community : Focused on MyStarbucksIdea.com

크라우드소싱 커뮤니티 내 고객 선호와 조직의 혁신수용 비교 연구 : MyStarbucksIdea.com의 고객 아이디어 분석을 중심으로

  • Received : 2013.01.25
  • Accepted : 2013.03.09
  • Published : 2013.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Open innovation concept is advocating the importance of the customer roles in firm's innovation. As a result, crowdsourcing community is drawing attention as a strategic asset for open innovation across diverse industries. Considering that the goal of crowdsourcing community is harnessing innovative ideas, understanding the characteristics of user-favorable and organization-adoptable ideas can enhance the effectiveness of idea crowdsourcing. In our approach, we extract idea content-based characteristics such as subjectivity, negativity, prosocialneess, and depth of idea to examine what are the factors that affect user preference and organizational adoption. An analysis of 71,134 ideas from MyStarbucksIdea.com shows that there are significant differences between user-favorable and organization-adoptable ideas in terms of idea characteristics. Lastly, both theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. Howe, J., "The Rise of Crowdsourcing", Wired magazine, Vol.14, No.6(2006), pp.1-4.
  2. Poetz, M. K. and M. Schreier, "The Value of Crowdsourcing:Can Users Really Compete with Professionals in Generating New Product Ideas?", Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol.29, No.2(2012), pp. 245-256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00893.x
  3. Brabham, D. C., "Moving the Crowd at Istockphoto: The Composition of the Crowd and Motivations for Participation in a Crowdsourcing Application", First Monday, Vol. 13, No.6(2008).
  4. Doan, A., R. Ramakrishnan, and A. Y. Halevy, "Crowdsourcing Systems on the World- Wide Web", Communications of the ACM, Vol.54, No.4(2011), pp.86-96.
  5. Kleemann, F., G. G. Voss, and K. Rieder, "Un (Der) Paid Innovators:The Commercial Utiliza-Tion of Consumer Work through Crowdsourcing", Science Technology and Innovation Studies, Vol.4, No.1(2008), pp.5-26.
  6. Schenk, E., C. Guittard, "Crowdsourcing: What can be Outsourced to the Crowd, and Why?", In Workshop on Open Source Innovation, Strasbourg, France, 2009.
  7. Kaufmann, N., T. Schulze, and D. Veit, "More than fun and money. worker motivation in crowdsourcing-a study on mechanical turk", In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Detroit, MI, 2011.
  8. Alonso, O., D. E. Rose, and B. Stewart, "Crowdsourcing for relevance evaluation", In ACM SIGIR Forum, Vol.42, No.1(2008), pp.9-15.
  9. Brabham, D. C., "Crowdsourcing the Public Participation Process for Planning Projects", Planning Theory, Vol.8, No.3(2009), pp.242-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209104824
  10. Goodchild, M. F. and J. A. Glennon, "Crowdsourcing Geographic Information for Disaster Response:A Research Frontier", International Journal of Digital Earth, Vol.3, No.3(2010), pp.231-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538941003759255
  11. Aitamurto, T. and R. Tee, "The Promise of Idea Crowdsourcing-Benefits, Contexts, Limitations", 2011.
  12. Paul Sloane, A Guide to Open Innovation and Crowdsourcing, KoganPage, 2011.
  13. Bretschneider, U., B. Rajagopalan, and J. M. Leimeister, "Idea Generation in Virtual Communities for Innovation:The Influence of Participants' Motivation on Idea Quality", In 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS), IEEE, (2012), p.3467.
  14. Whitla, P., "Crowdsourcing and its application in marketing activities", Contemporary Management Research, Vol.5, No.1(2009), pp.15-28.
  15. Wiebe, J., T. Wilson, R. Bruce, M. Bell, and M. Martin, "Learning Subjective Language", Computational linguistics, Vol.30, No.3(2004), pp.277-308. https://doi.org/10.1162/0891201041850885
  16. Ghose, A. and P. Ipeirotis, "Estimating the Helpfulness and Economic Impact of Product Reviews:Mining Text and Reviewer Characteristics", Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE, Vol.23, No.10(2010), pp. 1498-1512.
  17. Ghose, A. and P. G. Ipeirotis, "Designing ranking systems for consumer reviews: The impact of review subjectivity on product sales and review quality", In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Workshop on Information Technology and Systems, (2006), pp.303-310.
  18. Naveed, N., T. Gottron, J. Kunegis, and A. C. Alhadi, "Bad News Travel Fast:A Content- Based Analysis of Interestingness on Twitter", In Proceedings of the ACM WebSci, (2011), pp.1-7.
  19. Mudambi, S. M. and D. Schuff, "What Makes a Helpful Online Review? A Study of Customer Reviews on Amazon. Com", MIS quarterly, Vol.34, No.1(2010), pp.185-200. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721420
  20. Penner, L. A., J. F. Dovidio, J. A. Piliavin, and D. A. Schroeder, "Prosocial Behavior: Multilevel Perspectives", Annual Review of Psychology, Vol.56(2005), pp.365-392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141
  21. Bar-Tal, D., Prosocial behavior:Theory and research, Washington, DC, US:Hemisphere Publishing Corp, 1976.
  22. Dawkins, R., The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
  23. Moyer-Guse, E., "Toward a Theory of Entertainment Persuasion:Explaining the Persuasive Effects of Entertainment Education Messages", Communication Theory, Vol.18, No.3(2008), pp.407-425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x
  24. Barone, J. and T. Miyazaki, "The Influence of Cause-Related Marketing on Consumer Choice:Does One Good Turn Deserve Another?", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.28, No.2(2000), pp.248-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282006
  25. Bhattacharya, C. and S. Sen, "Doing Better and Doing Good:When, Why, and How Consumers Respond to Corporate Social Initiatives", California Management Review, Vol.47, No.1(2004), pp.9-24. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166284
  26. Dale, E. and J. S. Chall, "A Formula for Predicting Readability", Educational research bulletin, Vol.27, No.2(1948), pp.37-54.
  27. Spache, G., "A New Readability Formula for Primary-Grade Reading Materials", The Elementary School Journal, Vol.53, No.7 (1953), pp.410-413. https://doi.org/10.1086/458513
  28. Blumenstock, J. E., "Size Matters:Word Count as a Measure of Quality on Wikipedia", In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web, ACM, (2008), pp.1095-1096.
  29. Behrend, T. S., D. J. Sharek, A. W. Meade, and E. N. Wiebe, "The Viability of Crowdsourcing for Survey Research", Behavior research methods, Vol.43, No.4(2011), pp. 800-814. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0
  30. Hong, L., O. Dan, and B. D. Davison, "Predicting Popular Messages in Twitter", In Proceedings of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web, ACM, (2011), pp.57-58.
  31. Esuli, A. and F. Sebastiani, "Sentiwordnet: A Publicly Available Lexical Resource for Opinion Mining", In Proceedings of LREC-06, the 5th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, (2006), pp.417-422.

Cited by

  1. Motivations for customer engagement in online co-innovation communities (OCCs) vol.6, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTT-10-2014-0062