No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
MODELING AND PRODUCTIVITY PREDICTION OF THE COMPANIES-INTERNAL CROWDSOURCING-BASED IDEATION
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 July 2021
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The internal crowdsourcing-based ideation within a company can be defined as an involvement of its staff, specialists, managers, and other employees, to propose solution ideas for a pre-defined problem. This paper addresses a question, how many participants of the company-internal ideation process are required to nearly reach the ideation limit for the problems with a finite number of workable solutions. To answer the research question, the author proposes a set of metrics and a non-linear ideation performance function with a positive decreasing slope and ideation limit for the closed-ended problems. Three series of experiments helped to explore relationships between the metric attributes and resulted in a mathematical model which allows companies to predict the productivity metrics of their crowdsourcing ideation activities such as quantity of different ideas and ideation limit as a function of the number of contributors, their average personal creativity and ideation efficiency of a contributors’ group.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Belski, I., Livotov, P. and Mayer, O. (2016), “Eight Fields of MATCEMIB Help Students to Generate More Ideas”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 39, pp. 85–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, R.O. and Reinig, B.A. (2010), “Bounded Ideation Theory”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 123–144. http://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222270106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, D.L., Hender, J.M., Rodgers, T.L. and Santanen, E.B. (2006), “Identifying Quality, Novel, and Creative Ideas: Constructs and Scales for Idea Evaluation”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 7, Iss. 10, pp. 646–649. http://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, M., and Stroebe, W. (1991), “Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 392–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, T.J., Culley, S. and Dekoninck, E.A. (2011), “Reuse of ideas and concepts for creative stimuli in engineering design”, Journal of Engineering Design, 22:8, pp. 565–581. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09544821003598573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kudrowitz, B.M. and Wallace, D. (2012), “Assessing the quality of ideas from prolific, early-stage product ideation”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 120–139. http://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2012.676633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livotov, P. (2020), “Easy-to-Use Ideation Technique Based on Five Cross-Industry Analogies Enhances Engineering Creativity of Students and Specialists”. In: Cavallucci, D., Brad, S., Livotov, P. (Eds), Systematic Complex Problem Solving in the Age of Digitalization and Open Innovation, Springer, Cham, pp. 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61295-5_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poetz, M.K. and Schreier, M. (2012), “The value of crowdsourcing: can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas?”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 245–256. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00893.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinig, B.A., Briggs, R.O. and Nunamaker, J. Jr. (2007), “On the Measurement of Ideation Quality”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 143–161. http://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinig, B.A. and Briggs, R.O. (2008), “On the relationship between idea-quantity and idea-quality during ideation”, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9105-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schemmann, B., Herrmann, A.M., Chappin, M. and Heimeriks, G.J. (2016), “Crowdsourcing ideas: Involving ordinary users in the ideation phase of new product development”, Research Policy, Vol. 45, pp. 1145–1154. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, J. J., Smith, S.M and Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003), “Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness”, Design Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00034-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valacich, J.S., Dennis, A.R. and Connolly, T. (1994), “Idea generation in computer-based groups: A new ending to an old story”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 57, Iss. 3, pp. 448–467. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooten, J.O. and Ulrich, K. (2015), “The Impact of Visibility in Innovation Tournaments: Evidence from Field Experiments”, Wooten, Joel O. and Ulrich, Karl T., The Impact of Visibility in Innovation Tournaments: Evidence from Field Experiments, Psychology of Innovation eJournal, 36 pages. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2214952Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access