Title: Collaboration and Quality of User Generated Ideas in Online Innovation Communities
Authors: Ye, H.; Kanhanhalli, A.; Huber, M. J.; Bretschneider, U.; Blohm, I.; Goswami, S
Abstract: Enabled by Internet-based technologies, users are increasingly participating and collaborating in idea generation in online innovation communities. Beyond increasing the quantity of ideas contributed by users, firms are looking to obtain innovation ideas of better quality. However, with the limited understanding of the phenomenon, few studies have focused on investigating what determines the quality of collaboratively generated user ideas in online innovation communities. This study aims to address this knowledge gap by investigating the antecedents of the quality of user generated ideas from a knowledge collaboration perspective. Based on this perspective, we propose that idea creation effort, peer co-production, and peer feedback will directly and interactively influence the quality of user generated ideas. The model was tested with archival data from the SAPien’s innovation community as well as idea quality rating data from experts. The results reveal that idea creation effort and peer feedback affect the quality of user generated idea. Further, idea creation effort negatively moderates the relationship between peer co-production and the quality of user generated ideas.
My notes: No doubt an interesting approach to the study of creativity, in particular an original way of studying evaluation. The paper itself is unnecessarily lengthy but is clear overall and the reader can skip details from the first sections. Some implied assumptions are worth mentioning, not a flaw of this paper only but a limitation of creativity reasearch in general: "Ideas that are vague or contain unclear casualty are less useful than ideas that are more specific", well, says who? And more accurately, "useful" for what? "Peer coproduction" is an interesting idea but in this paper its interepretation seems very limited since it encapsulates every interaction between authors (revision, development, clarification); thus the outcomes of the paper are questionable in regards to their validity and value. Perhaps even more significantly, this study uses CAT to evaluate ideas but it has two major shortcomings: assessment criteria would need to be subjective and relative. This is not clear in the paper. Secondly, inter-rater reliability indices are too low (0.53 to 0.63), making every outcome of this work very questionable
http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb7/ibwl/leimeister/pub/JML_326.pdf
Authors: Ye, H.; Kanhanhalli, A.; Huber, M. J.; Bretschneider, U.; Blohm, I.; Goswami, S
Abstract: Enabled by Internet-based technologies, users are increasingly participating and collaborating in idea generation in online innovation communities. Beyond increasing the quantity of ideas contributed by users, firms are looking to obtain innovation ideas of better quality. However, with the limited understanding of the phenomenon, few studies have focused on investigating what determines the quality of collaboratively generated user ideas in online innovation communities. This study aims to address this knowledge gap by investigating the antecedents of the quality of user generated ideas from a knowledge collaboration perspective. Based on this perspective, we propose that idea creation effort, peer co-production, and peer feedback will directly and interactively influence the quality of user generated ideas. The model was tested with archival data from the SAPien’s innovation community as well as idea quality rating data from experts. The results reveal that idea creation effort and peer feedback affect the quality of user generated idea. Further, idea creation effort negatively moderates the relationship between peer co-production and the quality of user generated ideas.
My notes: No doubt an interesting approach to the study of creativity, in particular an original way of studying evaluation. The paper itself is unnecessarily lengthy but is clear overall and the reader can skip details from the first sections. Some implied assumptions are worth mentioning, not a flaw of this paper only but a limitation of creativity reasearch in general: "Ideas that are vague or contain unclear casualty are less useful than ideas that are more specific", well, says who? And more accurately, "useful" for what? "Peer coproduction" is an interesting idea but in this paper its interepretation seems very limited since it encapsulates every interaction between authors (revision, development, clarification); thus the outcomes of the paper are questionable in regards to their validity and value. Perhaps even more significantly, this study uses CAT to evaluate ideas but it has two major shortcomings: assessment criteria would need to be subjective and relative. This is not clear in the paper. Secondly, inter-rater reliability indices are too low (0.53 to 0.63), making every outcome of this work very questionable
http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb7/ibwl/leimeister/pub/JML_326.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment