Who Are Your Design Heroes? Exploring User Roles in a Co-creation Community

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 745)

Abstract

Co-creation with users in online communities proved to be a powerful means for product innovation. Crowdsourcing ideas in a contest setting within a community represents an effective method to gather a variety of ideas within a short time and with reasonable financial investment. Users benefit as well. They can be part of industrial value creation, enjoy interacting with a company and socializing with other users, and win a prize. Interestingly, many users not only compete for prizes, but also collaborate with others by giving feedback and exchanging ideas. Thus, we find high heterogeneity among users which asks for adequate community management (incentives, facilitation, communication etc.). In this study, we explore user roles and communication patterns in an industrial design contest community by applying cluster analysis based on network measures and content analysis. Four user roles were found that differ in communication and contribution behavior.

Keywords

Co-creation Innovation contests User roles Online communities 

References

  1. 1.
    Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., Chesbrough, H.: Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&D Manag. 14(4), 311–316 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chesbrough, H.: Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Redlich, T., Moritz, M.: Bottom-up economics: foundations of a theory of distributed and open value creation. In: Ferdinand, J.-P., et al. (eds.) The Decentralized and Networked Future of Value Creation. Springer, Berlin (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Redlich, T.: Wertschöpfung in der Bottom-up-Ökonomie. Springer, Berlin (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Willoughby, K.: The affordable resources strategy and the milieux embeddedness strategy as alternative approaches to facilitating innovation in a knowledge-intensive industry. J. High Techonol. Manag. Res. 15(1), 91–121 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huff, A.S., Möslein, K.M., Reichwald, R.: Introduction to open innovation. In: Leading Open Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Von Hippel, E.: Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bahemia, H., Squire, B.: A contingent perspective of open innovation in new product development projects. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 14(4), 603–627 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chesbrough, H.: The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 44(3), 35–41 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wulfsberg, J.P., Redlich, T., Bruhns, F.L.: Open production: scientific foundation for co-creative product realization. Prod. Eng. Res. Devel. 5(2), 127–139 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Winsor, J.: SPARK: Be More Innovative Through Co-creation. Kaplan Business, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V.: Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. J. Interact. Mark. 18(3), 5–14 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Füller, J.: Refining virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective. Calif. Manag. Rev. 52(2), 98–122 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Franke, N., Shah, S.: How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Res. Policy 32, 157–178 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lakhani, K.R., Wolf, R.G.: Why hackers do what they do: understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. In: Feller, J., et al. (eds.) Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, pp. 3–22. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Von Krogh, G., Von Hippel, E.: The promise of research on open source software. Manag. Sci. 52, 975–983 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harhoff, D., Henkel, J., Von Hippel, E.: Profiting from voluntary spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Res. Policy, 32, 1753–1769 (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moritz, M., Redlich, T., Grames, P.P., Wulfsberg, J.P.: Value creation in open-source hardware communities: case study of open source ecology. In: Kocaoglu, D. (ed.) Technology Management for Social Innovation, Proceedings of PICMET 2016, pp. 2368–2375 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Adamczyk, S., Bullinger, A.C., Möslein, K.M.: Innovation contests: a review, classification and outlook. Creativity Innov. Manag. 21(4), 335–360 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Füller, J., Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Matzler, K.: User roles and contributions in innovation-contest communities. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 31(1), 273–308 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bullinger, A.C., Neyer, A.K., Rass, M., Möslein, K.M.: Community-based innovation contests: where competition meets cooperation. Creativity Innov. Manag. 19, 290–303 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Füller, J.: Why consumers engage in virtual new product development initiated by producers. Adv. Consum. Res. 33, 639–646 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Foege, J.N., Dragsdahl Lauritzen, G., Tietze, F., Salge, T.O.: What is mine is yours, or is it? exploring solvers’ value appropriation strategies in crowdsourcing contests. In: R&D Management Conference (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Piller, F.T., Schaller, C., Walcher, D.: Customers as co-designers: a framework for open innovation. In: Proceedings of Congress of the International Federation of Scholarly Associations of Management, Gothenborg (2004)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ebner, W., Leimeister, J.M., Krcmar, H.: Community engineering for innovations: the ideas competition as a method to nurture a virtual community for innovations. R&D Manag. 39, 342–356 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Von Krogh, G., Spaeth, S., Haefliger, S., Wallin, M.: Open source softwares: what we know (and do not know) about motives to contribute. DIME Working Papers on Intellectual Property Rights, 38 (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    David, P.A., Shapiro, J.S.: Community-based production of open source software: what do we know about the developers who participate. Innov. Econ. Policy 20, 364–398 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ihl, C., Vossen, A., Piller, F.T.: Motivations of organizational participation behavior in idea contests. In: 10th European Academy of Management Conference, Rome (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Füller, J., Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Matzler, K.: Where do the great ideas evolve? exploring the relationship between network position and idea quality. In: R&D Management Conference, Manchester (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brabham, D.C.: Moving the crowd at threatless: motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application. In: Annual Meeting of the Association for Eduction in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Boudreau, K., Lacetera, N., Lakhani, K.R.: The effect of increasing competition and uncertainty on incentives and extreme-value outcomes in innovation contests. Harvard School Working Paper, No. 2008-6 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Füller, J., Hutter, K., Faullant, R.: Why co-creation experience matters? creative experience and its impact on the quantity and quality of creative contributions. R&D Manag. 41, 259–273 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Füller, J., Müller, J., Matzler, K.: Communitition: the tension between competition and collaboration in community-based design contests. Creativity Innov. Manag. 20, 13–21 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kim, A.J.: Community Building on the Web: Secret Strategies for Successful Online Communities. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing, Boston (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kozinets, R.V.: E-tribalized marketing?: the strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption. Eur. Manag. J. 17(3), 252–264 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ducheneaut, N.: Socialization in an open source software community: a socio-technical analysis. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 14(4), 323–368 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Arazy, O., Daxenberger, J., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Nov, O., Gurevych, I.: Turbulent stability of emergent roles: the dualistic nature of self-organizing knowledge coproduction. Inf. Systems Res. 27(4), 792–812 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fuger, S., Schimpf, R., Füller, J., Hutter, K.: Network structure and user roles of a crowdsourcing community–the context of social innovations for a development project. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Welser, H.T., Cosley, D., Kossinets, G., Lin, A., Dokshin, F., Gay, G., Smith, M.: Finding social roles in Wikipedia. In: Proceedings of the 2011 iConference (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wasserman, S., Faust, K.: Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, vol. 8. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hinds, D., Lee, R.M.: Social network structure as a critical success condition for virtual communities. In: Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2008)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., Freeman, L.C.: Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis (2002)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fiori, K.L., Smith, J., Antonucci, T.C.: Social network types among older adults: a multidimensional approach. J. Gerontol. Ser. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 62(6), 322–330 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ketchen Jr., D.J., Shook, C.L.: The application of cluster analysis in strategic management research: an analysis and critique. Strateg. Manag. J., 441–458 (1996)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sarstedt, M., Mooi, E.: A Concise Guide to Market Research. Springer, Berlin (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Maxwell, J.A.: Designing a qualitative study. SAGE Handb. Appl. Soc. Res. Method. 2, 214–253 (2008)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Glaser, B.: Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Routledge, Abingdon (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Production EngineeringHelmut Schmidt UniversityHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations