User innovation: Towards a configurational
perspective on online user innovation communities
Eline Sikkenga
S2521717
22th of January, 2018
Supervisor: dr. Q. (John) Dong
Co-assessor: prof. dr. ir. J.M.L. (Jo) van Engelen
Master Thesis
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
MSc. Business Administration – Strategic Innovation Management
2
ABSTRACT
The use of crowdsourcing platforms by companies is increasing. Customers are getting more involved in the new development process. In particular, online user innovation communities (OUICs) are becoming more popular by companies. On these platforms, customers can give feedback to the company and share their ideas. Despite the promising benefits, it can be difficult for companies to manage their OUIC. Because of the large amount of posted ideas every day, companies need to allocate their attention efficiently. This paper uses a configurational approach, which concentrates on the combination of factors. The theories of justification (the six common worlds) and justice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) are selected. Taking an inductive approach, this study relies on fuzzy set methodology and uses a sample of ideas from the successful OUIC of Starbucks. In total, twelve factors are used to make configurations. The results of this study are converted into seven propositions, which helps managers on OUICs to allocate their attention to the most valuable ideas. Therefore, this paper offers new theoretical insights to researchers and implications for practitioners.
3
INTRODUCTION
The future of open innovation will be more and more challenging (Chesbrough, 2012). It will be “more collaborative and more engaging with a wide variety of participants” (p. 20). A reason why the future of open innovation will lead to new opportunities and challenges for open innovation is the emergence of online platforms (Ooms et al., 2015; Schemmann et al., 2016). Through crowdsourcing, individual customers can give the company feedback and share their ideas with others. The customers of the company are getting more involved in the new development process (Schemmann et al., 2016). This study focuses on online user innovation communities (OUICs), a crowdsourcing platform to generate new innovations for improving the companies’ products, processes and services (Dong and Wu, 2015). The OUIC is managed by the company where users can share their ideas with the company for new ideas about innovations (Ogink and Dong, 2017). The company itself can comment on these ideas and will select the most valuable ideas. They have to decide in the end whether the idea will be implemented or not. Innovations that arise from OUICs could even outperform those of the employees of the company and other professional developers and have potential to generate commercial outcomes (Magnusson, 2009; Poetz and Schreier, 2012).
4
Prior research on online idea crowdsourcing has focused on three areas: the motivation of the idea posters, the idea generation process and the outcome of the idea crowdsourcing (Schemmann et al., 2016). As Schemmann et al. (2016) noted, the majority of the researchers focused mainly on the first two areas. These areas are from the perspective of the users. The last one is from the companies’ perspective. This study focuses on the perspective of the company as well, but in a new area: attention allocation. The literature on attention allocation on OUICs is still lacking, although it is highly interesting for managers to be aware on how to manage the OUIC and to decide which ideas get more attention. Besides, the factors used in this study are new in the research of OUIC. The theories of justification and justice have not been researched in previous research of the OUIC literature. Prior research has concentrate on different characteristics of the ideas. Poetz and Schreier (2012) focused mainly on the novelty of the ideas, where Di Gangi and Wasko (2009) focused solely the popularity of ideas. Further, Franke et al. (2013) concentrated on the importance of idea originality. Therefore, the variables used in this paper are both new in the OUIC literature.
In this study, I utilize a theory-building, inductive approach based on fuzzy set analysis, a kind of set-theoretic methodology (Fiss, 2007). The factors justification and justice will be investigated and determine whether an idea gets more attention. The six common worlds of Boltanski and Thevenot (1999) for justification and the four justice constructs of Colquit et al. (2001) are applied. These factors of both theories will be used to make configurations. I examine which configurations elicit a positive reaction by the company and will lead to which idea gets more attention. Because this paper uses a configurational approach to theory building, this study develops new theory from our findings, instead of using hypothesis. The following research question will be conducted:
Which configurations of justification and justice of the ideas on an OUIC will determine whether an idea gets more attention by the company?
5
on OUICs. This study uses a configurational approach, which is new in this area. Earlier studies focused only on separated factors. By developing new theory focused on the configurations determining the outcome of idea crowdsourcing, I move beyond isolated characteristics of ideas. Second, justification and justice theories are not used in the existing literature on OUICs. These theories have never been connected in previous studies to OUICs. With using justification and justice configurations, this study tries to fill the literature gap and shows new insights. Finally, the theory and findings contribute to the attention allocation literature. It provides important implications to overcome information overload and to allocate the attention to potentially valuable ideas. Managers can manage the OUIC more effectively when they know what the relevant characteristics are. Therefore, they can select the most valuable ideas in a better and faster way. This will result in more promising innovations.
This inductive approach differs from the common deductive approach in order of presentation. The next section will outline a guiding theoretical framework. Thereafter, the methodology will be explained, and the findings of the research will be discussed. The paper will continue with an extended discussion, where a theory is built from the findings and propositions are formed. Finally, the implications and contributions will be discussed, and limitations of the study will be given.
THEORY
Open innovation and OUICs
6
innovations are characterized by high commercial opportunities. Crowdsourcing initiatives among customers might even outperform professional developers at the company for the generation of innovations (Magnusson, 2009; Poetz and Schreier, 2012).
In particular, OUICs is one specific way to collaborate with customers using crowdsourcing. An OUIC can be described as a company-sponsored community of users on a social media platform “to generating new ideas about the products, services and processes” of the company (Ogink and Dong, 2017 p.1). All people around the world can share their new ideas with each other and the company on the platform. Further, the users can comment on and vote for the ideas of other users or comment on existing products and services of the company (Dong and Wu, 2015). On the OUIC, companies are able to search beyond the organizational boundaries and can engage with the users directly. Companies with a successful OUIC can enhance their internal R&D activities by allowing users to identify new sources of innovation at lower costs (Di Gangi, Wasko and Hooker, 2010). The number of companies using OUIC for generating innovation is increasing and to manage the OUIC companies assign internal managers as the idea partners (Dong and Wu, 2015). In the end, these managers have to evaluate the ideas posts and decides which ideas will receive further attention, development and finally be implemented and which ideas will be abandoned. They support the managerial decision making for innovation (Dong and Wu, 2015).
A large amount of ideas is submitted every day on the OUIC. Despite the forthcoming benefits of crowdsourcing, companies and customers face the potential of being overwhelmed by the large number of ideas shared on the online platform (Di Gangi et al., 2010). The idea that there is too much information to hand, has led to the notion of information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2009). People only have a limited amount of information they can assimilate and process at one time (Li et al., 2016). When these limits are exceeded, information overload results whereby decision making is damaged and may also lead to insufficient attention to any particular idea (Zhou and Li, 2012). The theory of crowdsourcing may be prejudicial as good ideas might get “crowded out” due to an inability to understand, identify, and respond to a large amount of diverse ideas (Di Gangi et al., 2010). Therefore, attention allocation and selecting potential valuable ideas becomes complex and unmanageable.
7
(Piezunka and Dahlander, 2015). When companies filter, they tend to simplify, which is likely to steer attention away from ideas that are distant in terms of content. Therefore, they only focus on the ideas which are worth their attention. In this research, I am interested to understand the characteristics which make particular new user ideas be recognized and valuable and how to allocate the attention to the ideas, in order to overcome information overload. Determining valuable ideas, I examine the justification and the justice of an idea. In the next section, I outline the theories and the specific factors.
Justification
Individuals are supported by justification logics to explain their reasoning and social actions (Boltanski and Thevenot, 1999). This applies on users of an OUIC as well, they can have different reasons to share their ideas on the platform. For example, one user on an OUIC suggested to change the packaging of the products so it would be recyclable. The reason for suggesting this idea is because the user probably cares about the environment. This reason belongs to one of six worlds of explained below. Mostly all users have a specific reason to post their idea. The reasoning expressed by users of OUICs can be divided in the justification logics by Boltanski and Thevenot (1999).
8
beneficiary. The domestic world (5) grounds its reasoning on well-being, family and tradition. An individual in this world can not be separated from his/her belonging to a family or other group. E.g. the idea emphasizes tradition and gives the beneficiary joy. Finally, the civic world (6) grounds its reasoning on environmentally good. Individuals give up their own interests and direct themselves towards the common good. E.g. the idea provides environmental benefits.
Justice
Next to the justification logics, the perception of fairness of the users’ ideas on the OUICs is applied in this study. In organizational sciences, justice is considered socially structured (Colquitt et al., 2001). The question “what is fair?” is drawn from linking objective features of decision making to subjective perceptions of fairness (Cropanza and Greenberg, 1997). For example, one user on an OUIC comment on the fact that it is unfair that not every store applies the same rules for the customers, which can be considered as procedural justice. The fairness experienced by users of the online platform can be divided in various categories structured by Colquitt et al. (2001).
9
In sum, the theory points to ten factors, which are summarized in the theoretical framework in figure 1. These factors are like to be central to the configurational judgements. Because this paper uses an inductive approach, there are no prior hypothesis. In the next section, the inductive approach of this study is explained and the data set, measures and the analysis will be discussed.
Figure I
Theoretical framework: justification and justice factors and the attention allocation of the ideas
METHODOLOGY
Data and Sample
In this study, the data is derived from the OUIC of Starbucks, MyStarbucksIdea (mystarbucksidea.com). Starbucks is a coffee company located around the world. MystarbucksIdea is launched in 2008 to collect feedback on existing products and new ideas for new products, services and processes from their customers. Users have the possibility to give the company feedback by posting ideas for new innovations, commenting on others and voting for ideas. They can make suggestions on a wide range of (sub)categories, for example new flavors of coffee, the employees and the atmosphere of the store. The ideas submitted by the users can be divided in three main categories. The majority of the ideas are submitted under
Justice: ▪ Distributive ▪ Procedural ▪ Interpersonal ▪ Informational Justification: ▪ Money, Competition ▪ Efficiency, Effectiveness ▪ Artistic, Creative, Innovative
▪ Status, Recognition, Fame ▪ Well-being, Family,
Tradition
▪ Environmentally Good
Attention
10
the category of product, followed by the categories involvement and experience (Hossain and Islam, 2015). The reason Starbucks is selected as a data source is because it is openly available and therefore it was simple to gather complete data. Furthermore, Starbucks is one of the first companies who implemented an OUIC (in 2008) and as such, I can collect data over a considerable period of time. Besides, their OIUC can be seen as a successful example of an OUIC (Ogink and Dong, 2017). They have already implemented more than 300 innovations.
The dataset of MyStarbucksIdea contains all ideas and comments made between the beginning of the community (26 March 2008) and 23 February 2015 (Ogink and Dong, 2017). In total, the dataset for this study contains 4935 submitted ideas. Therefore, the data can be considered as a large-scale longitudinal data set. In this study, the ideas from the last 15 months of the OUIC are selected, these are 275 submitted ideas. The reason for choosing this sample is because it is more recent and therefore more reliable as a data set. In 2008, the OUIC of Starbucks was still in its beginning phase, Starbucks and the users still had to figure out how the OUIC exactly works. Hereafter, they got more familiar with the technique and they posted ideas that are more relevant for Starbucks. However, the sample of 275 ideas seems a rather small sample size. But unlike other statistical approaches, QCA does not necessarily require a large sample size. The basis of this study is set theory, in contrast to correlation theory (Ragin, 2000). Previous studies with a QCA approach are using a similar sample size (Arts and de Koning, 2017; Crawford, 2012; Johansson and Kask, 2017).
Inductive Approach
11
and simultaneously have the virtues of interval-scale variables (Rihoux and Ragin, 2009). In this study, I use a crisp set, which relies on the use of binary variables to identify the theoretically membership in a set. Unlike fussy set (where the values scale between “0” and “1”), the variables in the crisp set can be “0”, which represents full membership, or “1”, which represents full non-membership (Campbell et al., 2016).
FsQCA has advantages over the commonly used technique, the regression analysis (Fiss, 2007). The regression analysis technique, which estimates one single path for all cases, faces some limitations when modeling high-order interactions (Fiss, 2011). For example, the regression analysis faces difficulties with both computationally, due to collinearity and power issues, and in terms of interpretation. The use of fsQCA can overcome this problem. Set-theoretic methodology allows for parsimonious and robust causal inferences, while allowing for the use of various causal dimensions as well (Smithson and Verkuilen, 2006; Ragin, 2008). According to Fiss (2007) a set theoretic method allows a better examination which strategies make sense for which kind of company. Therefore, the use of fsQCA enables in this study to better model the allocation attention on the OUIC of Starbucks.
Measures
To enable fsQCA, all variables are converted into binary data. This involves determining which variable values consists full membership in a specific category or full non-membership. Based on the different categories of justification and justice each sampled idea was reviewed by four academic researchers. The four researchers attend six training sessions together with two experts from the field to ensure a consistent understanding of the ideas. With the same understanding of the different constructs, the interrater reliability is ensured. To test the reliability, an interrater validation test was executed. This resulted in a ICC2 of 0.76, which makes it a reliable data set (Shrout and Fleiss, 1979). During the coding, some ideas were removed from the sample due to missing information or ambiguity. Below, I describe the measurement of each variable. In table I, example of all the factors and the explanation of the coding can be found.
12
the justification of the ideas was reviewed. For the justification, the variables are based on the six worlds of Boltanski and Thevenot (1999). Each world is a variable and can be converted in binary data. The first justification variable is money and competition. This variable is coded as 1 if the beneficiary of the idea can or should gain financial benefits and 0 if not. The second, efficiency and effectiveness, is coded as 1 if the beneficiary can or should be more effective and efficient in doing thing and 0 if not. Artistic, creative and innovative, is coded as 1 if the beneficiary can or should be more artistic, creative or innovative and 0 if not. The fourth, status, recognition and fame, is coded as 1 if the beneficiary can or should gain status, recognition or fame and 0 if not. The fifth variable, well-being, family and tradition, is coded as 1 if the beneficiary can or should be happy and treated well as if he/she is a family member and 0 if not. The next, environmentally good, is coded as 1 if the beneficiary can or should gain general societal or environmental benefits and 0 if not. There is also a seventh variable, this one is coded as 1 if it is not clear if the beneficiary can or should benefit from the idea. An idea can contain only one factor of justification. Third, the justice of the ideas was reviewed. The justice variables are based on the four categories by Colquitt et al. (2001). The first justice variable, distributive justice, is coded as 1 if the outcome of the idea is fairly distributed for everyone and 0 if not. The second, procedural justice, is coded as 1 if the procedure of the idea is fairly used to determine the outcomes distributions and allocations and 0 if not. The third, interpersonal justice, is coded as 1 if the idea will treat people with respect, politeness and dignity and 0 if not. The fourth variable, informational justice, is coded as 1 if the idea provides the information fairly to everyone and 0 if not. For justice, there is an extra variable as well. This variable is coded as 1 if the justice is not identifiable in the idea. Also in this case, the idea can contain only one factor of justice. Below, table I shows some examples of the coding.
Table I
Coding examples of justification and justice
Coded concept Example idea from the sample Explanation
Money and competition
‘We're all "members" getting emails from Starbucks. Why not send the members a coupon book offering discounts on different drinks each week or month? I'm hesitant to try new drinks because of the cost. By the way LOVE the new honey
drink’.
The core of this idea is offering discounts. Customers of Starbucks want to try new drinks occasionally, but they do not buy it because it is too expensive. So, because of money, they do not try new drinks. Therefore, money, competition.
Efficiency and effectiveness
‘Folgers and a few other companies have pods for pod coffee makers. Actually, their coffee isn't all that great. I would love to brew a cup of Starbuck's in the morning, but I have a pod coffee maker because I
13
am the only one in the house who drinks coffee. Ant plans on branching into pods?’
in his or her behavior. Therefore, efficiency, effectiveness.
Artistic, creative and innovative
‘The Seattle Starbucks are still undefeated when it comes to great atmosphere and a welcoming comfy place to sit and chat or work. Stores everywhere else are actually
removing these comfortable seating
arrangements and replacing them with, essentially, elementary school wooden chairs. Don't lose your gimmick, one of the really cool things that makes Starbucks special, just for efficiency's sake. This is one area in which aesthetics must win out. You have an image. Correction: had an image. Don't let that go. SAVE THE SOFAS, COMFY CHAIRS & SOFT LIGHTING!!!’
The core of this ideas is to save the atmosphere and the image. The idea poster thinks the image of Starbucks will be damaged. The image of a company is about artistic, creative,
innovative. Therefore, artistic,
creative, innovative.
Status, recognition and fame
‘Provide Gold Card holders with an extra benefit and incentive. Special deals on food, beverage, or products that would be exclusive to Gold Card holders as an automatic reward on the card, good for several days. [...] The benefit to Starbucks is an increase in good will to your best customers and exposing customers to products different than what they normally order. [...]”
The core of this idea is the Gold Card holders. The idea poster thinks that members of the Gold Card are exclusive and deserves something extra. Therefore, status, recognition and fame.
Well-being, family and tradition
‘I am a huge fan of the Starbucks holiday specialties, but have yet to see anything made to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day! I don't remember March having anything already so why not make an Irish Cream Latte or an Irish Creme Mocha or both? You know this would be delicious!’
The idea poster is a fan of celebrating special days and that it needs to be celebrate with a special drink. Traditions are important for him or her. Therefore, well-being, family, tradition.
Environmentally good ‘Please advise staff to routinely provide
coffee in ceramic cups and pastries on
plates unless specifically requested
otherwise by clients. Make this the norm and paper the exception. If not brought to the attention of others, many will inadvertently use paper. Start with the premise that most people care about the environment and let them change their practices along with change to Starbucks' own practices. Show leadership.”
The core of this idea is recycling. It is clear that this is for environmental reasons. Therefore, environmentally good.
Distributive ‘How about getting a free beverage of
choice when we refilling our SB Gold card? Let’s say fill up with 20, or 30, or whatever the amount may be, get a free drink? It's a way to say thank you to all of us LOYAL customers. I hear that when you purchase a gift card at The Coffee Bean they give you a free beverage. Please top that!’
The idea poster thinks it is unfair that you can get a free beverage at another coffee company and not in the Starbucks. He or she thinks the outcome is not fairly distributed. Therefore, distributive.
Procedural ‘What about all of those stores at airports,
convention centers and hotel lobby that are not really Starbucks stores and don't accept your loaded card for payment. Not only can you not use the card you don't get credit for the purchase. There needs to be a shared
14
responsibility if you are going to own a store and be part of the organization’.
Interpersonal ‘At Starbucks: Order a tall cup of decaf
coffee. Ask for a cup of ice. Pour the coffee into the cup of ice, and the resulting iced decaf coffee is actually very good and refreshing. Go to Peet's Coffee and order an iced decaf coffee. They happily serve it to you and don't act like you're from another planet.’
The idea poster does not feel respected by Starbucks store and feels more respected by another coffee company. Therefore, interpersonal.
Informational ‘How do I REALLY know and/or trust that
my "special" order is really being taken seriously? For instance, because of surgery/health changes, I must only drink decaf, skim, sugar-free beverages. I order what I need, but how do I REALLY know that's what I'm getting until after I drink it and then suffer the consequences?’
The idea poster thinks he or she does not receive all the information he or she needs to order a special drink. Therefore, informational.
Note: These examples are written by customers of Starbucks.
Analyses
15
RESULTS
In table II, the descriptive statistics are shown, while table III summarizes the configurations identified through the QCA analyses. The notation applied by Fiss (2011) is followed in this study, where “ ” represents the presence of a condition and “ ” represents the absence of a condition. The analyses present that the twelve theoretically important factors yield seven through empirical observation supported configurations.
Table II
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Review 275 0 1 ,28 ,452 Justification1 275 0 0 ,00 ,000 Justification2 275 0 1 ,22 ,414 Justification3 275 0 1 ,01 ,085 Justification4 275 0 1 ,20 ,403 Justification5 275 0 1 ,13 ,342 Justification6 275 0 1 ,32 ,467 Justification7 275 0 1 ,12 ,321 Justice1 275 0 1 ,16 ,364 Justice2 275 0 1 ,05 ,220 Justice3 275 0 1 ,01 ,104 Justice4 275 0 1 ,03 ,178 Justice5 275 0 1 ,75 ,434 Valid N (listwise) 275
The measures of the consistency and coverage for each configuration and for the solution as a whole are included in table III. As mentioned in the methodological section, consistency evaluates “the degree which cases that share a combination of conditions produce the key outcome” (Campbell et al., 2016 p. 172). Set-theoretic coverage evaluates “the degree to which instances of the outcome of interest are accounted for by a given path, and by the solutions as a whole” (p. 174). Fussy set analysis allows the determination of the empirical relevance of each path. All the individual solutions have an acceptable consistency level, with
16
a minimum of 83 percent and the other solutions have a perfect consistency being 1. The solutions have a few variations in the degree of coverage. Coverage can be divided into raw coverage and unique coverage. Unique coverage expresses memberships in the outcome not covered by other configurations and points to the empirical weight of each path (Ragin, 2006). However, a path can be relatively rare from an empirical standpoint, it can still advance the theory. Ragin (2006) noted that the coverage does not have to be equal to theoretical importance. Therefore, all different configurations linked to an outcome can be useful (Campbell et al., 2016). The raw coverage and unique coverage in this study are the same for every configuration. Table III Configurations Implemented ideas Configurations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Justification Justification 1 Justification 2 Justification 3 Justification 4 Justification 5 Justification 6 Justification 7 Justice Justice 1 Justice 2 Justice 3 Justice 4 Justice 5 Consistency 0.833333 1 1 1 1 1 1 Raw Coverage 0.0641026 0.025641 0.0128205 0.0128205 0.025641 0.025641 0.0128205 Unique Coverage 0.0641026 0.025641 0.0128205 0.0128205 0.025641 0.025641 0.0128205
Overall Solution Consistency 0.933333
Overall Solution Coverage 0.179487
Notes: Black circles (“ ”) indicate the presence of a condition, and open circles (“ ”) indicate its absence.
17
justification 2 and justice 2 have a positive review with a coverage of 0.0641026 and a consistency of 0.833333. For configuration 2, the ideas drawing on justification 4 and justice 2 have a positive review with a coverage of 0.025641 and a consistency of 1. For configuration 3, the ideas drawing on justification 6 and justice 3 have a positive review with a coverage of 0.0128205 and a consistency of 1. For configuration 4, the ideas drawing on justification 7 and justice 3 have a positive review with a coverage of 0.0128205 and a consistency of 1. For configuration 5, the ideas drawing on justification 2 and justice 4 have a positive review with a coverage of 0.025641 and a consistency of 1. For configuration 6, the ideas drawing on justification 4 and justice 4 have a positive review with a coverage of 0.025641 and a consistency of 1. Lastly, for configuration 7, the ideas drawing on justification 6 and justice 3 have a positive review with a coverage of 0.0128205 and a consistency of 1.
In the section that follows, I focus on the theoretical logic reflected in the configurations and try to develop a mid-range theory of the determination, whether an idea will get more attention by the company. All seven configurations are converted into propositions. Further, the managerial implications, the limitations and directions for future research will be given.
DISCUSSION
18
Theoretical contributions
To start with the first configuration, this one focuses on the efficiency and effectiveness of the idea and the procedural justice. Ideas drawing on efficiency and effectiveness and procedural justice are getting more attention by the company and are more likely to be implemented in the company. According to Boltanski and Thevenot (1999) relationships in the industrial world are harmonious when they are organized, functional and standardized. This is the most efficient and/or effective way to live in an industrial world. This has a linkage with procedural justice. As Colquitt et al. (2001) noted, by procedural justice it is about the fairness of treating people. Leventhal (1980) focused on six criteria that a procedure should have to be perceived as fair. One of them is to conform standards (Leventhal, 1980; Leventhal et al., 1980). As such, when everyone is getting the same service, there is a standardized process. Thus, when the idea is drawing on standardization and effectiveness, it is more likely that the user will perceive the procedure as fair for the beneficiary and it will be efficient for the company. Therefore, the following proposition:
Proposition 1: A combination of efficiency and effectiveness and procedural justice is sufficient
to allocate more attention to the idea.
The next configuration focuses on the status, recognition and fame of the beneficiary of the idea and the procedural justice. In this case, the user wants recognition and status for the beneficiary of the idea by treating everyone by the same rules. Ideas drawing on these factors will get more attention by the company. In the world of renown, the opinion and recognition of others are important (Boltanski and Thevenot, 1999). When individuals think they are treated different than others, they will probably think that is unfair and that they feel not recognized by others. For them, the recognition of others is reality, they want to get the same service as everyone else. This can be a reason to post an idea on the OUIC. Besides, one of Leventhal’s criteria’s (1980) is “ensure that the opinions of various groups affected by the decision have been taken into account” (Colquitt et al.,2001, p. 426). The opinion of others is also essential for procedural justice. The company needs to treat the user by the same rules as other equal users, to let the users feel recognized. Therefore, the combination of these factors can be of great importance to allocate more attention to the idea. Thus:
Proposition 2: A combination of status, recognition and fame and procedural justice is
19
When we look at the third configuration, ideas drawing on the combination of environmentally good and interpersonal justice get more attention by the company. The user thinks it is important to direct themselves towards the environmentally good and at the same time it is important that the beneficiary is treated with respect, politeness and dignity. According to Kollmuss and Julian (2002), there are several factors that influence the pro-environmental behavior of people. First, the people need to be aware of the impact of human behavior on the environment. Users posting ideas with the justification factor ‘environmentally good’ are aware of this impact. They try to direct others to this awareness as well when they post ideas on the OUIC. Besides, they are thinking about the future and the next generations. That shows that they want to have the same treatment for everyone, including the next generations and thinking about the common good. This is in line with the interpersonal justice, where everyone is treated with the same politeness and respect. So, when posting this idea, the company will be aware of the environment and will be more likely to act environmentally friendly. Therefore, I suggest:
Proposition 3: A combination of environmentally good and interpersonal justice is sufficient to
allocate more intention to the idea.
The fourth configuration contains the last factor of justification and the interpersonal justice of the idea. This factor of justification states that there is no justification found in the idea. This means that, the ideas in this configuration are only drawing on interpersonal justice. The user has no specific reason to post the idea, but he/she thinks it is important that everyone is treated with respect, politeness and dignity by the authorities (Colquitt et al.,2001). Interpersonal justice can make people feel better by reaction to undesired outcome of decisions (Conner, 2015), which could be a reason on its own to post the idea on the OUIC. For companies, it is also essential that customers feel respected. They have a reputation and can not ignore customers who feel disrespected (Berry and Seiders, 2008). Therefore, ideas drawing on interpersonal justice are more likely to get attention by the company. As such:
Proposition 4: Interpersonal justice on its own is sufficient to allocate more attention to the
idea.
20
provide people with the same information. For example, at Starbucks when the tasks of the employees are standardized, probably most customers get the same service and got provided with the same information. So, the idea suggested by the user on the OUIC will help the beneficiary to be more organized and thus, the company can easily explain to why procedures are used, and outcomes are distributed in a certain way. Companies will be more concerned about the effectiveness and efficiency, if they know that customers are not provided by the same information. Therefore:
Proposition 5: A combination of efficiency and effectiveness and informational justice is
sufficient to allocate more attention to the idea.
The sixth configuration contains status, recognition and fame and informational justice. In this case, the idea draws on providing recognition and status for the beneficiary and providing them with the same information. The recognition and opinion of others and the information about how the procedures are used in a certain way and how outcomes are distributed (Colquitt et al.,2001) are relevant for this idea. If individuals think they do not have access to the same information as others, they might feel excluded from others and not feel successful or recognized. In the world of renown, individuals need to feel worthy and great (Boltanski and Thevenot, 1999). That might be a reason to post an idea on the OUIC to show the unfairness of the information distribution. In general, companies do not want to exclude people from their products and services, they can prevent that by providing everyone with the same information. Therefore, I suggest:
Proposition 6: A combination of status, recognition and fame and informational justice is
sufficient to allocate more attention to the idea.
21
concerned about different traditions to reach different groups and let everyone know what their special offers are. As such:
Proposition 7: A combination of well-being, family and tradition and informational justice is
sufficient to allocate more attention to the idea.
Managerial implications
This study offers important managerial implications regarding the attention allocation to the ideas on OUICs and better understanding the justification and justice of the users’ ideas. Due the fact that companies have limited attention for reviewing large numbers of ideas, it is challenging to select the most valuable ideas for the managers. First, managers in the OUIC field can use the propositions of this paper to design a better way of filtering the large amount of ideas. With the combination of different factors, this paper identified characteristics of ideas based on the reasoning of posting and the fairness perceived by the idea poster. Hence, the manager of an OUICs can filter the ideas and limit their focus on the ideas which contains the combination of factors in the propositions. This will narrow the selection of ideas for the managers of the OUIC and they can overcome the information overload.
Second, it might be an option to let the users on the OUIC indicate the factors of their idea themselves. This might be challenging, but it would be a time-saving process for the company. For example, when users are posting their ideas, they have the option to choose which factors of justification and justice fits best by their idea. When an OUIC is designed like this, company will have a clear overview of the idea in a fast way and managers can allocate their attention more precisely. However, the definitions of the factors need to be clear for all users. A clear overview of the definitions and examples of the factors might help with that.
22
Limitations and directions for future research
This paper takes what I believe is a useful first step toward developing a configurational theory of attention allocation by the company on OUICs. However, it is also subject to limitations that other researchers can take as a starting point for further research.
First, the generalizability of the propositions is a point of discussion. This study uses only one specific database, namely MyStarbucksIdea. Although this is one of the most popular OUICs at the moment and provides a large and accessible data base, generalizing to other communities or crowdsourcing setting may be questionable. Other companies offer different products and services and might use other techniques to collect ideas, which can lead to different results (Orlikowski, 2000). Future research should aim at generalizing the findings of this study to other OUICs and other crowdsourcing contexts from companies in different industries.
Second, the sample size of this paper is rather small. As already mentioned in the methodology section, QCA does not necessarily require a large sample size, because the basis of this study is set theory (Ragin, 2000). And even previous papers with a QCA approach are using a similar sample size (Arts and de Koning, 2017; Crawford, 2012; Johansson and Kask, 2017). However, the original data set contains 4935 ideas, which offers the opportunity to create a larger sample, compared to the current sample of 275 idea, to increase the generalizability and reliability of the propositions.
Third, the value of the idea posted on the OUIC is measured by the attention allocation. The attention allocation signals that the company reviewed the idea and thinks the idea might add value to the company. However, this study does not demonstrate the commercial value of the idea. With this in mind, I encourage future research to include the financial characteristics of ideas and their commercial value.
CONCLUSION
23
24
REFERENCES
Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology. (pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research
in organizational behavior, 10 (1), 123-167.
Arts, B. and de Koning, J. (2017). Community forest management: An assessment and explanation of its performance through QCA. World Development, 96 (8), 315-325.
Bawden, D. and Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35 (2), 180-191.
Bayus, B. (2013). Crowdsourcing new product ideas over time: An analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community. Management Science, 59 (1), 226-244.
Bell, R. G., Filatotchev, I., and Aguilera, R. V. (2014). Corporate governance and investors’ perceptions of foreign IPO value: An institutional perspective. Academy of
Management Journal, 57 (1), 301–320.
Berry, L., and Seiders, K. (2008). Serving unfair customers. Business Horizons, 51 (1), 29-37.
Bies, R. J., and Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, and M.H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations
in organizations (pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Boltanski, L., and Thévenot, L. (1999). The sociology of critical capacity. European
journal of social theory, 2 (3), 359-377.
Campbell, J., Sirmon, D., and Schijven, M. (2016). Fuzzy logic and the market: A configurational approach to investor perceptions of acquisition announcements. Academy of
25
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and
profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2012) Open innovation, where we've been and where we’re going.
Research-Technology Management, 55 (4), 20-27.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., and Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 425-445.
Conner, D. (2015). Positive social identity expectations as a moderator of interpersonal justice perceptions. Journal of Management Development, 34 (4), 395-405.
Crawford, S. (2012). What is the energy policy-planning network and who dominates it?: A network and QCA analysis of leading energy firms and organizations. Energy Policy, 45 (6), 430-439.
Cress, D. M., and Snow, D. A. (2000). The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of
Sociology, 105 (4), 1063–1104.
Crilly, D., Zollo, M., and Hansen, M. T. (2012). Faking it or muddling through? Understanding decoupling in response to stakeholder pressures. Academy of Management
Journal, 55 (6), 1429–1448.
Cropanza, R. and Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. Cooper and I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and
organizational psychology (pp. 317-372). New York: Wiley.
26
Di Gangi, P. M., and Wasko, M., (2009). Steal my idea! Organizational adoption of user innovations from a user innovation community: a case study of Dell IdeaStorm. Decision
Support Systems. 48 (1), 303–312
Di Gangi, P. M., Wasko, M. M., and Hooker, R. E. (2010). Getting Customers' Ideas to Work for You: Learning from Dell how to Succeed with Online User Innovation Communities.
MIS Quarterly Executive, 9 (4), 213-228.
Dong, J. Q., and Wu, W. (2015). Business value of social media technologies: Evidence from online user innovation communities. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 24 (2), 113-127.
Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy
of Management Review, 32 (4), 1180–1198.
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54 (2), 393–420.
Fleming L, and Szigety, M. (2006). Exploring the tail of creativity: An evolutionary model of breakthrough invention. Advances in Strategic Management, 23 (2), 335–359.
Franke, N., Lettl, C., Roiser, S. and Tuertscher, P., (2013). Does god play dice?
Randomness vs. deterministic explanations of idea originality in crowdsourcing. In: 35th
DRUID Celebration Conference 2013, Barcelona.
Greckhamer, T., Misangyi, V. F., Elms, H., and Lacey, R. (2008). Using qualitative comparative analysis in strategic management research: An examination of industry, corporate, and business-unit effects. Organizational Research Methods, 11 (4), 695–726.
27
Johansson, T., and Kask, J. (2017). Configurations of business strategy and marketing channels for e-commerce and traditional retail formats: A Qualitative Comparison Analysis (QCA) in sporting goods retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 34 (1), 326-333.
Kollmuss, A. and Julian, A. (2002) Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior?, Environmental Education Research, 8 (3), 239-260,
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, and R. Willis (Eds.)
Social exchange: Advance in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J. and Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Li, M., Kankanhalli, A., and Kim, S. H. (2016). Which ideas are more likely to be implemented in online user innovation communities? An empirical analysis. Decision Support
Systems, 84 (2), 28-40.
Magnusson, P.R., (2009). Exploring the contributions of involving ordinary users in ideation of technology based services. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26 (5), 578–593.
Mahr, D., Lievens, A., and Blazevic, V. (2014). The value of customer cocreated knowledge during the innovation process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31 (3), 599-615.
Misangyi, V. F., and Acharya, A. G. (2014). Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Academy of Management
28
Nambisan, S. (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new product development: Toward a theory. Academy of Management Review, 27 (3), 392-413.
Ogink, T. and Dong, J.Q. (2017). Stimulating innovation by user feedback on social media: The case of an online user innovation community. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, in press.
Ooms, W., Bell, J., and Kok, R. A. W., (2015). Use of social media in inbound open innovation: building capabilities for absorptive capacity. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 24 (1), 136–150.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization science, 11 (4), 404-428.
Piezunka, H., and Dahlander, L. (2015). Distant search, narrow attention: How crowding alters organizations’ filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing. Academy of
Management Journal, 58 (3), 856-880.
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, 29 (2), 245-256.
Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Ragin, C. C. (2006). User’s guide to fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative analysis 2.0.
Tucson, AZ: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona.
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ragin, C. C., Drass, K. A., and Davey, S. (2006). Fuzzy-set/ qualitative comparative
29
Ragin, C. C., and Sonnett, J. (2005). Between complexity and parsimony: Limited diversity, counterfactual cases, and comparative analysis. In S. Kropp & M. Minkenberg (Eds.),
Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft: (pp.180–197). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur
Sozialwissenschaften.
Rihoux, B., and Ragin, C. C. (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative
comparative analysis and related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Schemmann, B., Hermann, A. M., Chappin, M. M. H., and Heimeriks, G. J., (2016). Crowdsourcing ideas: involving ordinary users in the ideation phase of new product development. Research Policy, 45 (6), 1145–1154.
Smithson, M., and Verkuilen, J. (2006). Fuzzy set theory: Applications in the social
sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shrout, P. E., and Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological bulletin, 86 (2), 420.
Terwiesch, C., and K. T. Ulrich. (2009). Innovation tournaments: Creating and
selecting exceptional opportunities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Thibaut. J. and Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A psychological analysis.
Hillsdale, New York: Erlbaum.
Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 55 (1), 63-78.
Zhou, K. Z. and Li, C. B. (2012). How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management
