What are the Most Popular Ideas in Online User Innovation Communities?
An Inductive Approach
Vanessa Wilkens – S3066576 23.02.2017
Master Thesis
MSc. Strategic Innovation Management Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen Supervisor: Dr. John Qi Dong Co-assessor: Dr. Hans van der Bij
Word count: 12281
Key words:
1
Abstract
Companies have increasingly developed crowdsourcing platforms allowing firms to collect user-generated ideas from a large group of customers. Online user innovation communities (OUICs) have great potential to create innovation opportunities for companies by bringing enormous amount of new ideas. On the other hand, companies can get overwhelmed and are challenged to efficiently select the most valuable ideas. Companies often rely on customers’ votes for ideas in the selection process, therefore this study addresses the question of identifying the characteristics that determine the popularity of ideas based on customers’ votes. Based on textual longitudinal data from the Starbucks crowdsourcing platform, this study uses the crisp set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to analyze a random sample of ideas. The characteristics of ideas are identified in terms of their beneficiary, justification logic and justice. The findings reveal eight configurations of popular ideas that can help companies to identify popular ideas for a more efficient selection process. The results indicate that different configurations of these characteristics can lead to a popular idea. In particular, it was found that ideas characterized with clear beneficiary of the idea, the profit gained through the idea and the fairness of the current situation are more popular and gain more votes from customers. The theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.
Introduction
Innovations can be the key to expansion or to maintain the company's success. In a complex and linked environment, the company’s success is more dependent on how agile and smart organizations cope and adapt to changing circumstances. This leads to developments of new business models, focusing more on creative solutions such as co-creation or crowdsourcing (Voelpel, Leibold & Tekie, 2004). Crowdsourcing enables companies to collect an enormous amount of ideas for new products or services from a large “crowd” of non-experts (Bayus, 2013). Community members are invited to contribute to the product development through comments as well as generating and evaluating ideas. Companies select the most promising ideas from the OUICs for their innovation development (Dong & Wu, 2015). The outcome of the collaboration can lead to valuable or novel ideas (Gebauer et al., 2012; Konzinets, Hemetsberger & Schau, 2008). According to Bogers, Afuah & Bastian (2010), users are critical input to develop products that better meet the needs of customers. The number of participating companies in crowdsourcing is getting higher (Füller, Hutter, & Faullant, 2011). Starbucks is only one famous example among many others.
Successful crowdsourcing platforms have active involvement of over 10.000 users (Blohm, Leimemister & Krcmar, 2013). As a consequence, companies are overwhelmed by the amount of data and have difficulties to select ideas and create business value from it. Identifying valuable ideas is increasingly time consuming, costly and resource intensive (Blohm et al., 2013). Therefore, a huge amount of ideas can lead to an information overload problem (Lee & Suh, 2015). Which factors differentiate popular ideas from non and how can potential popular ideas be identified? was the question that started this study. The aim of this study is to alleviate the information problem through identifying patterns of popular ideas. Previous literature identified the consequences of the information overload problem (e.g. Di Gangi & Wasko, 2009). However, past research did not design a method based solely on ideas to increase the efficiency of the selection process. This study presents patterns of popular ideas to spend less time analyzing useless ideas.
2
with customers and gather valuable ideas (Lee & Suh, 2015). Because of the availability of the platform since 2008, data can be used from a long period of time, which allows a longitudinal research approach. The intensely active and successful application of MyStarbucksIdea makes Starbucks an appropriate case for this study. More than 200 ideas were already implemented, including new coffee flavors, mobile phone payment or the establishment of free Wi-Fi (Lee, Han & Suh, 2014). MyStarbucksIdea is used for product and service innovations, which increases the generalizability of this study. A random sample of ideas from MyStarbucksIdea was analyzed in order to develop classifications to identify potential popular ideas.
According to Pelli & Tillmann (2008), individuals observe “objects” by recognizing and connecting multiple factors to a cohesive whole. Individuals pursuit patterns and integrate fragments of information (Campbell, Sirmon & Schijven, 2016). Accordingly, this study argues that ideas exist of complex configurations and multiple factors rather than isolated individual factors. Most ideas include a target and describe how the target profits from the implementation of the idea. Moreover, ideas contain information about the fairness of the current situation. Therefore, the categories idea beneficiary, justification and justice were created. The category idea beneficiary describes the target that profits from the idea. This includes the company, consumers, society or stakeholders. Relying on the theory from Boltanski & Thévenot (1999), the second category, justification, was developed. It focuses on how the beneficiary profits from the idea, e.g. for monetary reasons or increased efficiency. The last category, justice, assesses the current situation of the beneficiary and examines whether or not it is fair. Therefore, the theoretical framework of this study is grounded in justification logic, justice and idea beneficiary.
An inductive approach, namely Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), is used to analyze configurations of popular ideas (Fiss, 2007). QCA allows a detailed analysis of the influence of causal conditions to a particular outcome and explains which various combinations of facts can lead to the same results (Xie, Fang & Zeng, 2016). Using the method of crisp set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA), the study explores the effect of various combinations influencing the popularity of ideas. QCA was chosen based on the possibility to analyze the influence of different factors on the popularity of ideas, instead of isolating the effects of the individual factors.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first study using csQCA to analyze various patterns of ideas which can lead to popular ideas. By developing a theory focused on the holistic evaluation of ideas in OUICs, this study goes beyond isolated aspects. The findings suggest eight configurations of patterns of popular ideas. The configurations should simplify the selection process for companies in OUICs by leading the focus on the suggested composition of popular ideas. Moreover, the findings indicate that no singular factor leads to a popular idea and that there is no particular exclusive path leading to a popular idea.
The paper is structured as follows: After the introduction, the theoretical foundation is presented. First an overview about justification, justice and idea beneficiary will be provided. After that, a description of the methodology follows. Then the results will be discussed and a discussion on the findings with propositions will be presented. Finally, the paper will end with a brief conclusion and implications for companies.
Theoretical Framework
3
consequential the quality of the selection process decreases due to a lack of attention or consideration of each idea (van den Ende & Frederiksen & Prencipe, 2015).
Previous studies in the business area discussed the issue of information overload. Three reasons that influence information overflow in companies are especially highlighted (de Leeuw & Lokshin & Duysters, 2014). Firstly, Cohen and Levinthal (1990) analyzed the challenge of absorptive capacity which describes the ability of the company to identify and integrate new knowledge. Too many ideas to choose from can complicate the selection and managing process which could lead to an absorptive capacity problem. According to Riedl, Blohm, Leimeister & Krcmar (2010), companies need an evaluation mechanism to identify valuable ideas to overcome the absorptive capacity problem. Secondly, a timing problem could occur, caused by the wrong time and place when ideas reach the firm, which could hinder the full exploitation of the idea. Another problem that could occur is the attention allocation problem, which is characterized as a key element of the attention-based theory (Ocasio, 1997). Due to the huge amount of ideas just a few are taken into account and receive the required attention (de Leeuw et al., 2014). The attention-based theory proposes that the attention of the manager is the most valued resource inside the firm. A key factor of adapting to external change is the allocation of the attention of the managers to particular activities (Laursen & Salter, 2006). According to the attention-based theory, decision makers need to focus their effort and attention to a limited number of ideas to reach a stainable strategic performance (Ocasio, 1997). As a consequence, the imperfect allocation of the attention of decision-makers may cause the engagement in too many (or too few) internal or external communication channels (Laursen & Salter, 2006). The research on the evaluation of ideas in the crowdsourcing context is limited. Zhao & Zhu (2014) propose that the quality of ideas can be measured by experts. However, this approach contains a lot of workload and can be affected by a biased judgment. Not all companies have the abilities or time to use this extensive approach (Zhao & Zhu, 2014). Lee & Suh (2015) suggest a classification model of the idea launchers in order to focus on their ideas. According to Geiger et al. (2011), “there is no systematic understanding of the processes used to source and aggregate contributions from the crowd“ (p. 1). Hence, past research did not discuss the information overload problem sufficiently nor designed a method to reduce the problem based on user ideas. An effective method to select popular ideas can reduce the information overload problem, attention-based problem and over searching.
4
the theorizing of patterns of popular ideas. In the next section, the specific factors are outlined and explained.
Idea beneficiary
Most of the time, ideas are about a defined group or valuable to a certain group. Therefore, the category idea beneficiary was created. The idea beneficiary is in the focus of the idea and ultimately benefits from the idea. The category will be categorized in six conditions.
The main actors of the crowdsourcing platform are consumers and a company (Kohler, 2015). Consumers contribute to OUICs and profit from the implemented ideas for the following reasons. Users, who experience needs that cannot be satisfied by the current offers available in the market, have the incentive to customize the product or innovate it (von Hippel, 1986). As users have the best input of how the product should finally be designed and how their functions should look like, it is more probable that products innovated by themselves, actually satisfy their needs. Therefore, a main motivation for users to innovate is the simple fact that they find a solution to their problem and expect to benefit from the use of the end-product (Bogers et al., 2010). Users might be more likely be the innovators, as their expected benefit from the innovation is higher than that of producers (Riggs & von Hippel, 1994). Hence, categories for the idea beneficiary concerning the customer were created. Since the user contribute to OUICs voluntarily, the ideas often have a low degree of elaboration and can therefore be immature or vague (Bayus, 2013). In order to differentiate between the ideas of consumers, the customer category was divided into narrow customer, vague customer and specific customer. The category narrow customer concentrates on self-centered ideas with the main focus on the customer proposing the idea. This means that, the writer of the idea is mainly interested in his or her own benefits. Ideas of the category vague customer have a broader and vague customer focus. The author of the idea is not purely focused on his own interests and also takes the demands of other people into consideration. However, it is not possible to identify a direct beneficiary. The category specific customer was implemented for ideas describing the customers focus in a more specific way. In contrast to the previous category, here the beneficiary of the idea can be identified. Research on psychology of crowds reveals that the behavior of a crowd is shaped by a society and can lead to actions about social change (Wilson, Robson & Botha, 2017). Since consumers have ideas for the whole community or a public interest, the category society was created. The above-mentioned categories do not cover this aspect. The category describes ideas from the crowd about social change, the society or the whole community. Companies are characterized as the main actors of crowdsourcing, as firms themselves launch the OUICs. Producers hope to profit from collaborating with consumers in order to gain fast access to a diverse knowledge which the company is unable to gain in-house (Laursen & Salter, 2006). Since companies would not implement crowdsourcing, if they could not profit from it, the category company was created. Companies strive for ideas that can lead to profit maximization, increased performance or lowering the production cost. Moreover, companies profit from attracting more customers or increasing consumer loyalty. Ideas addressing to increase companies’ success are classified in the category company. The direct beneficiary of those ideas is the firm. Not only consumers are able to contribute to the OUICs, employees and other stakeholders are also invited to join the community. Employees also benefit from ideas through various improvements of the working conditions. Because employees or managers also profit from ideas, the category stakeholders was created. This latter category includes employees, shareholder, managers, executives, unions, and partners.
Justification logic
5
needs (Bayus, 2013). The justification logic describes the reasons for the ideas and how the idea beneficiary is going to profit through the implementation of the idea. Derived from the grounded theory of Boltanski & Thévenot (1999), categories are created to classify the justification logic. In their article the authors make use of six different orders of worth which were used to categorize the type of justification made by the users in their ideas. The first category used in the article of Boltanski & Thévenot (1999) is ‘Inspired’. It describes the world of inspiration, which means that worth is independent of the recognition of others and arises through emotions. The people and objects that are most valued are characterized by inspiration or creativity. Individuals primarily value dreaming, imagining or living experience. Ideas applicable for this particular type are named in this work as creative, innovative justification describing creative content. Through creative or innovative content, the beneficiary can profit through an enhanced product or service. The second category is ‘Domestic’. In this group, worth is dependent on a position within a network. Worthy products are trusted or the information about the produced are trustworthy. In this work, ideas applicable to this category will be referred to as well-being, family justification, describing users who should be happy and treated well as if they were family members. Especially joy or entertainment is important for users. The idea beneficiary sees the new idea as enjoyable, thrilling, or fun. The third category proposed by Boltanski & Thévenot (1999) is named ‘Civic’. It describes individuals who give up their own interest and focus on the common good. Therefore, the worth of individuals is determined by the common goal. Ideas related to this category will be titled as social/environmental good justification. The category focuses on ideas with a community interest or social aim. This can include ideas about recycling or reducing emission. The fourth category mentioned by Boltanski & Thévenot (1999) is ‘Opinion’. That worth is defined by other people’s opinion. It is measured by public esteem and respect. The people’s desire for respect and recognition defines this kind of worth. Ideas applicable in that category will be titled as recognition, fame justification. The category describes ideas with the aim to gain recognition or fame. For example, the influence on the image or brand awareness of the company or a specific customer group. The fifth category, ‘Market’, is measured by wealth. Important persons such as buyers or sellers are worthy when they are rich. The term used for ideas of this category in this work is money, competition justification. It describes the demand of the beneficiary to gain financial benefits. Financial rewards are important for any party and therefore an important category. The category includes all ideas through which financial benefits can be gained as financial rewards, increased profits, less costs for the consumers or company as well as free products or services. The last category is titled as ‘Industrial’, which is mainly based on efficiency and can be measured on a scale of professional capabilities. In order to underline the importance of efficiency, this group will be referred to as efficiency, effectiveness justification in this work. This category includes for example ideas about increased efficiency in process or simplifying products for consumers.
Justice
6
In the following section the concept of justice according to Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter & Ng (2001), is presented and discussed in detail. The literature distinguished most widely four dimensions of justice namely, distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice (Faullant, Fueller & Hutter., 2013). Distributive justice assesses the perceived fairness of an outcome. The equity principle calculates the ratio of one’s input to one’s outcome compared to others in order to assess fairness. In crowdsourcing context, distributive justice can lead to complains or lower engagements (Colquitt et al., 2001). While distributive justice focuses on outcomes, procedural justice concentrates on the perceived fairness of processes, procedures and operations. Procedures should (1) have consistent application, (2) be bias free, (3) ensure accurate information collection, (4) have mechanism to correct decisions, (5) conform to standards and (6) consider different opinions (Colquitt et al., 2001). When individuals consider a certain procedural leading to a certain outcome as unfair, it could lead to a negative reaction towards the whole organization rather a specific task (Faullant et al., 2013). The third category is interpersonal justice, which refers to the degree to which people are treated with politeness or respect by others (Colquitt et al., 2001). Informational justice concerns explanations about why certain procedures have been used in a particular way (Colquitt et al., 2001).
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework of possible Configurations leading to a Popular Idea
Based on the definitions above, this study divides the popularity of ideas into idea beneficiary, justification and justice represented in the framework in Figure 1. This research, analyzes the combinations of various conditions leading to popular ideas.
Methodology
In this study, an inductive approach is used. To ensure the controllability, this research method is explicitly described. The following section explains the sample and the collection of the data.
Sample and Data
7
stores located in more than 50 countries every day (Starbucks, 2016). Starbucks decided to launch the online user community MyStarbucksIdea on March 28th, 2008 to collect suggestion as well as feedback from consumers. The structure of the website can be described as a quite simple one. Every consumer can register on the website and is allowed to suggest innovations in different categories, e.g. products, services or experience. Furthermore, users are encouraged to comment or vote posts written by other users. More than 40 Starbucks employees as well as experts judge these submitted ideas and choose valuable ideas that should be implemented. The voting system helps to support the selection of ideas. MyStarbucksIdea includes a page “Ideas in Action” in which the implemented ideas are presented (Dong & Wu, 2015). Figure 2 presents a screenshot of the MyStarbucksIdea website.
The prominent example of Starbucks using OUICs was selected for this research based on the following reasons. First, the website is available to all users and therefore the data of the interaction is accessible since the beginning of the community and allows a longitudinal research approach. The permanent existence of MyStarbucksIdea makes it possible to analyze ideas from different years. Due to the availability of the website to all users, the exclusion of a specific customer group is avoided. Everyone is invited to share their ideas on the platform. Second, Starbucks is using the OUICs intensely active and is fully successful with it. In the period from 2008 till 2012, more than 200 ideas were implemented (Lee et al., 2014). The implemented ideas include among others new coffee flavors, mobile phone payment or the establishment of free Wi-Fi. This shows that MyStarbucksIdea is used for product as well as service innovation, which increases the generalizability of this study. In the period from 26 March 2008 until 23 February 2015, 161,135 ideas from customers about innovation were online on the website. In order to collect the data, a web scraping algorithm was designed which uses a CSS as well as HTML structure of MyStarbucksIdea so that the data from the online community could be downloaded to a local database (Dong & Wu, 2015). From this sample 300 ideas were randomly selected, closely analyzed and classified into the categories described in the following section.
Figure 2: Screenshot of MyStarbucksIdea
8
coding. Appendix A contains a table with an overview of the categories including example ideas.
The random sample was categorized into: (1) idea beneficiary (2) justification (3) justice. The category idea beneficiary is divided into (a) narrow customer, (b) vague customer, (c) specific customer, (d) company, (e) stakeholder and (f) society. Ideas were classified into the first condition narrow customer, if they were self-centered and solely focus on the user of the idea. An example of this condition is represented in this idea: “I am a huge fan of chai tea. I like it hot, iced, and as a frappuccino. I would really like to see the option to have either a spiced chai or a vanilla chai.” The user keeps using the personal pronoun "I" which highlights the focus of the idea mainly on the contributor "herself” and her own benefit. The user does not mention who else could possibly be in favor of the idea.
Vague customer is the second sub-category and is characterized by a loosely focus of the beneficiary. Ideas of this type do not clearly state who is going to benefit from the implemented idea. An example idea for this category is represented by this idea: “It would be really great if Starbucks would offer honey in place of sugars or artificial sweeteners.” The submitted idea does not clarify who would like the honey or would especially benefit from it.
The sub-category specific customer describes ideas with a clear beneficiary. It is clearly stated who will like or profit from the implemented idea. The following idea represents an example of an idea with a focus on a specific customer: “For Road Warriors in the USA, provide online printable maps of all Interstate Highways which show Starbucks stores within a mile of freeway exits.” In this idea, road warriors are the specific customers profiting from the implementation of online printable maps.
The next sub-category, company represents ideas with Starbucks as the direct beneficiary of the idea. An example of this condition from MyStarbucksIdea is the following idea: “I'm from Tajikistan. I would like to suggest you an idea of opening a Starbucks coffeehouse in Dushanbe -the capital city. I'm sure this coffeehouse will be very successful among our people.” The user suggests that Starbucks should open a store in Dushanbe and mentions that the store would be very successful. This implies that Starbucks could be very successful with the opening of the store. Therefore, the beneficiary of the idea is Starbucks.
Ideas were categorized into the sub-category stakeholder, when the idea beneficiary are employees, shareholder, managers, executives or partners. In the following example idea, the beneficiaries are employees: “It would be extremely helpful if you could make it possible to add a tip option to the iPhone App or to a Credit Card Payment at the Stores!!” The proposed innovation to include a tip option in the Smartphone App would lead to benefits for employees and was therefore categorized in the sub-category stakeholders.
The sub-category society represents ideas with the community and the overall society as target. The following idea is an example of this category: “Be inspired to be green! Create a way to reuse the pods or recycle existing!”. The focus of the idea is to reuse the mugs and recycle existing which would positively influence the environment and hence the whole society would benefit.
9
Efficiency, effectiveness justification reflects ideas that lead to a more effective and efficient way of various things. The following idea represents an example: “I would love it if Starbucks made energy shots that I can carry in my purse. They would taste like Cool lime, or Very Berry Hibiscus Refreshers. I could put one in my husband's lunch when he goes into work at midnight.” The idea should lead to more efficiency through the improved transportation of the products.
Creative, innovative justification relates to ideas with innovative, creative content. An example is this idea: “I love the artwork in the stores! It would be great to have artwork on the cups as well.”. The idea is categorized as creative, due to the suggestion to add artwork on cups. Ideas are considered as recognition, fame justification when the beneficiary of the idea gains recognition. The following idea reflects this category: “Serve Clover coffee in a distinguishable color coffee cup. Clover coffee has a premium taste and it deserves a premium look. Consumers should enjoy both the enhanced flavor and the ability to show off their premium purchase.” The user clearly wants to “show off” with the premium purchase and gain recognition through the different color cups.
The well-being, family justification represents ideas influencing the happiness of the beneficiary or ideas in which the beneficiary is treated as a family member. The following example idea should better clarify this category: “I think there should be new fruity drinks made with mango or pomegranate I think people would really enjoy them; it might be a new style!!”. In this idea, it is reasonable to assume that the idea contributor would like the tea because chai tea is delicious and makes the consumer happy. Therefore, the happiness and well-being of the beneficiary is influenced with this idea.
Ideas are considered as social/environmental good justification when the idea contributes to social or environmental benefits. For example, “Offering a recycling bin, instead of just trashcans will help the environment.” In this idea, the environment is supposed to profit from the recycle bins. Ideas, in which the benefit of the beneficiary was not clearly stated, were characterized into the category not clear.
Justice is categorized into (a) distributive (b) procedural (c) interpersonal (d) informational (e) not given. Distributive justice describes ideas with discrepancy between what a beneficiary contributes and what he or she receives or a discrepancy between what the beneficiary receives and others. “One free refill for gold card members on any drink” represents an example idea of the category. This idea implies that gold card members deserve more than regular customers because they earned their status.
Procedural justice describes ideas in which policies or processes are not applied equally or based on wrong principles. The following idea provides a good understanding of the category: “In the morning all of the executive assistants show up with drink orders for 5 or more people. This slows the line down for those of us with simple drink orders. Is there some way that these large orders could be handled differently (an in-store form a separate line during rush hour (9am), etc.)?” This idea outlines that not having an express line for simple orders is a disadvantageous process which slows down the order management. The idea suggests to handle simple orders differently with a separate line. The user proposes the need of a new process, e.g. a special line to reduce the waiting time.
10
idea suggests that she and her daughter deserve better interpersonal treatment from the employees.
Informational justice refers to ideas in which the beneficiary has not received sufficient or deserving information. This statement reflects an idea with informational justice: “When I go to Starbucks, there is a sign that has the types of coffee being brewed that day. So many times I ask for what is on the sign and the barista says we are not brewing that. I reply, why is it on the sign.... They reply we brewed it earlier.... Then change the sign.” The user is annoyed by the false information on the sign and suggests that the sign should be updated more frequently. The consumer did not receive sufficient information and therefore the idea is classified as informational justice. Not given as a category is used when justice is not identifiable in the idea. The reliability of the defined categories is ensured through the independent classification from three coders. The independent coders classified 10% of the random sample. After that, a comparison of the three independent analyses was made to establish a common understanding of the categories idea beneficiary, justification and justice. In the next step, disagreements about ideas were discussed to attain a greater clarity of the categories and a joint understanding. To assess the inter-rater reliability of the three independent coders the Cronbach's alpha was calculated. The overall Cronbach’s alpha for the scales is .826. To reduce sampling bias, the sample was collected randomly from a period between 26th March 2008 and 23th February 2015. From a methodological perspective, sample representativeness is a minor issue in a crisp set framework for the reason that it does not focus on expectations of a probability distribution compared to, for example, a regression analysis (Fiss, 2011; Campbell et al., 2016). Therefore, sampling biases do not concern the analysis.
The analysis of the configuration was separated into three steps. In the first analysis, configurations of the categories idea beneficiary and justification were investigated. In the second analysis, configurations of the categories justification and justice were considered. After that, configurations of the categories idea beneficiary and justice were examined.
Analytical Approach
In order to advance the idea beneficiary, justification and justice perspective on the popularity of ideas in online communities, a set-theoretic methodology is used. The set-theoretical methodology approach was successfully utilized by using the inductive and deductive approaches in several fields such as political science and management (Campbell et al., 2016). CsQCA can be characterized as in-between the qualitative and quantitate methods (Ragin, 2008). The technique enables a detailed analysis of the contribution of causal conditions to a certain result (Xie et al., 2016). Furthermore, the method is appropriate to analyze a high degree of causal complexity, which is defined by conjunctural causation, equifinality and causal asymmetry (Kirchherr, Charles & Walton, 2016; Rihoux & Ragin, 2009). Conjunctural causation describes that various causal factors are not able to produce a certain outcome on their own, just the combination of the factors is able to produce the outcome. Equifinality explains that different paths are able to produce the same outcome. Causal asymmetry indicates that the composition of certain factors leading to a certain outcome are not automatically a mirror image of the factors leading to its absence (Kirchherr et al., 2016).
11
Set-theoretic methods overcome this problem by using robust casual and parsimonious interferences, which allows the use of multiple causal dimensions (Regin, 2008; Smithson & Verkuilen, 2006). This study uses the csQCA approach for the following. First, the csQCA approach considers more than one combination of different conditions as it would be in reality, where multiple combinations can influence the value of the outcome. Additionally, the factors are not isolated as in traditional approaches. CsQCA analyzes the interaction between more variables resulting in a specific outcome (Xie et al., 2016). Second, according to Woodside (2013), not all relationships between dependent and independent variables are linear and therefore not sufficiently described by the correlation coefficient. CsQCa is useful in this case to obtain information about the different configurations of variables which can impact the outcome. Third, csQCA is able to identify necessary conditions, in which other conditions cannot replace the absence and the presence to reach the desired outcome (Dul, 2016). Fourth, the method allows analyzing medium-sized samples which are not large enough for traditional quantitative approaches or too narrow for a representative result (Ragin & Rihoux, 2004). CsQCA has not been used to investigate the patterns of popular ideas in prior studies. However, the complex composition of ideas and influence of idea beneficiary, justification and justice on ideas make it necessary to use this approach.
Calibration
In order to perform a crisp set analysis, the measures need to be calibrated. CsQCA requires to calibrate all measures in the crisp set score into 0 and 1 (Dul, 2016). The process of calibration includes the determination of which raw variables present full membership (“fully in”) in a respective category (e.g. distributive justice) or full non-membership (“fully out”). This direct method of calibration was used in order to specify the idea into the above mentioned categories (Campbell et al., 2016).
The outcome variable describes the popularity of ideas. The popularity of ideas is measured in the number of promotion or demotion points which can be received through votes by other users. Positive points were calibrated into 1 and negative points into 0. The independent variables are classified into three categories: (1) idea beneficiary, (2) justification (3) justice. Each factor of the three categories was transformed from the original coding into 1 as “fully in” or 0 “fully out”.
Analyses
The statistical software package fsQCA 2.0 was utilized to conduct the analysis. The truth table algorithm was used for the crisp sets. After calibrating the measures, the “truth table” was created. The truth table consists of a data matrix summarizing the attributes (Fiss, 2011). A consolidation of the truth table takes first place based on the minimum number of cases necessary for a certain configuration of a solution, as well as the minimum level of consistency for a solution (Fiss, 2011; Campbell et al., 2016). The truth table specifies multiple possible selections of the independent variables. Every row of the truth table represents a various possible selection and contributes to the outcome (Boratyńska, 2016).
12
In the last step, the Boolean algorithm is applied in order to simplify the truth table configuration. The intermediate solution is in-between a complex and a parsimony solution. The algorithm in the intermediate solutions eliminates causal conditions from the complex solution. The parsimonious solution however, results from all simplifying assumptions, which include the “easy” and “difficult” counterfactuals and consequently represent the most reduced form of the solution. Both solutions were reported, which helps to differentiate between core and peripheral conditions. Core conditions are included in both intermediate and parsimonious solution, while contributions or peripheral conditions are not present in the parsimonious solutions (Campbell et al., 2016). In the results, the intermediate and parsimonious solutions are considered to differentiate between core and contributing conditions.
Results
The csQCA analysis generates eight configurations of justification, justice and idea beneficiary leading to popular ideas. Table 1 outlines the causal configuration which emerges from the analyses. The notion of Fiss (2011) is used in which “●“ implies the presence of a condition, while “ “ stands for the absence of a condition. A blank space means that the condition can be present or absent. Smaller circles indicate a contributing role and larger circles display a central role to the given configuration. Two configurations were generated in the analysis of idea beneficiary and justification, presented in Table 1 as Configuration 1 and 2. Configuration 3a-4 present configurations from the analysis of justification and justice. Three configurations arise from the analysis of idea beneficiary and justification, represented by the Configurations 5a-6. Two solutions are “neutral permutations” in which the central conditions were the same, but the contribution conditions differ. Therefore, the conditions were named with subscript identifiers (e.g. 3a and 3b; 5a and 5b).
The measures of consistency and coverage are displayed for each configuration as well as for the whole solution. As mentioned earlier, consistency describes the degree to which the cases produce the desired outcome (Campbell et al., 2016). All solutions reached satisfactory consistency levels of at least 0,8. 1 is considered as the perfect consistency (Campbell et al., 2016). All configurations, except Configuration 5a, have a consistency of 1. Configuration 5a has a consistency of 0,83. However, the configurations differ in their coverage. Coverage can be subdivided into “raw” and “unique” coverage. Unique coverage describes the memberships which are not covered by configuration and points in relation to the empirical “weight” of every path (Ragin, 2006).
13
Table 1: Configurations of Popular Ideas
14
idea beneficiary in a central role. 5a has the idea beneficiary narrow customer in a contributing role while 5b has stakeholder in a contributing role to a popular idea. The consistency for 5a is 0,83 while for 5b the consistency is 1. Configuration 5a indicates that the presence of informational justice and idea beneficiary narrow customer as well as the absence of the specific customer condition, lead to popular ideas. Configuration 5b leads to a popular idea when interpersonal justice and the idea beneficiary stakeholder is present while at the same time an absence of the specific customer condition exists. Configuration 6 consists of informational justice and the idea beneficiary narrow customer in the contributing role in combination with the absence of the specific customer. For this solution, the consistency is high. Based on Configuration 6, it can be concluded that the presence of informational justice and the narrow customer as well as the absence of the specific customer lead to a popular idea. All configurations consist of at least two factors: Configuration 1 exists of five factors leading to popular ideas. Therefore, it can be concluded that no singular factor is able to create a popular idea and just the combination of factors lead to the desired outcome. Informational and interpersonal justice are both presented in three of the eight configurations. This leads to the interference, that informational and interpersonal justice are especially important in combination with other conditions for creating popular ideas. The idea beneficiary company and specific customer are absent in three configurations. Hence, the target of the idea should not be the company or a specific customer group in the configuration in order to create a popular idea. The absence of a specific condition is therefore also important for the creation of a popular idea. Well-being, family justification is a central condition in Configuration 1 but is also characterized in Configuration 3a and 3b as absent. The state of a condition is depending on other conditions leading together to a popular idea. Therefore, it is not possible to generalize the state of a condition for all configurations, since the conditions contribute in different constellations in a different state to the popularity of the idea. It can be concluded that there is no exclusive path leading to a popular idea. In this case, eight combinations lead to popular ideas. It is noticeable that the conditions creative, innovative and recognition, fame as well as distributive and procedural justice are – in the eight configurations - all characterized as not relevant. Based on these findings, the creative, innovative and recognition, fame justification as well as distributive and procedural justice are not relevant for the popularity of an idea. The next part focuses on the discussion as well as the interpretation of the findings by deal type instead of the individual factor. This section will link the configurations back to the data and consider real-life examples for each of the cases.
Idea Beneficiary & Justification
In Configuration 1 well-being, family is a key driver. A high relatedness to well-being, family indicates the importance of satisfaction and happiness. The configuration includes also the absence of the idea beneficiary consumers and the company, leaving only stakeholders and society open. An example of this type of configuration is the following idea from an employee about the complaint investigation at Starbucks:
15
The barista in this idea feels treated unfairly, which impacts the well-being. According to Cohen & Richards (2015) employees express their conflicts in OUICs and are searching for mutual support or advise on problems. The high popularity of this idea indicates that many employees are also affected in their well-being and support the view of the user. A likely motive behind this type is the fairness perception of the user as well as the satisfaction which influence the well-being. According to Kim, Lin & Leung (2015) job satisfaction and organizational commitment is reflected in the fairness perception of the individual. Satisfaction and well-being of employees influence the productivity and service quality of employees (Yee, Yeung & Cheng, 2008). The work climate and the cooperation with the management or colleagues influences the satisfaction and the well-being of employees (Flap & Völker, 2001). Unsatisfied employees have a lower level of performance (Herzberg, 1987). Trust and loyalty are important influencing factors on satisfaction in the work environment (Helliwell & Huang, 2010). Effective employee communication and internal communication is positively associated with the organization and can be a motivator for the employees and create greater satisfaction or customer engagement (Vercic, Vercic & Sriramesh, 2012). Hence, companies should create a satisfying work environment to increase the productivity and satisfaction of employees. Therefore, the following proposition was formulated:
Proposition 1: A combination of the well-being, family justification logic and the absence of a clear beneficiary is associated with high popularity of an idea.
Configuration 2 highlights the importance of the focus on social/environmental good, but at the same time the absence of the idea beneficiary specific customers, society or the company. The idea beneficiary narrow customer has a contribution role. This idea highlights an example: “I would love to see Starbucks offer refills for its new loose leaf to prevent more of the tin cans from ending up in the landfill. It's a lot of packaging for 15 bags, and while the tin might prove handy for re-use the first couple of times, there's only so many things you can do with one before you chuck it. I'm shocked that the company, which touts itself as sustainable, didn't launch these with their new tea in the first place.”
This configuration emphasizes the increasing perspective on the ecological awareness. The awareness of responsibility concerning the environment is increasing, sustainability is becoming a more and more important criterion for the buying decision (Winterhoff, Kahner, Ulrich, Sayler & Wenzel, 2009; Peters & Hofmann, 2011). LOHAS (Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability) is a synonym for the new type of consumers, whose lifestyle is ecologically oriented. The LOHAS are concerned about topics such as health, sustainability, environmental compatibility and social aspects, which impact the consumers’ decision (Ray & Rogers, 2008). The changed needs influence the purchasing decision of the consumer and require adjustments of the product strategy. Therefore, the increased focus on the development of environmental friendly products or services is necessary to meet the needs of the consumers (Wallentowitz, Freialdenhofen & Olschewski, 2010). Hence, factors of environmental compatibility play an important role for the narrow consumers, which explains the popularity of the idea. However, the solely focus on the society does not lead to a popular idea. The following idea also includes the social/environmental good justification but was not rated as a popular idea:
“Like everyone, I watch the news and see the suffering in Haiti – [..] I’m proposing that we “Round Up” our drink orders – order a Grande, pay for a Venti and let the difference go to Haitian Relief [..]”
16
all. However, the configuration suggests that the absence of customer specific is necessary in order to create a popular idea. Hence, the following proposition was formulated:
Proposition 2: A combination of social/environmental good justification, the customer narrow beneficiary and the absence of other beneficiaries is associated with high popularity of an idea.
Justification & Justice
Configuration 3a and 3b reflect the importance of informational justice in combination with the absence of the well-being, family justification in order to create popular ideas. In Configuration 3a the efficiency, effectiveness justification and in Configuration 3b social/environmental good justification are playing a contributing role to the popularity of ideas. Informational justice refers to the supply of sufficient information about procedures or processes (Bies & Moag, 1986). According to Greenberg (1993), informational justice influences the organizational performance through open communications with the consumer or explanations for the consumers which simplifies the evaluation of the processes in the organization for the consumer. A popular idea of this configuration suggests that Starbucks should have “an email notification when new seasonal beans are available in Starbucks stores. I've missed some of my favorites for lack of timing”. This consumer proposes that Starbucks should inform the consumers more efficiently about seasonal offers. The user lacks sufficient information about the changing product portfolio. The information flow and efficiency play an important role in the example idea. Open communication with consumers’ decrease perceptions of dishonesty of the organization and increase trustworthiness (Tyler & Bies, 1989).
Configuration 3b consists also of information justice and the absence of well-being, family. In contrast to Configuration 3a, social/environmental good has a contributing role. An example of the configuration is presented in this idea:
“All the Starbucks cashiers should ask if the the drink is for here or to go. If for "here" we should not get a disposable cup unless we ask for it. Most people I talk to don't even know Starbucks has ceramic mugs and glasses! That's because the staff has never asked! I have gone to Starbucks all over the world and it's the same situation!! The worst is when they give me 2 cups stating the drink it hot!!! Come on now, wasting one disposable cup is not enough??” Informational justice is presented in the lack of explanation and information for the consumers about the use of certain procedures or products, e.g. why disposable cups are used instead of mugs. The user complains about the lack of information about the ceramic mugs. This idea reflects that informational justice can affect the satisfaction of the consumers with the performance of the company (Jawahar, 2001). According to Mattila & Cranage (2005) offering explanations or apologies is important to increase the informational justice perception of customers. Similar to Configuration 2, Configuration 3b contains the social/environmental good justification. This indicates that also the social/environmental justification is important for the popularity of the idea in combination with informational justice. The multiple appearance of social/environmental good supports the increased environmental importance and the emerge of the LOHAS. Therefore, the following proposition was formed:
Proposition 3: A combination of informational justice and (a) efficiency, effectiveness justification logic or (b) the social/environmental justification logic and the absence of well-being, family justification logic is associated with high popularity of an idea.
17
especially important in the service sector or when service failure occurs. An example of this configuration is this idea:
“I too-frequently have problems receiving the benefits of my card: the cashier doesn't know about the free vanilla in my vanilla latte, or forgets to credit it, or has to check with someone else about how to do it. Sometimes it is done by the person correctly; sometimes, it is fixed in the nick of time. But this week, one Starbucks just dumped change in my hand to make up for it (presumably it was for the vanilla latte portion of my bill, but I didn't bother to count it, it was done so ungraciously, I just picked up my drink and left). The other time they forgot about the benefits (different Starbucks store), one person went out back to credit it back, while the one serving me re-debited my card”
In the presented idea, the user describes a service failure of the Starbucks employees. The idea implies that the consumer was not treated with politeness and curtesy. According to Collie, Bradley & Sparks (2002), adequate service perceived by the consumers leads to toleration of a failure and influence the likelihood of revising the company (Kim, Kim & Kim, 2009). Unsatisfied consumers who have perceived a lack of justice have a higher likelihood to complain to a third party (McAlister & Erffmeyer, 2003). Interpersonal justice is therefore especially important when a service provider attempts to fulfill the needs of an unsatisfied consumer after a failure (Tax, 1993). Fairness and friendliness perceived by the consumer as well as offering explanations and apologies impacts the perception of the interpersonal justice of the consumers (Tax et al., 1998). In the example idea, the employees did not offer explanations or apologies which strengthen the justice perception of the consumer. Therefore, the recruitment process is important in order to hire qualified employees as well as employee training to prevent poor performance which could damage the consumer relationship and lead to bad word of mouth (He, Li & Keung, 2011). In addition to informational justice, the money, competition justification is important for the popularity of the idea. The user in the example idea complains that receiving the auto-benefits is not always working and sometimes the money has to be given back to the consumer manually. Hence, the following proposition is formed: Proposition 4: A combination of the money/competition justification logic and interpersonal justice is associated with high popularity of an idea.
Idea beneficiary & Justice
In configuration 5a and 5b leads interpersonal justice in combination with the absence of the specific customer condition to popular ideas. In Configuration 5a the narrow customer and in Configuration 5b stakeholder are playing a contributing role. Similar to Configuration 4, informational justice plays a central role for the generation of a popular idea. This emphasizes the importance of informational justice. An example idea of this configuration is the following: “I was getting 3/4 of a cup of coffee and the pot ran out. The barista looked at me, said nothing but that the coffee ran out. I said nothing...thinking that either a. ask me if I would like to wait while she brewed another pot or b. asked if I wanted my money back. I wasn't mad, but couldn't believe that neither option came out of her mouth.”
18 focus on the ideas of this configuration.
In Configuration 5b stakeholders have a contributing role. The example idea from the barista above also fits to this configuration. The barista feels treated unfairly about the complaint management of consumers. Interpersonal justice also refers to the employees’ perceived fairness of the interpersonal treatment received from authorities or managers (Bies & Moag, 1986). Treating employees with dignity and respect is especially important. Moreover, interpersonal justice influences the organizational commitment of employees due to the influence on the overall satisfaction with the work. Employees, who are treated fairly are more satisfied and able to contribute more to the organizational outcome (Iqbal et al., 2015). Hence, perceived interpersonal justice can decrease the motive to leave the organization or decrease the possibility of unethical behavior as theft (Colquitt et al., 2001; Zhang & Jia, 2013). Based on the above mentioned arguments, the following proposition was formed:
Proposition 5: A combination of the interpersonal justice and (a) narrow customer or (b) stakeholder as well as the absence of the company condition is associated with high popularity of an idea.
The last configuration consists of informational justice in combination with the absence of the idea beneficiary specific customer. The narrow customer has a contributing condition in this configuration. An example of this type of configuration is the following idea: “Can you send me an email when seasonal coffees change? I've missed Arabian Mocha Sanani and Sulawesi just because of timing. Help...I'm in Starbucks specialty withdrawal.” This idea is similar to the idea mentioned above in connection to informational justice. This customer also complains about missing a seasonal drink and suggests that Starbucks should inform the customer better about seasonal offers. According to Shin et al. (2015), informational justice is particularly important when the organization changes. In this case, the product profile changed without informing the narrow customer. Hence, informational justice is especially important for the narrow customer and leads therefore to a popular idea. The following proposition was formed: Proposition 6: A combination of informational justice and customer narrow as well as the absence of the specific customer dimension is associated with high popularity of an idea.
Discussion
Main Findings and Contributions
Crowdsourcing enables companies to gain valuable knowledge from consumers. The selection and evaluation of the enormous amount of ideas in the OUICs is especially time consuming and leads to an information overload problem. Without an effective or efficient approach to evaluate and select the huge amount of idea, important ideas might be overlooked (Lee & Suh, 2015). Knowledge about configurations of popular ideas can draw the attention to those ideas and concentrate on the implementation. Investigating the factors leading to popular ideas is important for both academics and practitioners. Very little is known about the composition of popular ideas in OUICs. Previous studies investigating the information overload problem did not provide a solution for selecting patterns of popular ideas.
19
The results from csQCA lead to important theoretical insights on the formation of popular ideas in OUICs. To the best of my knowledge, it is the first research addressing the composition of popular idea.
The study contributes to the literature by providing configurations of popular ideas and adding more explanations of the complexity of ideas. The presented configurations allow to draw a general conclusion about ideas that can lead to high popularity. The results provide eight different configurations to achieve popular ideas. The findings indicate that various paths equifinally lead to popular ideas. Hence, there is no particular exclusive path leading to a popular idea. All produced configurations consist of at least two factors. Configuration 1 even consists of five factors. This indicates that no singular factor is able to create a popular idea and just the combination of factors lead to the desired outcome. CsQCA is therefore an appropriate research method. Traditional research methods would not be able to display the combination of different conditions leading to an outcome. In the eight configurations twelve conditions are marked as absent in a central role. The absence of a condition can equally influence the popularity of an idea as well as the present of a central role. Conditions contribute to different configurations in different states. For example, in Configuration 1 the well-being, family condition is a core condition and together with the other conditions necessary for creating a popular idea. However, in Configuration 3a and 3b the well-being, family justification logic is indicated as absent. This displays that it is not possible to generalize the state of a single condition and that the state of a condition is dependent on other condition leading together to a popular idea. The conditions creative, innovative and recognition, fame as well as distributive and procedural justice are not relevant for the popularity of the idea because those conditions were not characterized as present or absence in the analysis.
Informational and interpersonal justice are both presented in three of eight configurations while distributive and procedural justice are not relevant in every configuration. This leads to the interference, that informational and interpersonal justice are especially important in combination with the other conditions for creating popular ideas. Informational justice leads to popular ideas in combination with: the presence of the efficiency, effectiveness justification logic and the absence of the well-being, family justification logic (Configuration 3a); the presence of the social/environmental justification logic and the absence of the well-being, family justification logic (Configuration 3b); the presence of the idea beneficiary customer narrow and absence of the specific customer (Configuration 6). Interpersonal justice leads to popular ideas in the combination with: the presence of the money, competition justification logic (Configuration 4); the presence of the idea beneficiary narrow customer and the absence of the specific customer (Configuration 5a); the presence of the idea beneficiary stakeholder and the absence of the specific customer (Configuration 5b). Through the presence of the well-being, family justification logic and the absence of the idea beneficiary narrow customer, vague customer, specific customer and company is also the creation of a popular idea possible (Configuration 1). Moreover, the presence of the social/environmental good justification logic and the idea beneficiary narrow customer as well as the absence of the vague customer, specific customer and society leads to a popular idea (Configuration 2).
Managerial Implications
20
This can increase the efficiency of the selection process of popular ideas and minimize the information overload. By using patterns of the popular ideas, companies can overcome the consideration of useless ideas that would not lead to popular ideas and save time and resources. Hence the idea selection process on OUICs can be simplified and concentrated on the above-mentioned configurations.
The configurations do not only simplify the identification of popular ideas, moreover implications for managers can also be derived from the configuration itself. Configuration 1 indicates that the popularity of ideas is influenced by the well-being, family justification logic and the absence of the idea beneficiary customers as well as the company. The configuration leaves only stakeholders and the society as idea beneficiary open. Well-being is an important factor for stakeholders and society and should be considered from companies, especially because happy and satisfied employees are considered more productive and likely to deliver high quality service. Configuration 2 highlights the importance of the focus on social/environmental good justification logic but at the same time the absence of specific customers, society or the company condition. This configuration indicates the increasing awareness of responsibility concerning the environment especially by the narrow customer. Therefore, the increased focus on the development of environmental friendly products or services is required from the firms in order to meet the needs of the narrow consumers. Configuration 3a and 3b consist of informational justice in combination with the absence of the well-being, family justification logic which can lead to popular ideas. In Configuration 3a the efficiency, effectiveness justification logic and in Configuration 3b social/environmental good justification are playing a contributing role to the popularity of ideas. This configuration suggests that managers should inform the consumers in an efficient way about offers and social/environmental topics. Configuration 6 also consists of informational justice but in combination with the absence of the idea beneficiary specific customer. The idea beneficiary narrow customer has a contributing role in this configuration. This configuration underlines the importance of informational justice for the narrow customer. Informational justice can affect the satisfaction of the consumers with the performance of the company. Hence, companies should inform the narrow customer in time about particular subjects. In Configuration 4 plays interpersonal justice in combination with the money, completion justification logic a central role for the popularity of ideas. Fairness and friendliness perceived by the consumer as well as offering explanations and apologies impact the perception of the interpersonal justice of the consumers. This highlights the importance of the recruitment process, though which qualified employees should be hired, as well as the importance of employee training to prevent poor performance, which in turn could damage the consumer relationship and lead to a bad word of mouth. Configuration 5a and 5b also consist of interpersonal justice in combination with the absence of the idea beneficiary specific customer. In Configuration 5a the idea beneficiary narrow customer and in Configuration 5b stakeholders are playing a contributing role to the popularity of ideas. The configuration indicates that for stakeholders, especially for employees’ interpersonal justice plays an important role. Companies should therefore consider the interpersonal treatment of stakeholders. Since informational justice and interpersonal justice are each present three times in configurations, it can be concluded that it is important for various beneficiary.
Limitations and Future Research Direction
21
configurations are also applicable for other crowdsourcing projects and could be industry-specific. Future studies should analyze the configurations in different industries. Second, the data used in this research are collected from a website in which the large majority of the respondents are of American nationality. Hence, a cognitive difference between crowdsourcing platforms of different countries could exist among various national cultures. Other countries may have different attitudes and behaviors influencing their ideas which could lead to different compositions of popular ideas. In order to overcome this limitation, future research should conduct a cross-cultural comparison research. Third, the study investigated solely the impact of idea beneficiary, justification and justice on the popularity of ideas. There may be several other factors contributing to popular ideas, such as satisfaction. Future research should investigate other important aspects and examine different categories. Fourth, the study is limited to the random sample of 300 ideas. Future studies could examine a larger sample of ideas in order to improve the generalizability. Fifth, the findings are purely based on the csQCA of the ideas. Using other methods, such as in-depth interview or observations, could provide a complementary picture of the findings. Moreover, future studies should test the proposed propositions and expand the framework.
Conclusion
22
References
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social psychology, 2, 267-299.
Aguilar-Rojas, O., Fandos-Herrera, C., & Flavián-Blanco, C. (2015). What may lead you to recommend and revisit a hotel after a service failure instead of complaining?.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(2), 214-235. Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice
conceptually distinct?. In Greenberg J, Colquitt JA, (eds). Handbook of Organizational Justice, 59–84.
Austin, W., & Walster, E. (1974). Participants' reactions to “Equity with the world”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(6), 528-548.
Bayus, B. L. (2013). Crowdsourcing new product ideas over time: An analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm community. Management science, 59(1), 226-244.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations, 1(1), 43-55.
Blohm, I., Leimeister, J. M., & Krcmar, H. (2013). Crowdsourcing: how to benefit from (too) many great ideas. MIS Quarterly Executive, 12(4), 199-211.
Bogers, M., Afuah, A., & Bastian, B. (2010). Users as innovators: a review, critique, and future research directions. Journal of management.
Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (1999). The sociology of critical capacity. European journal of social theory, 2(3), 359-377.
Boratyńska, K. (2016). FsQCA in corporate bankruptcy research. An innovative approach in food industry. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5529-5533.
Campbell, J. T., Sirmon, D. G., & Schijven, M. (2016). Fuzzy logic and the market: A configurational approach to investor perceptions of acquisition announcements. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 163-187.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 86(2), 278-321. Cohen, N., & Richards, J. (2015). ‘I didn't feel like I was alone anymore’: evaluating
self-organised employee coping practices conducted via Facebook. New Technology, Work and Employment, 30(3), 222-236.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 128-152.
Collie, T., Bradley, G. & Sparks, B. (2002), Fair process revisited: differential effects of interactional and procedural justice in the presence of social comparison information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 545-555.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & 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.
de Leeuw, T., Lokshin, B., & Duysters, G. (2014). Returns to alliance portfolio diversity: The relative effects of partner diversity on firm's innovative performance and productivity. Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1839-1849.
Di Gangi, P. M., & 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.
