Heterogeneous Submission Behavior and its Implications for Success in Innovation Contests with Public Submissions

Production and Operations Management

Volumn 25, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 1157-1176

  Bockstedt, Jesse ^a   Druehl, Cheryl ^b   Mishra, Anant ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

crowdsourcing; innovation contests; public submissions; tournaments; unblind contests

Indexed keywords

EID: 84960389304     PISSN: 10591478     EISSN: 19375956     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/poms.12552     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. 99designs.com. Accessed May 23, 2015.
2. Ai, C., E. C. Norton. 2003. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Econ. Lett. 80(1): 123–129.
3. Angrist, J., A. B. Krueger. 2001. Instrument variables and the search for identification: From supply and demand to natural experiments. J. Econ. Perspect. 15(4): 69–85.
4. Archak, N. 2010.Money, glory and cheap talk: Analyzing strategic behavior of contestants insimultaneous innovation contests on TopCoder.com. Proceedings of the 2010 World Wide Web Conference.
5. Bapna, R., P. Goes, A. Gupta, Y. Jin. 2004. User heterogeneity and its impact on electronic auction market design: An empirical exploration. MIS Q. 28(1): 21–43.
6. Baum, C. F., M. E. Schaffer, S. Stillman. 2007. Enhanced routines for instrumental variables/generalized method of moments estimation and testing. Stata J. 7(4): 465–506.
7. Bayus, B. L. 2013. Crowdsourcing new product ideas over time: An analysis of the Dell Ideastorm community. Management Sci. 59(1): 226–244.
8. Boudreau, K. J., N. Lacetera, K. R. Lakhani. 2011. Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: An empirical analysis. Management Sci. 57(5): 843–863.
9. Boudreau, K. J., C. E. Helfat, K. R. Lakhani, M. Menietti. 2012. Field evidence of individual behavior and performance in rank-order tournaments. Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 13-016.
10. Brabham, D.C. 2008. Innovation as a model for problem solving: An introduction and cases. Convergence: Int. J. Res. New Media Technol. 14(1) 75–90.
11. Bullinger, A. C., A. Neyer, M. Rass, K. M. Moeslein. 2010. Community-based innovation contests: Where competition meets cooperation. Creat. Innovat. Manag. 19(3): 190–303.
12. Cameron, C. A., P. K. Trivedi. 2010. Microeconometrics Using Stata. Stata Press, College Station, TX.
13. Chao, R. O., S. Erat 2012. Competition and effort in contests with evaluation uncertainty. Working paper, Darden School of Business.
14. Che, Y., I. Gale. 2003. Optimal design of research contests. Am. Econ. Rev. 93(3): 646–671.
15. Chesbrough, H. W. 2007. Why companies should have open business models. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 48(2): 22–28.
16. Dahan, E., H. Mendelson. 2001. An extreme value model of concept testing. Management Sci. 47(1): 102–116.
17. Davidson, R., J. G. MacKinnon. 2004. Econometric Theory and Methods. Oxford University Press, New York.
18. Erat, S., V. Krishnan. 2012. Managing delegated search over design spaces. Management Sci. 58(3): 606–623.
19. French, M. T., I. Popovici. 2011. That instrument is lousy! In search of agreement when using instrumental variables estimation in substance use research. Health Econ. 20(2): 127–146.
20. Fullerton, R. L., R. P. McAfee. 1999. Auctioning entry into tournaments. Am. Econ. Rev. 107(3): 573–605.
21. Gavetti, G., D. Levinthal. 2000. Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Admin. Sci. Q. 45(1): 113–137.
22. Girotra, K., C. Terwiesch, K. T. Ulrich. 2010. Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Management Sci. 56(4): 591–605.
23. Guan, W. 2003. From the help desk: Bootstrapped standard errors. Stata J. 3(1): 71–80.
24. Guilford, J. P. 1967. The Nature of Human Intelligence. McGraw-Hill, New York.
25. Harhoff, D., J. Henkel, E. von Hippel. 2003. Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: How users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Res. Policy 32(10): 1753–1769.
26. von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
27. Hoetker, G. 2007. The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strat. Manag. J. 28(4):331–343.
28. Jeppesen, L. B., K. R. Lakhani. 2010. Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organ. Sci. 21(5): 1016–1033.
29. Karaca-Mandic, P., E.C. Norton, B. Dowd. 2012. Interaction terms in nonlinear models. Health Serv. Res. 47 (1):255–274
30. Kavadias, S., S. Sommer. 2009. The effects of problem structure and team diversity on brainstorming effectiveness. Management Sci. 55(12): 1899–1913.
31. Kennedy, P. 2008. A Guide to Econometrics. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.
32. Kornish, L., K. T. Ulrich. 2011. Opportunity spaces in innovation: Empirical analysis of large samples of ideas. Management Sci. 57(1): 107–128.
33. Lin, M., H. Lucas, G. Shmueli. 2013. Too big to fail: Large samples and the p-value problem. Inf. Syst. Res. 24(4): 906–917.
34. Logomyway.com. Accessed May 13, 2015.
35. Maddala, G. S. 2001. Introduction to Econometrics. Wiley, New York.
36. Milgrom, P., R. J. Weber. 1982. The value of information in a sealed-bid auction. J. Math. Econ. 10(1): 105–114.
37. Murray, M.P. 2006. Avoiding invalid instruments and coping with weak instruments. J. Econ. Perspect. 20(4): 111–132.
38. Osborn, A. F. 1953. Applied Imagination. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
39. Plucker, J., J. S. Renzulli. 1999. Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. R. J. Sternberg, ed. Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press, New York, 35–60.
40. Poetz, M. K., M. Schreier. 2011. The value of innovation: Can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas? J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 29(12): 245–256.
41. Reynolds, K. 2010. The disadvantages of having too many ideas. Inspired Mag. http://inspiredm.com/too-many-ideas/. Accessed on June 10, 2013.
42. Roth, A., A. Ockenfels. 2002. Last minute bidding and rules for ending second-price auctions: Theory and evidence from a natural experiment on the Internet. Am. Econ. Rev. 94(2): 1093–1103.
43. Shankar, V., G. Carpenter, L. Krishnamurthi. 1999. The advantages of entry in the growth stage of the product life cycle: An empirical analysis. J. Mark. Res. 36(2): 269–276.
44. Simonton, D. 2003. Scientific creativity as a constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person and process perspectives. Psych. Bull. 129(4): 475–494.
45. Sovey, A. J., D. P. Green. 2011. Instrumental variables estimation in political science: A readers' guide. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 55(1): 188–200.
46. Srinivasan, K., X. Wang. 2010. Bidders' experience and learning in online auctions: Issues and implications. Mark. Sci. 29(6): 988–993.
47. Taylor, C. R. 1995. Digging for golden carrots: An analysis of research tournaments. Am. Econ. Rev. 85(4): 872–890.
48. Terwiesch, C., K. Ulrich. 2009. Innovation Tournaments. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
49. Terwiesch, C., Y. Xu. 2008. Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Sci. 54(9): 1529–1543.
50. Ulrich, K., S. Eppinger. 2011. Product Design and Development, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York.
51. Wheelwright, S., K. Clark. 1992. Revolutionizing Product Development. Free Press, New York.
52. Wooten, J. O., K. T. Ulrich 2014. Idea generation and the role of feedback: Evidence from field experiments with innovation tournaments. SSRN Working Paper, http://ssrn.com/abstract1838733.
53. Wooten, J.O., K. T. Ulrich. 2015.The impact of visibility in innovation tournaments: Evidence from field experiments. SSRN Working Paper, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2214952.
54. Yang, Y., P. Chen, R. Banker. 2010. Impact of past performance and strategic bidding on winner determination of open innovation contest. Working paper, Temple University.
55. Zhang, S., A. B. Markman. 1998. Overcoming the early entrant advantage: The role of alignable and nonalignable differences. J. Mark. Res. 35(4): 413–426.