Motivating individuals to contribute to firms’ non-pecuniary open innovation goals
Introduction
Open innovation (OI) has become a key part of innovation practice for many firms. Inbound approaches like crowdsourcing (using the creativity of crowds to find ideas and solutions) are now used widely (Schemmann et al., 2016). For example, IBM's annual Call For Code Challenge now involves over 400,000 developers across 179 countries (Bowles, 2020). New firms, like NineSigma, are finding a niche as intermediaries by connecting firms with problems to knowledgeable crowds to find novel solutions. In 2016 alone, NineSigma organized innovation contests worth over USD25 million a year (PRNewswire 2016).
Firms increasingly adopt OI approaches because they contribute to performance and competitive advantage. For example, OI has been shown to help firms rapidly reconfigure their resources and capabilities when facing economic disruption (Ahn et al., 2018) or help them gain a competitive edge in dynamic markets like software (Alexy et al., 2016). OI helps achieve these ends because it enables the purposeful flow of knowledge from outside individuals and organizations to create the conditions for superior innovation outcomes, such as new products and services (Chesbrough 2017).
As firms embrace the power of the crowd, an obvious problem is how to motivate individuals to engage meaningfully (Kohler et al., 2011), particularly when firms are not paying for their ideas (i.e. non-pecuniary inbound OI, as per Dahlander and Gann (2010)). For instance, while the low cost of crowdsourcing is appealing as an approach to find new ideas and solutions, firms often achieve lacklustre results because of low engagement, high rates of contributor turnover, and underperforming ideas (Acar 2019; Kavaliova et al., 2016).
Another problem that firms face in soliciting non-pecuniary contributions is that this type of feedback is critical to the co-creation of new products and services. For example, firms struggle to adequately source enough co-creators to help examine the practicality of prototypes or develop product extensions (Chesbrough and Di Minin 2014). They must balance this type of engagement against the free-rider problem of benefitting from innovation without bearing the cost (Tokarchuk et al., 2012). This is an important innovation problem because market-based mechanisms are not appropriate to facilitate such knowledge flows (Chesbrough and Di Minin 2014) and yet they have been proven to be critical to achieving commercialization goals (Harhoff et al., 2003; Henkel et al., 2014).
With firms increasingly adopting inbound non-pecuniary OI to power idea generation, co-creation and commercialization, the need to understand how to motivate individuals to engage in these important activities are properly more pressing than ever. Particularly noteworthy is understanding how to strike a balance between soliciting high-quality contributions while minimizing costs and maximizing chances of longer-term innovation success at the firm level. The latter is especially important for firms who do not have adequate resources to fund a pecuniary OI program. There is also evidence that motivated individuals, especially those with high levels of intrinsic motivation, are more likely to contribute creative solutions to problems (Amabile 1988). Accordingly, this paper seeks to answer the following question: How can firms better motivate non-pecuniary OI contributions?
To address this question, we conduct a systematic literature review and thematic analysis of OI research with a specific lens on individual motivation to develop a comprehensive framework of individuals' motivations in non-pecuniary open innovation. We build on previous reviews that investigated open innovation in general (Randhawa et al., 2016), in specific contexts such as small business (Hossain and Kauranen, 2016), but also more specifically those who examined the process of inbound open innovation (West and Bogers, 2014). Our study finds 11 motivational factors for individuals and offers a framework for OI motivation in this setting. Our analysis leads us to argue that pure altruistic forms of OI are rare. Instead, individuals engage in what we term ‘delayed pecuniary motivation’: initially intrinsic motivations of engagement, which, given enough time, ultimately result in either a direct or indirect economic payoff. We also recognize from the analysis that individuals' motivations change over time. This leads us to suggest strategies for firms to best engage individuals depending on their motivational state, and how different motivational stages can be leveraged to maximize the benefit to the firm depending on the innovation problem they are trying to resolve through the OI process.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. We first present the theoretical underpinnings of OI, explaining why firms participate in non-pecuniary open innovation. Then we explore motivational theories that explain why individuals participate, before we describe the methodology and the results of our analysis—a brief synopsis of the 11 motivational factors we found. With these factors, we develop a framework to understand their temporality (linkages to later, pecuniary motivations) and then explore how these motivations and their temporal aspects can be leveraged to help firms solve specific types of OI challenges. We conclude with limitations and future research.
Section snippets
Theoretical framework
We draw on two theoretical fields for our review: OI to establish the review's scope and boundaries, and motivation theory to inform the development of our non-pecuniary OI motivation framework.
Methodology
To review the motivations of individuals to engage in OI we followed a robust literature review methodology. This approach has gained acceptance in social studies, particularly in the management field (Pittaway et al., 2004; Tranfield et al., 2003). More rigorous and objective than traditional approaches, it reduces the effect of cognitive biases of the researcher (Pittaway et al., 2004) and enables replication, which enhances validity (Crossan and Apaydin 2010).
We followed the approach of
Individuals’ motivations
Our thematic analysis process followed an iterative approach in that existing concepts from the literature were used as a guide to create logical groupings of concepts. Through this procedure, we identified a set of non-pecuniary motivations as follows: enjoyment, reputation building, personal development, career development, altruism, utilitarianism, ideology, sense of community, reciprocity, self-efficacy. A strong motivation identified in the literature was also one of a pecuniary nature –
Analysis and discussion
The results of our literature review summarize individuals' motivations for freely contributing to OI initiatives when there is no explicit expectation of pecuniary returns. We identify 11 distinct individual motivational factors: enjoyment, reputation building, personal development, altruism, career development, utilitarianism, ideological reasons, sense of community, reciprocity, and self-efficacy. We also include financial interest because of the number of papers that included it, and,
Conclusion
Firms pursuing non-pecuniary open innovation activities need to motivate free contributions of ideas and knowledge. While prior research has explored non-pecuniary open innovation from a firm perspective, less is known about how to improve engagement of contributors in such settings. In this paper, we reviewed OI literature to identify and synthesize such individual motivations.
Our analysis provides two contributions. The first is a temporal perspective of motivations. Specifically, we develop
Acknowledgment
The preparation of this paper was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant (DP160100602) on Open Innovation
References (113)
Motivations and solution appropriateness in crowdsourcing challenges for innovation
Res. Pol.
(2019)Motivational synergy: toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace
Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev.
(1993)- et al.
Why do commercial companies contribute to open source software?
Int. J. Inf. Manag.
(2012) - et al.
Tapping the innovative business potential of innovation contests
Bus. Horiz.
(2015) - et al.
Why Open Source software can succeed
Res. Pol.
(2003) - et al.
The characteristics and motivations of library open source software developers: an empirical study
Libr. Inf. Sci. Res.
(2015) - et al.
How open is innovation?
Res. Pol.
(2010) - et al.
Relationships between open source software companies and communities: observations from Nordic firms
Res. Pol.
(2005) - et al.
Open to suggestions: how organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention
Res. Pol.
(2014) - et al.
Gamification artifacts and crowdsourcing participation: examining the mediating role of intrinsic motivations
Comput. Hum. Behav.
(2018)
Better together—harnessing motivations for energy utility crowdsourcing activities
Energy Research & Social Science
Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations
Res. Pol.
Why would online gamers share their innovation-conducive knowledge in the online game user community? Integrating individual motivations and social capital perspectives
Comput. Hum. Behav.
The emergence of openness: how and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation
Res. Pol.
Supporting sustained willingness to share knowledge with visual feedback
Comput. Hum. Behav.
Motivation of software developers in open source projects: an internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel
Res. Pol.
Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives
Technovation
Avatar-based innovation: consequences of the virtual co-creation experience
Comput. Hum. Behav.
Pro-social behaviour in crowdsourcing systems: experiences from a field deployment for beach monitoring
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud.
How intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives affect task effort in crowdsourcing contests: a mediated moderation model
Comput. Hum. Behav.
Open source content contributors' response to free-riding: the effect of personality and context
Comput. Hum. Behav.
Exploring motivations for contributing to open source initiatives: the roles of contribution context and personal values
Comput. Hum. Behav.
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions
Contemp. Educ. Psychol.
Money is not everything: a typology of crowdfunding project creators
J. Strat. Inf. Syst.
Crowdsourcing ideas: involving ordinary users in the ideation phase of new product development
Res. Pol.
Free/Libre open source software development in developing and developed countries: a conceptual framework with an exploratory study
Decis. Support Syst.
Dynamic capabilities and economic crises: has openness enhanced a firm's performance in an economic downturn?
Ind. Corp. Change
Temporal motivations of volunteers to participate in cultural crowdsourcing work
Inf. Syst. Res.
A fistful of dollars: are financial rewards a suitable management practice for distributed models of innovation?
Eur. Manag. Rev.
Toward an aspiration-level theory of open innovation
Ind. Corp. Change
The Jikes research virtual machine project: building an open-source research community
IBM Syst. J.
A model of creativity and innovation in organizations
Res. Organ. Behav.
What online user innovation communities can teach us about capturing the experiences of patients living with chronic health conditions. A scoping review
PloS One
Motivating and supporting collaboration in open innovation
Eur. J. Innovat. Manag.
The dynamics of open strategy: from adoption to reversion
Long. Range Plan.
Common characteristics of open source software development and applicability for drug discovery: a systematic review
Health Res. Pol. Syst.
Dynamics of open source movements
J. Econ. Manag. Strat.
Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: a systematic review and research agenda
Int. J. Manag. Rev.
Open innovation web-based platforms: the impact of different forms of motivation on collaboration
Innovat. Manag. Pol. Pract.
Motivation and sorting of human capital in open innovation
Strat. Manag. J.
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
Rev. Econ. Stud.
Enhancing absorptive capacity in open innovation communities
Open innovation: research, practices, and policies
Calif. Manag. Rev.
How to manage outside innovation
MIT Sloan Manag. Rev.
IBM's 2020 Call for Code Global Challenge Finalists Taking on COVID-19 and Climate Change
Moving the crowd at threadless: motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application
Inf. Commun. Soc.
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Qual. Res. Psychol.
Motivation for open collaboration: crowd and community models and the case of OpenStreetMap
Am. Behav. Sci.
Overcoming open innovation challenges: a contribution from foresight and foresight networks
Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag.
Open Innovation Models: the New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology
Cited by (25)
Impact of dynamic capabilities on digital transformation and innovation to improve banking performance: A TOE framework study
2024, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and ComplexityA Grey Literature Review on Data Stream Processing applications testing
2023, Journal of Systems and SoftwareMeasuring R&D team's focus towards innovation: Scale development and empirical validation
2023, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management - JET-MLimiting factors of open innovation organizations: A case of social product development and research agenda
2023, TechnovationCitation Excerpt :Internal Community Readiness. OI can only thrive in environments that are well-supported by both internal and external OI community members (Bogers et al., 2018; Natalicchio et al., 2018; Suhada et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021). Without a highly engaged community and management support, OI performance may suffer at both strategic and operational levels (Barham et al., 2020).