Knowledge sharing in online co-creation


Published on

Results from the sub-project in Knowledge Protection and Sharing in Global Value Networks (LUT, 2011-2013)

Published in: Education, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Knowledge sharing in online co-creation

  1. 1. Knowledge Sharing in Online Co-Creation Results from sub-project within ”Knowledge Protection and Sharing in Global Value Networks” Miia Kosonen and Chunmei Gan E-mail: koomikoo (at), Twitter: MiiaKosonen
  2. 2. Why to share openly? • Co-innovators and consumerism as innovation trends • Valuable user input into the innovation process • Lead over companies that do not empower customers, users or larger crowds • Increasing problem-solving effectiveness  In this sub-project, the focus was on open knowledge-sharing mechanisms: online cocreation and crowdsourcing
  3. 3. Examples of crowdsourcing CONTEST MODE COMMUNITY MODE HYBRID MODE
  4. 4. Research setting: three perspectives to online co-creation Case IdeasProject • Observation • 4 interviews with company hosts • 244 survey responses from Chinese users in Spring 2012
  5. 5. Results 1: The users 1. Internal motives dominate external ones − knowledge sharing intentions mostly driven by expected social and learning benefits – helping, sense of belonging, valuable knowledge − recognition from the host company as important as winning an award! 1. Hedonic benefits, e.g. enjoyment of developing ideas, and propensity to trust did not have a significant effect 2. Intentions to share knowledge lead to actual knowledge sharing behaviour
  6. 6. Results 2: The community Community trust – perceived properties of or reliance on a social system constituting a community • Collaborative norms – expectations of collaborative values and behavior • Trust in the community sponsor – beliefs of its goodwill and integrity Community support – providing the necessary conditions for sharing and creating knowledge • Technology-based support – perceived easiness of use, making the community more comprehensive and usable • Knowledge-based support – inspiring creativity and helping users to formulate their thoughts
  7. 7. Results 2: The community 1. Trust in hosting firm more significant for knowledge sharing than trust in community and its norms 2. Perceived community support also needed  The hosting firm and its actions key to establishing positive image and collaborative behaviour; fair practices, care-taking  Supporting the actual knowledge creation: constructive feedback, channels for user-to-user interaction
  8. 8. Results 3: The hosting firm The identified management practices 1. Selecting appropriate communication technologies 2. Defining tasks 3. Evaluating crowd size and its knowledge base 4. Launching tasks and supporting interpretation 5. Giving feedback and encouraging interaction 6. Allowing user-driven idea evaluations
  9. 9. Practical implications 1. Inspiration drives participation and altruism beats opportunism: online sociability and ’love of community’ are valuable assets to nurture 2. Provide more explicit linkages with experts and professional knowledge to support ideation 3. Focus on appropriate resourcing and learning from experience 4. Incorporate crowds also in outlining problems or tasks
  10. 10. Practical implications Community management: breeding overall activity 1. Turn positive intentions into actual behaviour by increasing the efficacy of idea sharing: publish success stories, give active users more visibility 2. Attract specific groups, e.g. university students, to participate 3. Apply prizes with caution in order not to harm internal motivation Community management: enhancing participation in specific tasks 1. Expand the spectrum of challenges provided to cover different users’ interests 2. Increase challenge complexity & design challenges so that they require user collaboration and community-based idea development 3. Encourage cooperation, e.g., among similar ideas or users 4. Publish more product-based knowledge, so that users could also learn more from the community and get help in formulating their ideas
  11. 11. Academic contributions Three modes of crowdsourcing opened up: contest, community, and hybrid Linking the Uses & Gratifications perspective – expected benefits of using certain media – with crowdsourcing and co-creation Conceptual development and measures for Community Trust and Community Support Identifying community-management practices that support user participation among external crowds, to be tested empirically in further studies
  12. 12. Outputs from the sub-project Journal articles: Kosonen M., Gan C., Vanhala M. & Blomqvist K. (forthcoming, 2014): User motivation and knowledge sharing in idea crowdsourcing. Accepted to International Journal of Innovation Management. Kosonen M., Gan C., Olander H. & Blomqvist K. (2013): My idea is our idea! Supporting user-driven innovation activities in crowdsourcing communities. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(3), June 2013, 18 pages. Kosonen M. & Henttonen K. (under review): Cheer the crowd? Facilitating user participation in idea crowdsourcing. Submitted to International Journal of Technology Marketing, September, 2013. In addition, 3 conference papers (presented in ISPIMs 2012-2013 and ISPIM Innovation Symposium 2012), 2 firm-internal workshops, 2 workshops for all customer firms, 1 open workshop and summarizing article on IdeasProject website.
  13. 13. Summary of the project − Duration: 7/2011 – 6/2013 − Carried out by Lappeenranta University of Technology, at Technology Business Research Center (TBRC) − Project Leader prof. Kirsimarja Blomqvist, Project Manager D.Sc. Heidi Olander − Funded by Tekes (Digital Product Process program), Nokia, KONE, Outotec and Teknologiateollisuus − Collaboration partners in Finland, China, and New Zealand