The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community
Abstract
Several organizations have developed ongoing crowdsourcing communities that repeatedly collect ideas for new products and services from a large, dispersed “crowd” of nonexperts (consumers) over time. Despite its promises, little is known about the nature of an individual's ideation efforts in such an online community. Studying Dell's IdeaStorm community, serial ideators are found to be more likely than consumers with only one idea to generate an idea the organization finds valuable enough to implement, but they are unlikely to repeat their early success once their ideas are implemented. As ideators with past success attempt to again come up with ideas that will excite the organization, they instead end up proposing ideas similar to their ideas that were already implemented (i.e., they generate less diverse ideas). The negative effects of past success are somewhat mitigated for ideators with diverse commenting activity on others' ideas. These findings highlight some of the challenges in maintaining an ongoing supply of quality ideas from the crowd over time. This paper was accepted by Kamalini Ramdas, entrepreneurship and innovation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811241 · Cited by 8,092
An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion
Weiner, B. (1985) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.92.4.548 · Cited by 7,846
Duncker, K. (1945) · Psychological Monographs · doi:10.1037/h0093599 · Cited by 2,938
The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43 · Cited by 1,428 · cited 1×
“Activity Research generally recognizes that interaction and idea exchange among individuals can facilitate the retrieval of relevant and diverse knowledge during the idea generation process (Hinsz et al. 1997, Kohn and Smith 2011).”
BackgroundJansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/0142-694x(91)90003-f · Cited by 1,087
The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone
Preece, J., Nonnecke, B., & Andrews, D. (2004) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.015 · Cited by 1,038 · cited 2×
“Although their motivations to participate in crowdsourcing communities vary, individuals that actively interact by commenting on others’ ideas generally perceive more benefits, tend to feel a greater sense of community membership, and take their contributions seriously (Preece et al. 2004).”
BackgroundMotivation, Governance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development
Shah, S. K. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0553 · Cited by 894
Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis
Boudreau, K. J., Lacetera, N., & Lakhani, K. R. (2011) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1322 · Cited by 830 · cited 1×
“…include descriptive case studies (e.g., Bullinger et al. 2010) as well as studies of the relationship between individual and contest characteristics and the number of ideators/solvers in a contest (Yang et al. 2009) or problem solving effectiveness (Jeppesen and Lakhani 2010, Boudreau et al. 2011).”
BackgroundGeorge, J. M. (2007) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/078559814 · Cited by 781
Cited by
Digital marketing: a framework, review, and research agenda
Kannan, P. K., & Li, H. “. (2017) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.006 · Cited by 1,707
Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.15.0415 · Cited by 1,127
Leung, F. F., Gu, F. F., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-021-00829-4 · Cited by 580
Humans and Technology: Forms of Conjoined Agency in Organizations
Murray, A., Rhymer, J., & Sirmon, D. G. (2021) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2019.0186 · Cited by 518
Chua, R. Y. J., Roth, Y., & Lemoine, J.-F. (2015) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839214563595 · Cited by 433
Metadata
- Authors
- Bayus, B. L.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2013-01
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 226-244
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W3121850723
- Cited by
- 904
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 78.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1599
- The paper
- Bayus, B. L. (2013). Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1599
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
