CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 133Open Source Software InnovationsDigital Platforms and EconomicsKnowledge Management and Sharing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 99 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Platform Sponsor Investments and User Contributions in Knowledge Communities: The Role of Knowledge Seeding1

Huang, Peng, Tafti, Ali, Mithas, Sunil·2018·MIS Quarterly
DOI 10.25300/misq/2018/13490
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

How should digital platforms engage with and invest in their online communities to shape innovation and knowledge contributions from members in their platform ecosystems? This is an important question because user contributions are important drivers of technological progress and business value. We examine the effect of platform sponsors’ investments in online communities on user knowledge contributions, using fine-grained longitudinal data from a leading enterprise software vendor’s community network. We focus on the sponsor practice of knowledge seeding, in which its employees provide free technical support by answering questions posted in discussion forums. We define user knowledge contribution as peer-evaluated, quality-weighted solutions that community members provide to help resolve the questions their peers raise. We show that the platform sponsor’s investments in knowledge seeding have a positive, significant association with user knowledge contribution. We also find temporal and geographical variations in returns on the sponsor’s knowledge investments. Specifically, returns (i.e., amount of user contribution that is stimulated) decrease with the age of the community, consistent with the observation that the most active contributors are lead users who tend to join the community early. In addition, returns vary across different countries, such that greater returns are realized when the investment is made in countries with higher levels of information technology (IT) infrastructure, partly because country-level IT infrastructure may be associated with greater absorptive capacity of these countries. We discuss the implications for research and practice.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25300/misq/2018/13490

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Mithas, 2017, Managing Trade-Offs in Innovation Outcomes: Evidence from a Leading Conglomerate
  2. Mollenhauer, 2003, Key Functionalities of SAP Community, 1109
  3. Tafti, 2015, Empowering IT Professionals Through HR Practices: Implications for IT Productivity

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 133

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Huang, P., Tafti, A., & Mithas, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
ORCID
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2018-03-01
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
213-240
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
DOI
10.25300/misq/2018/13490
OpenAlex
W2606838461
Cited by
133
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5
FWCI
16.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Knowledge Management and Sharing
Keywords
online communities, knowledge communities, lead users, community age, IT infrastructure, absorptive capacity, forum, platform ecosystems

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