Open evaluation of new product concepts at the front end of innovation: objectives and contingency factors

Abstract

The proliferation of innovation contests has fostered community‐based idea evaluation as an alternative to expert juries to filter and select new product concepts at the fuzzy front end of corporate R&D innovation. We refer to this phenomenon as open evaluation, as all registered participants can engage in jury activities like voting, rating, and commenting. While previous research on innovation contests and user engagement includes participant‐based evaluation, the investigative focus so far has not been on this phenomenon. Access to jury activities in open evaluation practice contradicts innovation theory, which recommends careful selection procedures to establish expert juries for assessing new product concepts. Additionally, little is known about contingency factors that influence the performance and acceptance of open evaluation's results. To address these two questions on the objectives and contingency factors for open evaluation of new product concepts, this study applies exploratory multiple‐case research of open evaluation in nine innovation contests. Data collection encompassed expert interviews and complementary sources of evidence. Results indicate that firms pursue six distinct objectives to support participant‐based generation and selection of new concepts. In addition, eight contingency factors influence the performance of open evaluation and the acceptance of its results. Finally, results showed open evaluation output to efficiently complement jury decisions in filtering and selecting ideas for new product development.

Idea generation and open innovation in SMEs: When does market‐based collaboration pay off most?

“…Researchers have devoted considerable attention to understanding the sources of success in idea generation by, for example, identifying core activities and success factors (Florén, Frishammar, Parida, & Wincent, 2018;Khurana & Rosenthal, 1997;Velamuri, Schneckenberg, Haller, & Moeslein, 2017). Koen, Ajamian, Burkart, and Clamen (2001) describe idea generation as an activity in which ideas are progressively built upon, torn down, refined, reshaped, adapted and advanced.…”

Exploring employee interactions and quality of contributions in intra‐organisational innovation platforms

“…Similarly, other quantitative metrics, such as votes, should be carefully considered in innovation communities in firms' evaluations due to the social biases in such communities (Hofstetter, Aryobsei, & Herrmann, 2018). Community evaluations, such as votes or rating ideas, may differentiate between users and the firm's evaluation team members (Hofstetter et al, 2018;Velamuri, Schneckenberg, Haller, & Moeslein, 2017). For this reason, such evaluations can be used to efficiently complement firms' decisions in filtering and selecting ideas for further development.…”

A research and development decision model for pharmaceutical industry: case of China

“…As an industrializing country, China faces the decisions of ‘Make’ or ‘Buy’, or somewhere in between (White, ). The following strategies are defined to describe the situation (Chan et al, ): (1)Indigenous Innovation (Lazonick, ; Yang and Shu, ; Li‐Ying et al, ; Li and Yu, ). (2)Imitative Innovation (Mukoyama, ; Yang and Shu, ; Cheng and Shiu, ; Li‐Ying et al, ). (3)Collaborative Innovation (Yang and Shu, ; Wang and Li, ; Velamuri et al, ; Chen et al, ; Dooley et al, ; Matheus et al, ). International Technology Transfer (Farhang, ; Guan et al, ; Salicrup and Fedorkova, ; Bin, ; Li‐Ying et al, ). …”

“…(2) Imitative Innovation (Mukoyama, 2003;Yang and Shu, 2005;Cheng and Shiu, 2008;Li-Ying et al, 2014). (3) Collaborative Innovation (Yang and Shu, 2005;Wang and Li, 2007;Velamuri et al, 2015;Chen et al, 2016;Dooley et al, 2016;Matheus et al, 2016). International Technology Transfer (Farhang, 1997;Guan et al, 2006;Salicrup and Fedorkova, 2006;Bin, 2008;Li-Ying et al, 2014).…”