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

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) gmail.com, Twitter: MiiaKosonen

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. Examples of crowdsourcing
CONTEST MODE
COMMUNITY MODE
HYBRID MODE

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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