You are here

Análisis de las comunidades de innovación abierta desde la perspectiva del Análisis de Redes Sociales

Analysis of open innovation communities from the perspective of Social Network Analysis

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.352
Author NameUniversity of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Purpose: Open innovation represents an emergent paradigm by which organizations make use of internal and external resources to drive their innovation processes. The growth of information and communication technologies has facilitated the emergence of online open innovation communities which allow a direct contact with customers and users. The aim of this work consists of analyzing the behavior of open innovation community members from the perspective of social network analysis, in order to determine to what extent the activity of users is related to the interest that posted ideas are generating and to what extent the scoring systems based on collective intelligence are adequate for the identification of users posting ideas that can be potentially implemented by the organization. Design/methodology/approach: Open innovation communities can be represented as graphs, where the nodes represent the community members and the arcs between nodes represent the interactions among users according to the different ways of participation allowed within the community. Using social network analysis techniques, several variables representing different participation features of community members can be collected. The correlation coefficients among these variables provide information about the relationships among users' activity, the interest that their posted ideas arouse within the community and the score that posted ideas receive from the rest of the community. Findings and Originality/value: Obtained results show a positive correlation among the different participation possibilities offered by the studied community. That means that users which are active posting ideas are also active commenting or scoring other users' ideas. However, obtained results also show that those ideas generating more interest among community members are not always the ones that receive a better evaluation by other community members. With respect to those ideas which are finally implemented by the organization, obtained results point out that they are in general the ones that arouse more interest within the community rather that the ones that obtain a better evaluation. Research limitations/implications: This work analyzes the case study of IdeaStorm innovation community promoted by Dell. Despite of being a single case study, it is representative enough as IdeaStorm is one of the most popular innovation communities and one of the pioneers in the implementation of the open innovation paradigm. Practical implications: Putting into practice open innovation communities has the drawback of the huge volume of generated information, many times quite difficult to process by the innovation department of the organization. That is the reason why it is quite important for the organization to know the patterns of behavior of community members, how the community scoring system is working and to what extent posted ideas are aligned with the organization strategic innovation policies. Originality/value: This work deals with the issue of putting into practice the open innovation paradigm using social network analysis techniques for modeling the behavior and activity of users belonging to open innovation communities. Moreover, this study not only considers the activity of community members but also the implications for the organization in the form of ideas that have been finally implemented.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Objeto: El modelo de innovación abierta constituye un paradigma emergente por el que las organizaciones hacen uso de recursos internos y externos para llevar a cabo sus procesos de innovación. El auge de las tecnologías de la información y comunicación ha permitido la proliferación de comunidades online de innovación abierta que permiten un contacto más directo con clientes y usuarios. El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar el comportamiento de los miembros de estas comunidades online desde la perspectiva del análisis de redes sociales. La finalidad es determinar en qué medida la actividad de los miembros de la comunidad está relacionada con el interés generado por las ideas aportadas y en qué medida los esquemas de evaluación basados en inteligencia colectiva resultan eficaces para identificar los usuarios de ideas potencialmente aplicables por la organización. Diseño/metodología/enfoque: Las comunidades de innovación abierta se representan como grafos cuyos nodos son los miembros de la comunidad y cuyos arcos se obtienen a partir de las interacciones entre ellos, atendiendo a las diferentes formas de participación contempladas. Aplicando técnicas de análisis de redes sociales, se extraen varias variables que representan las características de participación de cada uno de los miembros de la comunidad. Los coeficientes de correlación entre dichas variables proporcionan información acerca de las relaciones existentes entre la actividad de los usuarios, el interés que suscitan las ideas aportadas y la evaluación que reciben del resto de la comunidad. Aportaciones y resultados: Los resultados obtenidos muestran una correlación positiva entre las distintas modalidades de participación que ofrece la comunidad. Los usuarios activos mandando ideas también lo son comentando otras ideas o asignándoles una puntuación. No obstante, los resultados obtenidos también muestran que aquellas ideas que suscitan mayor interés en la comunidad no son siempre las mejores valoradas a partir del sistema de evaluación basados en la comunidad. Por lo que respecta a las ideas finalmente adoptadas por la organización, los resultados señalan que por lo general son aquellas que suscitan más debate que aquellas que reciben mayor puntuación. Limitaciones: El trabajo analiza como caso de estudio la comunidad de innovación abierta denominada IdeaStorm perteneciente a Dell. Si bien el estudio se limita a esta comunidad, es suficientemente representativa pues se trata de una de las más populares y además pioneras en la puesta en práctica del paradigma de la innovación abierta. Sus 1482 ideas compartidas durante 2010 oscilan entre las 175 de portales como SPAiens (www.sapiens.info) y las más de 88000 de MyStarbucksIdea (mystarbucksidea.com). Portales de tamaños similares son Ubuntu Brainstrom (brainstorm.ubuntu.com) o Salesforce (success.salesforce.com). Implicaciones prácticas: La puesta en práctica de las comunidades de innovación abierta presenta el problema del gran volumen de información generado, muchas veces difícil de procesar por la organización. En este sentido, es importante para las organizaciones conocer los patrones de comportamiento de los usuarios, cómo funcionan los sistema de evaluación realizados dentro de la comunidad y en qué medida las ideas aportadas están alineadas con las políticas estratégicas de innovación de la empresa. Originalidad / Valor añadido: Este trabajo analiza la puesta en práctica del paradigma de la innovación abierta mediante el uso de técnicas de análisis de redes sociales que permiten modelar el comportamiento y la actividad de los usuarios organizados en comunidades de innovación. Asimismo, no sólo considera la actividad de los miembros de la comunidad sino también las implicaciones para la organización incluyendo como variable las ideas que han sido finalmente adoptadas.
46-64

REFERENCES

References: 

AMABILE, T.; BARSADE, S.G.; MUELLER, J.S.; STAW, B.M. (2005). Affect and Creativity at
Work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 367-403.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367
BARGE-GIL, A. (2010). Open, Semi-Open and Closed Innovators: Towards an Explanation of
Degree of Openness. Industry and Innovation, 17(6): 577-607.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2010.530839
BERTHON, P.R.; PITT, L.F.; MCCARTHY, I.; KATES, S.M. (2007). When customers get clever:
Managerial approaches to dealing with creative consumers. Business Horizons, 50(1):
39-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2006.05.005
BLOHM, I.; RIEDL, C.; LEIMEISTER, J.M.; KRCMAR, H. (2011). Idea Evaluation Mechanisms for
Collective Intelligence in Open Innovation Communities: Do Traders Outperform Raters?.
Proceedings of 32nd International Conference on Information Systems, 1-24.
CARBONE, F.; CONTRERAS, J.; HERNÁNDEZ, J.Z.; GOMEZ-PEREZ, J.M. (2011). Open
Innovation in an Enterprise 3.0 framework: Three case studies. Expert Systems with
Applications, 39(10): 8929-8939. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.015
Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.352
CHESBROUGH, H.W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,
44(3): 35-41.
CHESBROUGH, H.; VANHAVERBEKE, W.; WEST, J. (2006). Open Innovation: Researching a
New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DAHLANDER, L.; FREDERIKSEN, L.; RULLANI, F. (2008). Online Communities and Open
Innovation. Industry and Innovation, 15(2): 115-123.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13662710801970076
DE JONG, J.P.J.; KALVET, T.; VANHAVERBEKE, W. (2010). Exploring a theoretical framework to
structure the public policy implications of open innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, 22(8): 877-896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2010.522771
DI GANGI, P.M.; WASKO, M. (2009). Steal my idea! Organizational adoption of user
innovations from a user innovation community: A case study of Dell IdeaStorm. Decision
Support Systems, 48(1), 303-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.04.004
FREY, K.; LÜTHJE, C.; HAAG, S. (2011). Whom Should Firms Attract to Open Innovation
Platforms? The Role of Knowledge Diversity and Motivation. Long Range Planning, 44(5-6):
397-420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2011.09.006
FUELLER, J.; MATZLER, K. (2007). Virtual product experience and customer participation – a
chance for customer-centred, really new products. Technovation, 27: 378-387.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.09.005
GONZÁLEZ-SÁNCHEZ, R.; GARCÍA-MUIÑA, F.E. (2011). Innovación abierta: Un modelo
preliminar desde la gestión del conocimiento. Intangible Capital, 7(1): 82-115.
HÜSIG, S.; KOHN, S. (2011). “Open CAI 2.0” – Computer Aided Innovation in the era of open
innovation and Web 2.0. Computers in Industry, 62(4): 407-413.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2010.12.003
KEEBLE, D.; WILKINSON, F. (Eds) (2000). High-Technology Clusters. Networking and
Collective Learning in Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate.
KOHLER, T.; FUELLER, J.; STIEGER, D.; MATZLER, K. (2011). Avatar-based innovation:
Consequences of the virtual co-creation experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 27:
160-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.019
LAMBROPOULOS, N.; KAMPYLIS, P.; BAKHARIA, A. (2009). User Innovation Networks and
Research Challenges, Online Communities and Social Computing. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, 5621: 364-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02774-1_40
LAURSEN, K.; SALTER, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining
innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms, Strategic Management Journal,
27(2): 131-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
-62-
Intangible Capital – http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.352
LICHTENTHALER, U.; LICHTENTHALER, E. (2009). A capability-based framework for open
innovation: complementing absorptive capacity. Journal of Management Studies, 46(8):
1315-1338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00854.x
LOVE, J.H.; ROPER, S. (2009). Organizing the Innovation Process: Complementarities in
Innovation Networking. Industry and Innovation, 16(3): 273-290.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13662710902923776
MAHR, D.; LIEVENS, A. (2012). Virtual lead user communities: Drivers of knowledge creation
for innovation. Research Policy, 41(1): 167-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.08.006
MORRISON, P.D.; ROBERTS, J.H.; MIDGLEY, D.F. (2004). The nature of lead users and
measurement of leading edge status. Research Policy, 33, 351-362.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.09.007
NOOY, W.; MRVAR, A.; Y BATAGELJ, V. (2005). Exploratory Network Analysis with Pajek.
Cambridge University Press, New York.
PRAHALAD, C.; RAMASWAMY, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value
with customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
RENCHER, A.C. (2002). Methods of Multivariate Analysis. 2nd ed. Wiley Series in Probability
and Statistics, John Wiley & Sons.
ROHRBECK, R.; STEINHOFF, F.; PERDER, F. (2008). Virtual customer integration in the
innovation process: Evaluation of the web platforms of multinational enterprises (MNE).
International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology, PICMET 2008,
Portland, 469-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PICMET.2008.4599656
SCHWAB, S.; KOCH, J.; FLACHSKAMPF, P.; ISENHARDT, I. (2011). Strategic Implementation of
Open Innovation Methods in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. Proceedings of the 2011
17th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising (ICE 2011), 1-8.
SPANN, M.; SKIERA, B. (2009). Sports Forecasting: A Comparison of the Forecast Accuracy of
Prediction Markets, Betting Odds and Tipsters. Journal of Forecasting, 28(1): 55-72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/for.1091
SUROWIECKI, J. (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few
and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business. Economies, Societies, and Nations. Random
House, Inc.
TÖDTLING, F.; LEHNER, P.; TRIPPL, M. (2006). Innovation in knowledge intensive industries:
The nature and geography of knowledge links. European Planning Studies, 14(8):
1035-1058. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310600852365
-63-TÖDTLING, F.; PRUD'HOMME VAN REINE, P.; DÖRHÖFER, S. (2011). Open Innovation and
Regional Culture—Findings from Different Industrial and Regional Settings. European
Planning Studies, 19(11): 1885-1907. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.618688
TORAL, S.L.; MARTÍNEZ-TORRES, M.R.; BARRERO, F. (2009). Virtual Communities as a
resource for the development of OSS projects: the case of Linux ports to embedded
processors. Behavior and Information Technology, 28(5): 405-419.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290903121394
TORAL, S.L.; MARTÍNEZ-TORRES, M.R.; BARRERO, F. (2010). Analysis of Virtual Communities
supporting OSS Projects using Social Network Analysis. Information and Software
Technology, 52(3): 296-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2009.10.007
URBAN, G.L.; VON HIPPEL, E. (1988). Lead user analyses for the development of new
industrial products. Management Science, 34(5): 569-582.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.5.569
VON HIPPEL, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science,
32(7): 791-805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791
VON HIPPEL, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. New York, Oxford University Press.
VON HIPPEL, E. (2001). Innovation by User Communities: Learning from Open-Source
Software. MIT sloan management review, 82-86.
VON HIPPEL, E.; VON KROGH, G. (2003). Open source software and the “private-collective”
innovation model: issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2): 209-223.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.2.209.14992
WEST, J.; O'MAHONY, S. (2008). The Role of Participation Architecture in Growing Sponsored
Open Source Communities. Industry & Innovation, 15(2): 145-168.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13662710801970142

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com