Submission quality in open innovation contests - an analysis of individual-level determinants of idea innovativeness

The digital age allows for integration of dispersed groups into the innovation process. These heterogeneous groups of individuals varying in size and knowledge distribution, also referred to as crowds, build the basis for open innovation contests (OIC), one of the most common forms of crowdsourcing innovation. Different from more focused forms of open innovation, at OIC innovation managers often do not identify or evaluate participants ex-ante. Instead, innovation managers often make use of open calls for participation and assume efficient self-selection of participants i.e., that only motivated and qualified participants will volunteer and engage in the innovation contest. This behavior reflects one of the key assumption of crowdsourcing in participatory innovation settings. However, not every self-selected member is in the position to solve the contest task appropriately. Hence, innovation contests often result in large numbers of submissions, covering a wide range of quality levels, causing decision biases and significant workloads for innovation managers to select ideas. This problem is referred to as “crowding”. In order to reduce “crowding”, open innovation researchers are interested in understanding which types of individuals make the “best” contributions and therefore should be preferably encouraged to participate in in OIC. In this paper, we are assessing what characterizes those participants who submit innovative ideas to OIC, in particular those who submit incremental ideas vs. those who have more radical ideas. Drawing on the componential model of creativity and data generated in innovation contest held by chocolate producer Ritter Sport, we analyze the effect of participants‘ creativity, domain knowledge, and several motivational factors on the innovativeness of their contributions. We find all of these factors to affect the innovativeness of an idea. However, regarding generating incremental or radical innovations, some factors have opposing roles. Our findings imply for practice that innovation managers must decide which type of innovations they intend to generate and then design contests to attract participants with the required characteristics, if they want to increase the number of appropriate ideas and reduce the problems of “crowding”.