1 / 20

The Contribution of Different Online Communities in Open Innovation Projects

The Contribution of Different Online Communities in Open Innovation Projects. Michael A. Zeng Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg Institute of Technology and Innovation Management Prof. Dr. Hans Koller. Agenda. Research Questions Empirical Field Method Findings Future Research.

quon-owens
Download Presentation

The Contribution of Different Online Communities in Open Innovation Projects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Contribution of Different Online Communities in Open Innovation Projects Michael A. Zeng Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg Institute of Technology and Innovation Management Prof. Dr. Hans Koller

  2. Agenda • Research Questions • Empirical Field • Method • Findings • Future Research

  3. Motivation

  4. Research Questions How do brand communities and innovation communities differ? How could they be used best in new product development processes? Innovation community Brand community ? ? ? Idea generation Screening Development Testing Launch

  5. Empirical Field Innovation community Brand community powered by

  6. Method: Sample

  7. Method: Research design

  8. Findings Brand loyalty Innovation community on crowdsourcing platform • Brand community • on social network Innovative members Idea generation Screening Development Testing Launch Idea generation Screening Development Testing Launch Open innovation process Marketing effect • Would be best to bring the potential of both communities together in a harmonized form

  9. Future Research • Does this harmonized strategy work with a larger sample? And how? • What about other fields? More complex products or processes? • Brand communities with stronger social relations than among Facebook fans?

  10. Thank you! Questions? Contact Michael Zeng Helmut-Schmidt-University/ University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg Institute of Technology and Innovation Management Holstenhofweg 85 22043 Hamburg Germany +49 40 6541 3735 michael.zeng@hsu-hh.de

  11. BACKUP

  12. Findings Brand loyalty Innovation community on crowdsourcing platform • Brand community • on social network Innovative members Idea generation Screening Development Testing Launch Idea generation Screening Development Testing Launch Open innovation process Marketing effect • Would be best to bring the potential of both communities together in a harmonized form

  13. Characteristics of a BC on FB According to Loewenfeld (2006): • Non-geographical • Based on interests • offline and/or online • Admirer of the brand • Interaction • Sense of community/ corporate feeling • Connection of values and needs

  14. Example

  15. Example

  16. References • Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. • Füller, J., Matzler, K., & Hoppe, M. (2008). Brand community members as a source of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 608–619. • Janzik, L., & Raasch, C. (2011). Online communities in mature markets: Why join, why innovate, why share? International Journal of Innovation Management, 15(04), 797–836. • Mayring, P. (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (11th ed.). Weinheim: Beltz. • Kim, A. J. (2000). Community Building on the Web: Includes Index. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press. • Möslein, K. M., Reichwald, R., & Kölling, M. (2011). Open innovation in der Dienstleistungsgestaltung. WSI Mitteilungen, 64(9), 484–490. • Muniz Jr., A.M., and O’Guinn, T.C. (2001). Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research. 27, 4, 412–432. • Ollila, S., & Elmquist, M. (2011). Managing open innovation: Exploring challenges at the interfaces of an open innovation arena. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(4), 273–283. • Shani, A. B., Sena, J. A., & Olin, T. (2003). Knowledge management and new product development: A study of two companies. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(3), 137–149. • Schau, H. J., Muniz Jr., A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How Brand Community Practices Create Value. Journal of Marketing(73)5, 30-51. • Schroll, A., & Römer, S. (2011). Open Innovation heute: Instrumente und Erfolgsfaktoren. Zeitschrift für Information Management und Consulting, 26(1), 58–64.

  17. Theoretical Background: Online Communities • Online communities: • Individuals with same interests or common goals • Discussion via an Internet platform, especially Web 2.0 (Janzik, Raasch 2011; Kim 2000) • Innovation communities: • Include Lead User characteristics and innovative skills • Ideas are collaboratively developed and discussed (Janzik, Raasch 2011; Shani, Sena, Olin 2003) • Brand communities: • Strong connection to the brand and/or the product • Can be used as innovation sources (Schau, Muniz, Arnould 2009; Janzik, Raasch 2011; Muniz, O’Guinn 2001; Füller, Matzler, Hoppe 2008)

  18. Theoretical Background: Online Community Platforms • Third party platforms: • Innovation intermediary • Helps other companies to implement open innovation into their business • Two-sided market between innovator and inventor (Schroll, Römer2011, Chesbrough 2006; Möslein, Reichwald, Kölling 2011; Ollila, Elmquist 2011) • Social media • Low-cost possibility to connect with users • Critical mass cannot always be reached (Schroll, Römer2011) • Self-designed platform • Better to control • Community is smaller (Schroll, Römer 2011)

  19. Method and Data: Interview Procedure • Informed via email about the research project • 5 interviews personally at the company • 5 telephone interviews • Interview guideline ensured that the obtained data was comparable • Rather guided conversations, open-ended, and held in German • Tape-recorded • Conducted between August and September 2012 • The length of an interview ranged between ten minutes and one hour with an average duration of forty minutes • Audio files were transcribed with the software F5 • Topics of the interview guideline: • Experiences with open innovationand unserAller • Comparison with their brand community • Influence of open innovation on their product development process

  20. Method and Data: Evaluation Procedure • Evaluated with a self-developed category system, based on Mayring’s (2010) qualitative content analysis • Inductive and deductive category generation • Five categories: • Open innovation in general • Social media/ unserAller • Impact of customer integration • Growth • Future • Interviews were coded with the software MaxQDA • Inter-rater reliability with an arithmetic mean of 88.75 %

More Related