众包惯例:专家参与的行为和动机基础

IF 2.8 4区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS Industrial and Corporate Change Pub Date : 2023-10-27 DOI:10.1093/icc/dtad056
Mehdi Bagherzadeh, Andrei Gurca, Rezvan Velayati
{"title":"众包惯例:专家参与的行为和动机基础","authors":"Mehdi Bagherzadeh, Andrei Gurca, Rezvan Velayati","doi":"10.1093/icc/dtad056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As different crowdsourcing routines (metaphorically labeled as “fishing” and “hunting” in this study) are available to address highly technical problems, solution-seeking organizations need to mindfully design, select, and deploy crowdsourcing routines that account for the behavior and motivation of experts. Drawing on a survey involving 260 experts in science, technology, engineering, and math fields, we found that elite experts (individuals with seniority, aged over 40, and a proven track record in the field with numerous publications and patents) are generally less inclined to search for crowdsourcing open calls and prefer to be contacted by solution seekers. In contrast, non-elite experts (early career experts, aged under 40, and with fewer patents and publications) actively search to find open calls. Regarding their motivational underpinnings, our findings suggest that elite experts are motivated more by non-financial incentives than non-elite experts. Furthermore, as the frequency with which they are contacted increases, non-elite experts tend to prefer more non-financial over financial incentives. These results indicate that the fishing crowdsourcing routine generally elicits solutions from unproven, non-elite experts who demand more financial rewards. However, the hunting routine taps a pool of elite experts with proven capabilities who are less financially oriented and thus may provide better, yet less expensive solutions.","PeriodicalId":48243,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Corporate Change","volume":"2 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crowdsourcing routines: the behavioral and motivational underpinnings of expert participation\",\"authors\":\"Mehdi Bagherzadeh, Andrei Gurca, Rezvan Velayati\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/icc/dtad056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract As different crowdsourcing routines (metaphorically labeled as “fishing” and “hunting” in this study) are available to address highly technical problems, solution-seeking organizations need to mindfully design, select, and deploy crowdsourcing routines that account for the behavior and motivation of experts. Drawing on a survey involving 260 experts in science, technology, engineering, and math fields, we found that elite experts (individuals with seniority, aged over 40, and a proven track record in the field with numerous publications and patents) are generally less inclined to search for crowdsourcing open calls and prefer to be contacted by solution seekers. In contrast, non-elite experts (early career experts, aged under 40, and with fewer patents and publications) actively search to find open calls. Regarding their motivational underpinnings, our findings suggest that elite experts are motivated more by non-financial incentives than non-elite experts. Furthermore, as the frequency with which they are contacted increases, non-elite experts tend to prefer more non-financial over financial incentives. These results indicate that the fishing crowdsourcing routine generally elicits solutions from unproven, non-elite experts who demand more financial rewards. However, the hunting routine taps a pool of elite experts with proven capabilities who are less financially oriented and thus may provide better, yet less expensive solutions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48243,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Industrial and Corporate Change\",\"volume\":\"2 2\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Industrial and Corporate Change\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtad056\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial and Corporate Change","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtad056","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

由于不同的众包程序(在本研究中隐喻地标记为“钓鱼”和“狩猎”)可用于解决高度技术性的问题,寻求解决方案的组织需要谨慎地设计、选择和部署众包程序,以解释专家的行为和动机。我们对260名科学、技术、工程和数学领域的专家进行了调查,发现精英专家(年龄在40岁以上,在该领域拥有大量出版物和专利的资深人士)通常不太倾向于搜索众包公开电话,而是更愿意与寻求解决方案的人联系。相比之下,非精英专家(职业生涯初期的专家,年龄在40岁以下,专利和出版物较少)会积极寻找公开招聘。关于他们的动机基础,我们的研究结果表明,精英专家比非精英专家更容易受到非经济激励的激励。此外,随着与他们接触频率的增加,非精英专家往往更喜欢非经济激励而不是经济激励。这些结果表明,捕鱼众包通常会从未经证实的非精英专家那里获得解决方案,这些专家要求更多的经济回报。然而,这种狩猎程序利用了一群精英专家,他们的能力得到了证明,他们不太以财务为导向,因此可能会提供更好、更便宜的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Crowdsourcing routines: the behavioral and motivational underpinnings of expert participation
Abstract As different crowdsourcing routines (metaphorically labeled as “fishing” and “hunting” in this study) are available to address highly technical problems, solution-seeking organizations need to mindfully design, select, and deploy crowdsourcing routines that account for the behavior and motivation of experts. Drawing on a survey involving 260 experts in science, technology, engineering, and math fields, we found that elite experts (individuals with seniority, aged over 40, and a proven track record in the field with numerous publications and patents) are generally less inclined to search for crowdsourcing open calls and prefer to be contacted by solution seekers. In contrast, non-elite experts (early career experts, aged under 40, and with fewer patents and publications) actively search to find open calls. Regarding their motivational underpinnings, our findings suggest that elite experts are motivated more by non-financial incentives than non-elite experts. Furthermore, as the frequency with which they are contacted increases, non-elite experts tend to prefer more non-financial over financial incentives. These results indicate that the fishing crowdsourcing routine generally elicits solutions from unproven, non-elite experts who demand more financial rewards. However, the hunting routine taps a pool of elite experts with proven capabilities who are less financially oriented and thus may provide better, yet less expensive solutions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: The journal covers the following: the internal structures of firms; the history of technologies; the evolution of industries; the nature of competition; the decision rules and strategies; the relationship between firms" characteristics and the institutional environment; the sociology of management and of the workforce; the performance of industries over time; the labour process and the organization of production; the relationship between, and boundaries of, organizations and markets; the nature of the learning process underlying technological and organizational change.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge-based approaches to the firm: an idea-driven perspective Homeowners’ financial vulnerability over the house price cycle How heuristic pricing shapes the aggregate market: the “Cheap Twin Paradox” Beyond trading: knowledge spillovers and learning-by-exporting in global value chains Export performance, innovation, and sectoral efficiency: a multilevel model for Argentinian manufacturing firms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1