the contribution of different online communities in open innovation projects

The Contribution of Different Online Communities in Open Innovation Projects

Michael A. ZengHelmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg

Institute of Technology and Innovation ManagementProf. Dr. Hans Koller

Michael A. Zeng The Contribution of Different Online Communities in Open Innovation Projects

2

Agenda

1. Research Questions2. Empirical Field3. Method4. Findings5. Future Research

July 28, 2014


3

Motivation

July 28, 2014


4

Research Questions

July 28, 2014

Idea generation Screening Development Testing Launch

How do brand communities and innovation communities differ?

How could they be used best in new product development processes?

Innovation community Brand community

? ? ?


5

Empirical Field

July 28, 2014

Innovation community Brand community

powered by


6

Method: Sample

July 28, 2014

Company Business area Number of employees

unserAller Project

α Jewelry eight Ring; collection set β Hosiery/ legwear three Garter for Oktoberfestγ Restaurant ten Wafer toppingδ Restaurant two Breakfast; business lunchε Fashion two Belt ζ Town planning two Suggestions for donationsη Cosmetic two Face care set θ Public bath one Suggestions to renew a public bathι Distillery three Carnival liqueurκ Social aid programs two Language application


Method: Research design

July 28, 20147

Interview guideline developed

Interviews conducted

Interviews transcribed using the software F5

Category system developed (qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2010))

Interviews categorized in MaxQDA Inter-rater reliability: 89%


8

Findings

July 28, 2014


Innovation communityo n c r o w d s o u r c in g p la tf o r m

Innovation communityon crowdsourcing platform

Brand loyalty

Innovative members

Ope

nin

nova

tion

proc

ess

Marketing effect

Would be best to bring the potential of both communities together in a harmonized form

Brand communityo n s o c ia l n e t w o r k

Brand communityon social network



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?

July 28, 2014


10

Thank you! Questions?

ContactMichael ZengHelmut-Schmidt-University/ University of the Federal Armed Forces HamburgInstitute of Technology and Innovation ManagementHolstenhofweg 8522043 HamburgGermany

+49 40 6541 [email protected]

July 28, 2014


11

BACKUP

July 28, 2014


12

Findings

July 28, 2014


Innovation communityo n c r o w d s o u r c in g p la tf o r m

Innovation communityon crowdsourcing platform

Brand loyalty

Innovative members

Ope

nin

nova

tion

proc

ess

Marketing effect

Would be best to bring the potential of both communities together in a harmonized form

Brand communityo n s o c ia l n e t w o r k

Brand communityon social network



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

July 28, 2014


Example

14July 28, 2014


15

Example

July 28, 2014


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.

July 28, 2014


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)

July 28, 2014


18

• Self-designed platform– Better to control– Community is smaller(Schroll, Römer 2011)

• Third party platforms:– Innovation intermediary

• Helps other companies to implement open innovation into their business

• Two-sided market between innovator and inventor

(Schroll, Römer 2011, 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, Römer 2011)

July 28, 2014

Theoretical Background: Online Community Platforms


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 innovation and unserAller– Comparison with their brand community– Influence of open innovation on their product development process

July 28, 2014


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 %

July 28, 2014

the contribution of different online communities in open innovation projects

Documents

innovation communities

innovation managementprof

existing innovation

current innovation process

brand communities

facebook application

facebook fanpage

implementation of unseraller