Ozan, H. (2009). Incentives for User Participation in Open Innovation Networks

8/14/2019 Ozan, H. (2009). Incentives for User Participation in Open Innovation Networks

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ozan-h-2009-incentives-for-user-participation-in-open-innovation-networks 1/5

“INCENTIVES FOR USER PARTICIPATION INOPEN INNOVATION NETWORKS”Håkan Ozan, CSC

November 2009



Peer collaboration in innovation networks may becommenced for various reasons. In this article those reasonsare explored and we briefly discuss the lock-in effects that

come with them.

Innovation networks are founded on peer expertise.

People who participate in innovation

networks usually form a dedicated

community of members existing

outside conventional organizations

but sharing a common interest or

area of expertise. Membership and

roles within the community are based

on contribution and merit, not on

external hierarchical status. The

community develops its own internal

hierarchy based on skills andcontributions.

Main incentives are peer

recognition and the value of

[product] improvements

People initially join innovation

networks because they are fascinated

by the challenge and care deeply

about the goals of their community.

Their primary currency of reward is

peer recognition. (Gloor, 2005) Otherprimary values for participants are to

1) build wider networks and connect

to people with complementary

business-critical competence, 2) build

personal relationships with leaders in

the field, which will improve their own

productivity, 3) learn new skills and

often find themselves promoted.

Open source software communities

for example are composed of

individuals who collaborate toward a

common goal but do not share a

common employer and are not

governed by an employment

hierarchy. According to the inventor

of the open source software ApacheCocoon, the strongest driver for open

source developers is to boost their

ego by gaining a reputation as a

supreme programmer. Even though

the voluntary work in open source

projects does not pay off

immediately, it is considered a long-

term career investment. In a large

web-based study of Linux developers’

motivation, three main categories

were found; 1) collective motives tohelp the community reach its goals, 2)

peer recognition motives, to work

with good people and to have them

recognize your capabilities, 3) direct

reward motives, such as learning,

having fun or making money.

”INCENTIVES FOR USER PARTICIPATION INOPEN INNOVATION NETWORKS” Håkan Ozan, CSC

November 2009



In a recent study performed by a

research team at the Airport Living

Lab the participating user innovators

where questioned for the motivational

drivers for participation. In this

specific study all participants were

employees at the airport but withdifferent work roles. The single most

popular incentive was “improving my

own work

situation”.

Hence,

when

voluntary

activity was

an option

to make their own situation better,

they were well willing to work (to a

certain limit) extra without personal

financial gain to achieve a better

situation for themselves, since this

would improve their overall work

experience. Also highly regarded, but

still way behind the leading

alternative, was “intellectually

stimulating” and “collaborating

collectively” while the incentive

“financial compensation” was rated

surprisingly low.

Innovation network participationmay lead to long-term commitmentsdue to lock-in effects

People who have joined a network andstarted collaborating with peers willbe less likely to leave the community.There are primarily four reasons forthis:

- Recognition. When interacting with

peers there are increased likeliness of receiving positive feedback fordistinguished traits of the participant.

For many, itis

importantto interactin acommunity

where yourspecial

knowledge is appreciated. Leaving the

community would mean ending therecognition stimulus.- Belonging . When relationships havebeen built within the network, bothemotionally and professionally, theymay all be lost if membership isdiscontinued. For very deepengagements, participants may evengive up other external relationshipsthat compete for participants’available time.- Investment . Once certaininvestments have been made to the

community - may they be man-hours,monetary or skill - the investmentmade will not turn into profit if thenetwork is abandoned.

”INCENTIVES FOR USER PARTICIPATION INOPEN INNOVATION NETWORKS” Håkan Ozan, CSC

November 2009



- Decisiveness . When members havestarted working towards a mutualgoal, they may get very absorbed byreaching targets so that backing outis not an option. One underlyingreason may be simple stubbornness;

another may be the engagement of actually fulfilling the goals, or solvingthe targeted problems, of the group -not for the sake of securing theprofits but for the intrinsic purpose of finishing what has been started.

By joining innovation networks,participants find that they are able toget better faster by working withothers in the networks rather thanworking on their own. Successful

innovation networks must thereforefocus on building long-termrelationships with participants,creating opportunities for repeatedinteractions that demonstrate thevalue of cooperation. ¶

”INCENTIVES FOR USER PARTICIPATION IN

OPEN INNOVATION NETWORKS” Håkan Ozan, CSC

November 2009



1

Open InnovationFrom the Open Innovation Forum’s perspective open innovation involves all aspects of creating new business opportunities by engaging end-users in co-creative activities. Web

2.0 technologies has caused electronic collaboration to evolve, hence paving the way forcompanies to invite customers and employees to be involved in the refinement of theirofferings. Ideally open innovation will create win-win situations where users get servicesthat are more oriented to their needs and organizations will offer services that are moredesired by the market.

The Open Innovation ForumThe Open Innovation Forum aims at being a knowledge hub and rallying point for user-oriented open innovation, where innovation experts and researchers can collaborate onimproving theories and practices, while open innovation novices are invited to follow, ortake active part, in the development of the area.

www.openinnovationforum.com

“INCENTIVES FOR USER PARTICIPATION INOPEN INNOVATION NETWORKS”

Håkan Ozan, CSCHåkan Ozan is a strategic management consultant at Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) who is specialized in IT strategy and innovation management. He is the Innovation Manager of CSC Swedenand has an M.Sc in Computer Science and a B.Sc. in Economics. He has been working with, and researching, practical open innovation for several years and is currently the project manager of theAirport Living Lab at Stockholm-Arlanda Airport and the project manager of the Open InnovationFrameworks research project.Further reading

Ghazarian, N. (2009). User Studies Within a Living Lab Context – Case Studies From Airport Living Lab. Master Thesis in Computer Science, Uppsala University.

Gloor, P. A., (2005). Swarm Creativity - Competitive Advantage through CollaborativeInnovation Networks. Oxford University Press.

Hagel III, J. & Seely Brown, J. (2006). Creation Nets: Harnessing the Potential of OpenInnovation.

West, J. & O’Mahoney, S. (2008). The Role of Participation Architecture in Growing Sponsored Open Source Communities.

The content in this article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribute 3.0 License, which allows the materialto freely be copied, distributed, transmitted and remixed as long as the work is attributed to the original authors.

Documents

Ozan, H. (2009). Incentives for User Participation in Open Innovation Networks