مشخصات مقاله | |
انتشار | مقاله سال 2017 |
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی | 20 صفحه |
هزینه | دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان میباشد. |
منتشر شده در | نشریه امرالد |
نوع نگارش مقاله | مقاله پژوهشی (Research article) |
مقاله بیس | این مقاله بیس میباشد |
نوع مقاله | ISI |
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله | Fair play: Perceived fairness in crowdsourcing competitions and the customer relationship-related consequences |
ترجمه عنوان مقاله | بازی جوانمردانه: عدالت درک شده در مسابقات crowdsourcing و پیامدهای ارتباط با مشتری |
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی | |
رشته های مرتبط | مدیریت |
گرایش های مرتبط | مدیریت منابع انسانی |
مجله | تصمیم گیری در مدیریت – Management Decision |
دانشگاه | Centre for Integrative Innovation Management – University of Southern Denmark – Denmark |
کلمات کلیدی | جمع سپاری، ایجاد همکاری، عدالت رویه ای، روابط مشتری، عدالت توزیع |
کلمات کلیدی انگلیسی | Crowdsourcing, Co-creation, Procedural fairness, Customer relationship, Distributive fairness |
شناسه دیجیتال – doi |
https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-02-2017-0116 |
کد محصول | E8799 |
وضعیت ترجمه مقاله | ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید. |
دانلود رایگان مقاله | دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی |
سفارش ترجمه این مقاله | سفارش ترجمه این مقاله |
بخشی از متن مقاله: |
Introduction
Skyrocketing customer participation and engagement in crowdsourcing contests is shifting the focus of corporate marketing and innovation activities. Through connectivity and interaction, companies are using online platform technologies to “outsource” the ideation efforts to a worldwide pool of talented people (Terwiesch and Xu, 2008). On the basis of current literature studies the landscape of crowdsourcing approaches may seem astounding. Crowd contests, collaborative communities, crowd complementors, labor markets, innovation events, integrator platforms, two-sided platforms or marketplaces are distinct forms with each suited to a specific kind of challenge or task (Boudreau and Lakhani, 2013; Bernhardt et al., 2016; Kohler, 2015). Above and beyond various technical distinctions, crowdsourcing tool characteristics generally vary in terms of compensation (monetary or non-monetary), the method of participation and interaction (collaborative or competitive), the time frame (temporary or ongoing) and the platform host (company-owned or intermediary platforms) (Howe, 2008; Schenk and Guittard, 2011; Vukovic, 2009; Bernhardt et al., 2016; Kohler, 2015). We focus on company-owned crowdsourcing contests, where participants self-select to work on their own solutions and compete to win an offered prize for the best solution within a certain time period ( Jeppesen and Lakhani, 2010; Terwiesch and Xu, 2008). Besides contributing their own ideas, participants are often allowed to comment on other contributions, exchange ideas, ask questions and give feedback to other participants. When companies decide to launch their own crowdsourcing initiative, as a hosting organization they can directly engage with consumers and users, and generate valuable outcomes that go beyond receiving innovative ideas or designs (Kozinets et al., 2008). For example, such company-owned crowdsourcing activities can create collective commitment toward new offerings (Nambisan and Baron, 2007), higher commercialization capabilities (Poetz and Schreier, 2012), large scale consumer-to-consumer as well as consumer-to-brand interaction, dissemination of online word-of-mouth (WOM) communication (Kozinets et al., 2010; Zwass, 2010) as well as brand loyalty (Malthouse et al., 2013). The basic argument put forward is that crowdsourcing initiatives provide individuals with opportunities for ongoing involvement and personal engagement with a company and its products or services over several weeks. While developing and cracking the challenge for the sponsor (the company) the crowdsourcing activity strengthens the relationship between the hosting company and the crowdsourcing participants thereby also increasing loyalty intentions (Nambisan and Baron, 2007; Kozinets et al., 2010). However, increased openness and collaboration also conceals risks (Gatzweiler et al., 2013, 2017), and may in contrast to the positive effects cause frustration and other negative feelings among loyal participants (Roehm and Tybout, 2006; Ward and Ostrom, 2006). |