Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search
1. Introduction
The paper “Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search” written by Lars Bo Jeppesen and Karim R. Lakhani in 2010 primarily addresses the question which kinds of external solvers are able to generate successful solutions within an innovation contest when problem information is revealed widely and contest participation is unconstrained. For that purpose the authors distinguish between solvers who possess deep knowledge and experience in the problem domain and individuals who are “marginal” and have knowledge or approaches from analogous domains that may create effective solutions. The authors’ overall objective is to show that the latter – the marginality of external solvers – is a statistically important predictor of problem-solving process. In addition they postulate two distinct ways of being marginal in problem solving, namely technical and social marginality. The former describes the distance between the solvers` field of expertise and the focal field of the problem, whereas social marginality is associated with being female, as women have been shown to be less involved in high-status science careers (Jeppesen and Lakhani 2010, Cole and Zuckerman 1984). On these basic principles the authors develop two hypothesises, which are the object of research in this paper. On the one hand they claim that successful solution generation in a broadcast search context will be positively associated with increasing technical marginality. And on the other hand they hypothesize that being a woman, i.e. social marginality, will lead to effective and winning solutions (Jeppesen and Lakhani 2010).
Whereas the academic literature of innovation contests is primarily focused on issues such as the optimal tournament design, incentives for participation, award size, entry criteria or the optimal size of the solver pool, there still exists a high lack of scientific knowledge about what determines who will be a successful solver and who not
The paper “Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search” written by Lars Bo Jeppesen and Karim R. Lakhani in 2010 primarily addresses the question which kinds of external solvers are able to generate successful solutions within an innovation contest when problem information is revealed widely and contest participation is unconstrained. For that purpose the authors distinguish between solvers who possess deep knowledge and experience in the problem domain and individuals who are “marginal” and have knowledge or approaches from analogous domains that may create effective solutions. The authors’ overall objective is to show that the latter – the marginality of external solvers – is a statistically important predictor of problem-solving process. In addition they postulate two distinct ways of being marginal in problem solving, namely technical and social marginality. The former describes the distance between the solvers` field of expertise and the focal field of the problem, whereas social marginality is associated with being female, as women have been shown to be less involved in high-status science careers (Jeppesen and Lakhani 2010, Cole and Zuckerman 1984). On these basic principles the authors develop two hypothesises, which are the object of research in this paper. On the one hand they claim that successful solution generation in a broadcast search context will be positively associated with increasing technical marginality. And on the other hand they hypothesize that being a woman, i.e. social marginality, will lead to effective and winning solutions (Jeppesen and Lakhani 2010).
Whereas the academic literature of innovation contests is primarily focused on issues such as the optimal tournament design, incentives for participation, award size, entry criteria or the optimal size of the solver pool, there still exists a high lack of scientific knowledge about what determines who will be a successful solver and who not
References: Abernathy, W.J., R.S. Rosenbloom. 1969. Parallel Strategies in Development Projects. Management Science 15(10) 486-505. Allen, T. J. 1970. Communication networks in R&D labs. R&D Management 1(1) 14–21. Ben-David, J. 1960. Roles and innovations in medicine. Amer. J. Sociol. 65(6) 557–558. Boudreau, K., Lacetera, N., Lakhani, K. 2010. The effects of increasing competition and uncertainty on incentives and extreme-value outcomes in innovation contests. forthcoming. Che, Y Cole, J. R., H. Zuckerman. 1984. The productivity puzzle. M. L. Maehr, M. W. Steinkamp, eds. Advances in Motivation and Achievement. JAI Press, Stamford, CT, 217–258. Croson, R., U. Gneezy. 2008. Gender differences in preferences. J. Econom. Literature 47(2) 1–27. Dahan, E., H. Mendelson. 2001. An Extreme-Value Model of Concept Testing. Management Science 47(1) 102-116. Duncker, K. 1945. On problem solving. Psych. Monographs 58. Fullerton, R Hamilton, B. H., J. A. Nickerson. 2003. Correcting for endogeneity in strategic management research. Stategic Organ. 1(1) 51–78. Handberg, R. 1984. Response to Gieryn and Hirsch. Soc. Stud. Sci. 14 622–624. Jeppesen, L. B., K. R. Lakhani. 2010. Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search. Organization Sci. Articles in Advance 1-18. Lovett, M Luchins, A. S. 1942. Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psych. Monographs 54. Marengo, L., G. Dosi, P. Legrenzi, C. Pasquali. 2000. The structure of problem-solving knowledge and the structure of organizations. Indust. Corporate Change 9(4) 757–788. McLaughlin. 2001. Optimal marginality: Innovation and orthodoxy in Fromm’s revision of psychoanalysis. Sociol. Quart. 42(2) 271–288. Nalebuff, B. J., J. E. Stiglitz, 1983. Prices and incentives: Towards a general theory of compensation and competition. Bell Journal of Economics 14(1) 21-43. Nelson, R.R. 1961. Uncertainty, Learning, and the Economics of Parallel Research and Development Efforts. The Review of Economics and Statistics 43(4) 351-364. Niederle, M., L. Vesterlund. 2007. Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Quart. J. Econom. 122(3) 1067–1101. Sørensen, J. B., T. E. Stuart. 2000. Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(1) 81–112. Stanworth, M. J. K., J. Curran. 2007. Growth and the small firm: An alternative view. Journal of Management Studies 13(2) 95-110. Taylor, C Terwiesch, C., Y. Xu. 2008. Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Sci. 54(9) 1529–1543. Villarroel, J. A., F. Reis 2010. Intra-corporate crowdsourcing (ICC): Leveraging up rank and site marginality for innovation. CrowdConf. 2010. San Francisco, CA.