GETTING INSIDE YOUR EMPLOYEES’ HEADS:

NAVIGATING BARRIERS TO INTERNAL-

CROWDSOURCING FOR PRODUCT AND SERVICE
INNOVATION
Research-in-Progress
Lee B. Erickson Eileen M. Trauth
The Pennsylvania State University The Pennsylvania State University
College of Information Sciences and College of Information Sciences and
Technology Technology
lbe108@psu.edu etrauth@ist.psu.edu
Irene Petrick
The Pennsylvania State University
College of Information Sciences and Technology
ipetrick@ist.psu.edu
Abstract
Organizations are beginning to experiment with the use of the “crowd” to complete tasks
commonly performed by employees or designated agents. While “crowdsourcing” is
growing, we know little about common uses of the crowd and the challenges such
initiatives present. Findings from a grounded theory study reveal four common uses by
established organizations: productivity, product/service innovation, knowledge
capture, and marketing/branding. Further, leveraging internal crowds for
product/service innovation may present unique challenges. Based on findings, an
Internal-Crowdsourcing Acceptance Model illustrates the role of proactive executive
leadership in breaking through organizational structure and processes that act as
barriers to acceptance and use of internal-crowdsourcing platforms. The anticipated
theoretical contribution of this research is the finding that internal-crowdsourcing
presents many of the same challenges to organizations as faced in open innovation
initiatives. Its anticipated contribution to practice is the identification of the role
proactive executive leadership plays in reducing barriers to successful outcomes.

Keywords: crowdsourcing, innovation, open innovation, organizational change,

leadership, organizational dynamics, Internal-Crowdsourcing Acceptance Model,
grounded theory

Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando 2012 1

Introduction
With the introduction of the Internet and new collaborative social media tools, organizations are
beginning to leverage the productivity and collective intelligence of the crowd to supplement or even
replace current in-house processes. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as “crowdsourcing” (Howe,
2006), is gaining popularity in both scholarly literature and in practice. Originally defined by Howe
(2006), crowdsourcing is “the act of a company or institution taking a function once performed by
employees and outsourcing it to an undefined (and generally large) network of people in the form of an
open call.” At this early stage of inquiry, relatively little is known regarding the strategic use of the crowd
by established organizations. The phenomenon is under theorized and there is a lack a substantive
understanding regarding the risks, challenges, and impacts crowdsourcing initiatives have on the
organizations that implement them. As such, more research is needed to build theoretical understanding
that can guide both research and practice related to this new emerging phenomenon.
This paper presents preliminary results from a grounded theory study of trends and patterns associated
with the use of the crowd by established organizations. While new businesses have also been built on a
crowdsourcing business model (Howe, 2008), the focus here is on established organizations attempting to
integrate crowdsourcing into current innovation practices. In this context, innovation is defined as new
ideas or solutions to problems that lead to improvements or advancements for the organization within
their marketplace (Hurley and Hult, 1998; Martins and Treblanche, 2003). Innovation may result in
incremental or breakthrough products/services, reduction in costs, improved productivity, or entry into
new unexplored markets.
We begin with an overview of the state of crowdsourcing research. This is followed by a discussion of
research methodology and data sources. Next, we present findings that identify four common uses of
crowdsourcing by established organizations. Finally we propose an Internal-Crowdsourcing Acceptance
Model that outlines organizational challenges at play when attempting to leverage internal crowds for
product and service innovation.

Background
Within both academic and business literature the term crowdsourcing has become synonymous with a
wide variety of activities and an equally wide variety of “crowds.” Organizations are currently leveraging
the crowd to improve algorithms (Lindley, 2009), to create new knowledge bases (Ghafele et. al., 2011;
Wiggins and Crowston, 2011), to collect distributed data (Chilton, 2009; Haklay and Weber, 2008), to
solve routine time-consuming tasks (Barrington et. al., 2009; Howe, 2008), to solve complex R&D
problems (Howe, 2008; Lakhani et. al., 2007), for marketing and market research (Brabham, 2009; Piller
et. al., 2000; Whitla, 2009), and for ideation related to new products and services (Di Gangi and Wasko,
2009; Jeppesen and Frederiksen, 2006).
Across this variety of uses, a wide variety of different “crowds” are participating. Crowds may include
individuals both “outside” and “inside the firewall” (i.e., employees) (Stewart et. al., 2009), current
customers or product communities (Di Gangi and Wasko, 2009), as well as the general public (Haklay
and Weber, 2008). Crowds also come with different skills and knowledge, and provide different value to
the organization (Erickson et. al., 2012a). Further, the number of individuals who participate varies
greatly. Of the studies that report number of participants, numbers range from as few as 127 (Leimeister
et. al., 2009) to over 150,000 (Ringo, 2007).
Finally, a number of studies have reported both tangible and intangible benefits of crowdsourcing
(Anthes, 2010; Poetz and Schreier, 2012). Yet others report negative impacts such as decreased time to
market (Knudsen and Mortensen, 2011), more costly and resource intensive projects (Jouret, 2009),
increased costs in setting up legal frameworks and protecting IP (Jouret, 2009), and loss of control by the
organization (Bonabeau, 2009).
While research to date has increased awareness of this new phenomenon, we know relatively little about
the strategic uses of crowdsourcing by established organizations. To address this gap, this study attempts
to: 1) identify the common uses of the crowd by established organizations and 2) to determine what

Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando 2012 2

 Erickson et. al. / Barriers to Internal-Crowdsouring for Innovation

challenges these organizations face when attempting to leverage crowdsourcing to meet specific
organizational needs.

Research Methods
Because crowdsourcing is a relatively new phenomenon with limited empirical research and a lack of
substantive theory, we employ grounded theory methods to uncover themes and patterns related to our
research questions (Fernández, 2004; Orlikowski, 1993). The goal in doing so is to generate an
explanatory theory that is grounded in the experiences of those currently engaged in these initiatives. Our
data sources included: 1) a comprehensive review of crowdsourcing literature, 2) interviews with
practitioners across a wide variety of organizations, and 3) exploratory case studies with organizations
currently engaged in crowdsourcing.
In line with grounded theory methods, literature was used as a source of data and not as a source of
theoretical positioning (Glaser and Holton, 2004). A total of 106 peer-reviewed journal articles,
conference papers, and books were reviewed to identify current uses and organizational implications of
such uses. Further, because in-context understanding is critical to understanding the challenges
organizations may face when leveraging the crowd, interviews with practitioners and case studies were
deemed critical for building new theory (Gregor, 2006; Klein and Myers, 1999; Yin, 1998). Eighteen semi-
structured interviews with practitioners in small, medium, and large U.S. organizations were conducted to
assess potential uses of the crowd and organizational issues related to the implementation of
crowdsourcing initiatives.
Based on analysis of practitioner interviews criteria for inclusion in the case study portion of the study
were created. Criteria included: mature organizations (3+ years) with 100+ employees, using online
channels to crowdsource one or more stages of product/service innovation. Six companies were recruited
to participate as field case sites. Five cases employed over 500 employees with one slightly over 100. Field
sites represented a wide variety of industries including car manufacturing, defense contracting, document
processing, and governmental institutions. By focusing on multiple organizations, identification of within-
case and across-case patterns can further facilitate theory building (Eisenhardt, 1989). Twenty-eight
individuals at multiple levels within each organization were interviewed using open-ended questions built
around a flexible interview protocol (Myers, 2009). Interviews lasted between 30 to 90 minutes each and
discussion focused on the organization’s motivation for engaging the crowd, the task(s) to be complete,
the crowd being targeted, the processes for integrating the crowd’s input into current innovation
practices, facilitators of and barriers to implementation, resources required, value realized, and
unexpected outcomes or issues.

Data Analysis
Analysis was focused on both the specific crowdsourcing initiative under study as well as the impacts of
such initiatives on the organization. Using grounded theory methods, patterns and trends emerged
through an iterative process of data collection, coding, and categorization (Bryant and Charmaz, 2007;
Glaser and Strauss, 1967). Because the purpose was to build theory, no pre-existing categories or
theoretical framework was used. Instead, open coding was used to identify initial themes.
Open coding of the corpus of crowdsourcing literature led to the identification of fifty-eight characteristics
related to the organizational use of crowdsourcing. Axial coding was used to further abstract and
categorize identified characteristics. This resulted in the identification of three key categories, specifically
organizational goals, desired outcomes, and common tasks. Concurrently, open coding of interviews
from the six case studies revealed themes related to organizational needs, as well as desired outcomes.
This led to the identification of the core category of “use” (i.e., linkages between needs, goals and desired
outcomes.) After identification of the core category of use, selective coding was used to explore the
relationship between use and other emergent themes with the purpose of building a theoretical
framework.

Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando 2012 3

Digital and Social Networks

Findings
Analysis revealed four common uses of the crowd by established organizations, specifically: 1)
productivity, 2) product/service innovation, 3) knowledge capture, and 4) marketing/branding (Erickson
et. al., 2012a, 2012b). Productivity use is the use of the crowd to reduce costs associated with the
completion of routine time-consuming tasks. Product/service innovation use is the use of the crowd to
gain competitive advantage by identifying opportunities to improve or extend offerings. Knowledge
capture use is the accumulation of distributed knowledge in a central location. Finally,
marketing/branding use is the use of the crowd to increase sales and brand affinity by engaging
customers in creative or market research activities.
Further, findings indicate that organizations face unique challenges when leveraging internal crowds (i.e.,
employees) for ideation. Three of the six cases in our study were reaching out to internal crowds for
ideation related to existing and new products and services. These organizations employed between
60,000 to 500,000 individuals and included an international car manufacturer, a governmental
institution, and a defense contractor. In each case a new group was created to mange the implementation
and on-going management of the internal crowdsourcing platform.
Across these cases, we saw consistent patterns related to challenges in overcoming current organizational
structure and processes. Challenges included issues related to internal buy-in and acceptance as well as
difficulties in integrating crowdsourcing initiatives into current organizational practices. Similar issues
did not emerge in our cases where the crowd was being leveraged for productivity, knowledge capture, or
marketing/branding.
The remainder of this paper focuses on our finding that organizations face unique challenges when
attempting to integrate and leverage internal crowds for product/service innovation. Specifically, the
organizations in our study faced two key challenges: 1) a misalignment between the values of an open
crowdsourcing process and current organizational perceptions of value and 2) incompatibilities between
new crowdsourcing processes and current organizational practices. Both created barriers to the use of
internal-crowdsourcing initiatives and the acceptance of the ideas that were generated.

Organizational Perceptions of Value as Barriers to Internal-Crowdsourcing

In the three cases under study, key to the adoption of internal-crowdsourcing for product/service
innovation was the ability to break through traditional organizational perceptions of value. Specifically,
the value an individual brings to the innovation process (what we refer to as personal value) as well as the
value innovation brings to the organization (referred to as innovation value).

Personal Value: Contribution Versus Title

Opening up innovation to employees outside the currently sanctioned innovation group(s) presupposes
that all employees, regardless of position and training, can add value to the innovation process. In our
cases, executives attempting to launch internal-crowdsourcing initiatives believed that an employee’s
value was a function of their contribution and not the value their job title or job description implies.
However, all individuals within the organization did not share this perception of value. Instead,
interviewees reported that value was often seen as a function of job title or role.
Resistance to the acceptance of ideas generated by internal-crowds manifested itself in different ways.
While some executives within sanctioned innovation groups saw the benefit of employee-wide ideation,
others felt threatened or failed to see the value “outsiders” brought to the process. Further, both
executives and managers were often reluctant to consider ideas from outsiders who were perceived as not
understanding the feasibility of bringing new ideas to market. Non-managers working in innovation
groups were also skeptical of outside ideas and on occasion actually mocked ideas from outside their
group. As such perceptions of personal value as a function of job title/function often acted as barriers to
both the use of internal ideation platforms and the acceptance of ideas that were generated.

4 Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando 2012

 Erickson et. al. / Barriers to Internal-Crowdsouring for Innovation

Innovation Value: Tangible and Intangible

Traditionally, within large organizations innovation is measured in terms of economic gains from price,
patents, and IP (Teece, 1986; Pisano and Teece, 2007; Sherry and Teece, 2004). As such, executives focus
on how best to extract and measure these tangible benefits. In our cases, proponent of internal-
crowdsourcing viewed the value of such initiatives as both tangible and intangible. Further, not all value
was directly tied to traditional measures of innovation. Specifically, interviewees reported positive
changes in employee morale, enhanced cross-functional collaboration, and the building of an innovative
company culture. Further, executives spearheading crowdsourcing initiatives resisted attaching
quantifiable measure to their initiatives because it was difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the
intangible benefits of such initiatives. That is, a focus only on the tangible traditional measures of
innovation diminished or de-valued the intangible benefits internal-crowdsourcing might bring to the
organization. In short, acceptance of internal-crowdsourcing was facilitated by a belief that innovation
value was both tangible and intangible.

Organizational Practices as Barriers to Internal-Crowdsourcing

In addition to the need to change perceptions of value, in our cases we also identified consistent themes
related to organizational practices creating barriers to acceptance and use. Specifically, organizations
struggled with overcoming issues related to established or institutionalized organizational structure as
well as organizational processes.

Organizational Structure: Protecting Hierarchical Status

Barriers related to organizational structure were seen across all three cases. In one case, the internal-
crowdsourcing initiative originated from within the organization’s IT department. This created friction
and resistance from other departments who were concerned that the IT group was not fulfilling its
designated duties. In short, innovation was seen as outside the “purview” of the operationally focused IT
department. Innovation and innovative ideas belonged to sanctioned innovation and R&D groups and as
such many were not supportive and outwardly critical of the IT department’s efforts to open up the
innovation process.
In a second case, departmental managers saw company-wide ideation initiatives as encroaching on job
responsibilities and bucking the current “chain of command.” As such, these managers often attempted to
protect their “turf,” instituting onerous processes within their departments or denying support to those
tasked with managing the ideation process. For example, in one case the individual tasked with
monitoring the ideation site for his department was instructed not to comment on or advance ideas on the
site without authorization from his immediate boss and boss’s boss. This allowed departmental managers
to tightly control which ideas moved forward and which did not. Interestingly, within the same case,
another manager in a different department was open to outside ideas even when those ideas required
additional work for her staff. Such ideas were not see as threatening. Instead, this manager viewed ideas
as ways to identify and improve the department’s performance. To facilitate the identification and
advancement of ideas, this manager assigned a member of her staff the daily responsibility of monitoring
the ideation platform. This employee was also given the autonomy to communicate with idea generators
for clarification and to update them on their status of their ideas. Further, this manager set expectations
that staff would collaborate across departments as necessary to advance ideas even when doing so was
outside the direct responsibilities of her group.
Finally, in a third case, potential issues related to the need to shift management practices from “pyramidal
structures” to more cross-functional team-based structures were reported. In this case, individuals within
the defined innovation group were hesitant to post ideas to company-wide sites for fear that their ideas
would be stolen or claimed by others thereby reducing their ability to personally benefit from them.
Further, these individuals did not collaborate with others online to advance proposed ideas preferring
instead to hold back ideas so as to maintain their unique and current status as innovative individuals
within the organization.

Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando 2012 5

Digital and Social Networks

Organizational Processes: Barriers to Entry

Current organizational practices also created hurdles for executives spearheading crowdsourcing
initiatives and for employees wishing to contribute to the innovation process. For example, in two cases
ideation was the domain of sanctioned innovation groups. Because these individuals had knowledge of
and experience in making a business cases for an idea, current processes required that all ideas be turned
into formal business presentations before being considered. This necessitated significant time and
business knowledge often not compatible with employee ideation. Even when individuals outside the
sanctioned innovation group were able to create formalized business presentations, if ideas were rejected
this was often seen as a “black mark” on the employee promoting the idea. While making the business
case is critical for advancing ideas, requiring all employees to do so at the early stage of the ideation
process created barriers to entry for those outside current innovation groups.
Other process barriers included administrative processes. In one case, all employees were required to
allocate time spent to individual budget categories for auditing purposes (i.e., a charge number was
required to account for employee’s time). Without an approved budget number, employees could not, and
would not, contribute to the ideation platform. Because the goal of the ideation platform was to generate
new or novel ideas not necessarily tied to existing projects, the executive spearheading of the initiative
had to work with the finance department to obtain approval and an appropriate budget number for
“charging” time spent on ideation.
Finally, processes related to legal and security issues also created barriers to use. In two cases, because of
the sensitive nature of the services provided ideation platforms were restricted to use only within
headquarters or sanctioned offices. That is, ideation platforms were not accessible by remote employees
or from non-work spaces after hours thus limiting usage.

The Role of Proactive Executive Leadership in Overcoming Barriers

Across our three cases, the presence of proactive executive leaders was key to overcoming organizational
barriers and increasing acceptance and use of internal ideation platforms. In cases were interviewees
reported success outcomes, proactive executives became personally involved in generating awareness of
the initiative, helping other managers/leaders to recognize the value of such initiatives, creating
incentives for participation, and rallying the resources to manage the day-to-day operation of their
internal ideation sites. In these cases participants reported that proactive executives held the belief that
personal value was a function of the contribution an individual made and innovation value was both
tangible and intangible. Proactive executive leaders played an instrumental role in reducing and
eliminating barriers to entry for employees. Further, these executives held sufficient status within the
company (i.e., directors, vice president) to override or ward off challenges by others who did not share
their beliefs.

Generating Awareness

In the cases where participants reported successful outcomes, proactive executive leaders became
personally involved in generating awareness of the internal ideation platform. In one case, the leader
championing the internal-crowdsourcing initiative invited employees who had contributed breakthrough
ideas to executive meetings to publically recognize their efforts. This helped generate awareness that any
employee, even one outside the sanctioned innovation group, could contribute valuable input.
Additionally, it shifted the focus to the quality of the ideas generated, reinforced the potential benefits of
the initiative, and was an outward show of support to both executives and employees. This proactive
executive leader also meet personally with other executives to address their concerns, to demonstrate how
the ideation platform functioned, to help them understand the value such initiatives brought to the
organization, and to set expectations regarding support of and contribution to the initiative.

Creating Incentives to Participate

Proactive executive leaders also created incentives to encourage participation. This included bonuses,
awards, and public recognition of contributors either via company-wide email or at company events.

6 Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando 2012

 Erickson et. al. / Barriers to Internal-Crowdsouring for Innovation

Occasionally incentives acted more as mandates. In one case, submission of ideas to the company-wide
ideation platform was required before funding would be considered. In this case, proactive executive
leaders linked required processes to ideation platforms to ensure their use. This was particularly powerful
in ensuring the contributions of innovation groups who were often hesitate to share their best ideas on
open platforms.

Allocating Resources

Finally, proactive executive leaders were able to assemble the necessary resources to implement and
sustain internal ideation platforms. This included having the discretionary funds to investment in both
people and technical infrastructure. Typically, these executives would seek out and recruit like-minded
individuals who shared their beliefs regarding the potential of internal-crowdsourcing. New groups were
formed to implementation and manage the technical platform and the ideas that were submitted. In these
cases, ideation groups worked closely with idea contributors to help shape their ideas into more
acceptable forms. Additionally, members of these groups were tasked with advocating and promoting
good ideas to managers within other departments who could further advance ideas, further increasing
awareness of the initiative.

Discussion
The three organizations in our study faced a number of challenges when attempting to open up the
innovation process to employees. Organizations faced issues with overcoming resistance to ideas that
were generated by individuals outside sanctioned innovation groups, re-aligning organizational
perceptions of value, as well as reducing barriers to entry created by established organizational structure
and organizational processes. Across our three cases, organizations that had proactive executive
leadership were more likely to report success than when leaders approved internal-crowdsourcing
initiatives but did not actively generate awareness, create incentives, and allocate resources. When
proactive executive leaders were able to circumvent established organizational practices and leverage
resources to implement company-wide crowdsourcing ideation sites, participants reported a “flattening”
of the organization and an empowerment of lower-level (i.e., non-managerial) employees. Additionally,
more cross-functional departmental collaboration was observed.
Interestingly, many of the same issues found in our study of internal-crowdsourcing are also found within
“open innovation.” In contrast to “closed innovation” where all innovation happens inside the
corporation, “open innovation” involves reaching outside organizational boundaries for new sources of
innovation (Chesbrough, 2003, 2006). An abundance of research on open innovation reveals that success
is dependent on a number of factors including, organizational culture, an organization’s ability to
recognize the need for change, as well as its ability to adapt to new ways of collecting and utilizing
knowledge (Chesbrough, 2003; Dodgson et. al., 2006; Gassmann and Enkel, 2004; Hafkesbrink and
Schroll, 2010; Nambisan and Sawhney, 2008 ch 12; von Hippel, 2005). In short, open innovation requires
both cultural and organization change and a break from the “not invented here” mindset (Chesbrough,
2003).
While the organizations in our study were leveraging internal resources versus external resources (as is
the case with open innovation), they were still attempting to integrate new sources of innovation into
established practices. What was unexpected in our findings was the emergence of themes related to
bringing “outsiders” into the innovation process even when these “outsiders” resided within the
organization. Further, incompatibilities between crowdsourcing objectives and organizational structure
and processes created substantial barriers to acceptance and use. This suggests that integration of internal
crowds for product/service innovation may require a shift in current organizational culture, values and
practices not required by other identified uses (i.e., productivity, knowledge capture, and
marketing/branding).
In fact, internal-crowdsourcing may be a harder shift for established organizations then when leveraging
outside innovation groups. Organizations that implement internal-crowdsourcing must be willing to open
up the decision-making process to the internal crowd and give them a sense of ownership. This often runs
contrary to traditional business practices and hierarchical structure. Innovation is no longer the domain

Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando 2012 7

Digital and Social Networks

of sanctioned innovation groups. As such, this new business practice requires a shift in how individuals
collaborate in relation to innovation, as well as a potential shift in the role of innovation groups within the
organization.
With internal-crowdsourcing not only do proactive executive leaders need to convince sanctioned
innovation groups that opening up the process to outsiders adds value, they must also convince these
groups that employees in any group, at any level, with any level of skill can add value. Further, by opening
up the innovation process to all employees, innovation groups may fear a loss of power and reputation
within their organizations. After all, if an employee on the assembly line comes up with the next great
idea, this may diminish the role of ideation within the innovation group. These groups may move from
primary idea generators to idea evaluators and as such this may be seen as a demotion or lessening of
their roles within the organization. If, however, these groups can shift their perception of value and break
out of current siloed organizational structures, they have the ability to nurture and facilitate ideation
across the organization, which in turn has the potential to bring both tangible and intangible benefits.

Internal-Crowdsourcing Acceptance Model

Based on our findings, we present a model outlining the dynamics at play when attempting to integrate
internal crowds into the product/service innovation processes. The Internal-Crowdsourcing Acceptance
Model is based on the view that internal-crowdsourcing for product/service innovation represents a new
business practice that requires a shift in traditional organizational perceptions of value and
organizational practices. To make these shifts, requires proactive executive leadership to actively reduce
barriers to entry presented by current organizational culture and existing structure.
Organizational culture is most often discussed in terms of shared values, beliefs, and philosophies that
drive and define appropriate behavior within the organization as well as processes (Glisson, 2000; Hurley
and Hult, 1998; Martins and Terblanche, 2003; Tushman and O’Reilly, 2002, ch 4). Organizational
culture has also been found to both encourage and discourage new approaches to innovation. The beliefs
and values of leaders within the organization, as well as their interpersonal relationships with employees,
can be a driving force or inhibitor of innovation. As such, organizational culture directly affects whether
innovation is encouraged within an organization, the amount of innovation that is generated (Martins and
Terblanche, 2003), and the strategic decisions senior management makes (Christensen et. al., 2004).
Additionally, the structure of the organization, its flexibility, and decision-making practices as well as
policies and incentives can all support or discourage innovation (Fontana et. al., 2003; Martins and
Terblanche, 2003; Tushman and O’Reilly, 2002). As firms mature they develop structures and processes
to support business goals based on the organization’s dominant perception of value. As value is captured,
these processes and structures become more embedded and fixed within the company making them
difficult, time-consuming, and often costly to change (Tushman and O’Reilly, 2002, ch 2). Organizational
practices become ingrained and are accompanied by a “this is just how we do it here” mentality making
organizations either resistant to change or unaware of the need for change (Oliver, 1997; Tolbert and
Zucker, 1994; Tushman et. al., 2003). Changing these established values and practices can be difficult;
and the difficulty of instituting change is directly related to the stability of the practice to be changed.
When organizational practices, specifically structure and processes, have been built on the personal value
job titles bring, as well as the tangible economic value innovation brings, integrating employees into the
innovation mix may conflict with existing values and practices. Acceptance and use of internal-
crowdsourcing ideation platforms requires convincing others something new is needed and that the
change will result in better outcomes. Additionally, it requires the breaking down of established processes
and the creation of new structures that may be perceived by individuals within the organization as both
positive and negative.
The Internal-Crowdsourcing Acceptance Model illustrates the role proactive executives leadership plays
in reducing barriers to extracting value from internal-crowdsourcing within established organizations. By
generating awareness, creating incentives to participate, and allocating resources, these proactive
executives can begin to remove, or address, barriers often created by current organizational perceptions
of value. Further, this sets the stage for a realignment of values and organizational practices to those that
facilitate and support internal ideation (see Figure 1).

8 Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando 2012

 Erickson et. al. / Barriers to Internal-Crowdsouring for Innovation

Figure 1. Internal-Crowdsourcing Acceptance Model

Conclusion
While crowdsourcing may result in new product or service innovations thereby adding value to the
organization, it also represents a potential process innovation that may in turn have implications for
organizational culture, internal processes, and structure. This paper presents a model that identifies
common challenges faced by established organizations when implementing internal-crowdsourcing for
product/service innovation. The anticipated theoretical contribution of this research is the finding that
internal-crowdsourcing presents many of the same challenges to organizations as faced in open
innovation initiatives. As such, current knowledge gained through the study of open innovation may be
particularly relevant to internal-crowdsourcing initiatives. The anticipated contribution to practice is the
identification of specific practices that may be instrumental in addressing these challenges and reducing
barriers to successful outcomes for organizations attempting to leverage internal crowds for ideation.
It is worth noting a few limitations of this study. First, additional case studies are needed to further tease
out the role proactive executive leaders play in facilitating internal-crowdsourcing. Second, while both
tangible and intangible benefits were reported, it is unclear the long-term benefits of such initiatives.
These initiatives do not come without cost and it is currently unclear the impact these costs may have on
the sustainability of these programs. Finally, our cases included initiatives focused on both product and
service innovation. Separate analysis of product innovation and service innovation efforts should be
conducted to determine if there are unique issues related to each. Additionally, an exploration of the
different dynamics at play for internal versus external crowdsourcing is warranted. Future research
should also continue to explore the similarities and differences between internal-crowdsourced
innovation and open innovation. Such exploration will be critical in providing guidance as to how theory
should be developed and evaluated, as well as providing guidance to corporations who wish to implement
these initiatives.

References
Anthes, G. (2010). Mechanism design meets computer science. Communications of the ACM, 53(8), 11–
13.
Barrington, L., Turnbull, D., O’Malley, and Lanckriet, G. (2009). User-centered design of a social game to
tag music. Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human Computation, 7-10.
Bonabeau, E. (2009). Decisions 2.0: the Power of Collective Intelligence. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 50(2), 45-52.
Brabham, D. C. (2009). Crowdsourced advertising: how we outperform Madison Avenue. Retrieved June
30, 2010 from http://bit.ly/HtP2ci.

Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando 2012 9

Digital and Social Networks

Bryant, A. and Charmaz, K. (2007). The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: SAGE
Publications.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From
Technology. Boston, Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Chilton, S. (2009). Crowdsourcing is radically changing the geodata landscape: Case study of
OpenStreetMap. Paper presented at the 24th International Cartographic Conference, Chile.
Christensen, C. M., Anthony, S. D., and Roth, E. A. (2004). Seeing What’s Next: Using the Theories of
Innovation to Predict Industry Change. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Di Gangi, P. M., and Wasko, M. (2009). Steal my idea! Organizational adoption of user innovations from a
user innovation community: A case study of Dell IdeaStorm. Decision Support Systems, 48(1), 303–
312.
Dodgson, M., Gann, D., and Salter, A. (2006). The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation:
The case of Proctor and Gamble. R&D Management, 36(3), 333-346.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Erickson, L. B., Petrick, I., and Trauth, E. M. (2012a). Hanging with the right crowd: Matching
crowdsourcing need to crowd characteristics. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Americas Conference on
Information Systems, Seattle, WA.
Erickson, L. B., Petrick, I., and Trauth, E. M. (2012b). Organizational uses of the crowd: Developing a
framework for the study of enterprise-crowdsourcing. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM SIGMIS
Computer and People Research Conference, Milwaukee, MI.
Fernández, W. D. (2004). The grounded theory method and case study data in IS research: issues and
design. Information Systems Foundations Workshop: Constructing and Criticising.
Fontana, R., Geuna, A., and Matt, M. (2003, September). Firm size and openness: The driving forces of
university-industry collaboration. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series No. SEWP 103. Available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=47926.
Gassmann, O. and Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: Three core process archetypes.
In Proceedings of the R&D Management Conference (RADMA). Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.152.9749andrep=rep1andtype=pdf.
Ghafele, R., Gibert, B., and DiGiammarino, P. (2011, July). Driving innovation through patent application
review: The power of crowdsourcing prior art search. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 16,
303-308.
Glaser, B. G., and Holton, J. (2004). Remodeling Grounded Theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research,
5(2). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-
research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/607/1315#g33
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L., (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Glisson, C. (2000). Organizational climate and culture. In R. J. Patti (Ed.) The Handbook of Social
Welfare Management pp. 195- 218. Tall Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611.
Hafkesbrink, J. and Schroll, M. (2010). Organizational Competences for Open Innovation in Small and
Medium Sized Enterprises of the Digital Economy. In J. Hafkesbrink, H. Hoppe, J. Schlichter, (Eds.)
Competence Management for Open Innovation – Tools and IT-support to unlock the potential of
Open Innovation, Eul Verlag.
Haklay, M., and Weber, P. (2008). OpenStreetMap: User-Generated Street Maps. IEEE Pervasive
Computing, 7(4), 12–18.
Howe, J. (2006). The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine, 14(6). Retrieved from
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html
Howe, J. (2008). Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business. New
York: Crown Business.
Hurley, R. F. and Hult, G. T. (1998, July). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An
integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 42-54.
Jeppesen, L. B., and Frederiksen, L. (2006). Why do Users Contribute to Firm-hosted User
Communities ? The case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organization Science, 17(1), 45–
63.

10 Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando 2012

 Erickson et. al. / Barriers to Internal-Crowdsouring for Innovation

Jouret, G. (2009). Inside Cisco’s Search for the Next Big Idea. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 43.
Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field
studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 67–93.
Knudsen, M. P., and Mortensen, T. B. (2011). Some immediate – but negative – effects of openness on
product development performance. Technovation, 31(1), 54–64.
Lakhani, K. R., Jeppesen, L. B., Lohse, P. A., and Panetta, J. A. (2007, October). The value of openness in
scientific problem solving. Harvard Business School Working Paper 07-050.
Leimeister, J. M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., and Krcmar, H. (2009). Leveraging Crowdsourcing:
Activation-Supporting Components for IT-Based Ideas Competition. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 26(1), 197–224.
Lindley, D. (2009). Managing data. Communications of the ACM, 52(10), 11–13.
Martins, E. C. and Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organizational culture that stimulates creativity and
innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64-74.
Myers, M. D. (2009). Qualitative Research in Business and Management. SAGE.
Nambisan, S. and Sawhney, M. (2008). The Global Brain. Your Roadmap for Innovating Faster and
Smarter in a Networked World. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697-713.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical
Changes in Systems Development. MIS Quarterly, 17(3), 309–340.
Piller, F., Schubert, P., Koch, M., and Möslein, K. (2005, August). Overcoming mass confusion:
Collaborative customer co-design in online communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communications, 10, available at http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/piller.html.
Pisano, G. P., and Teece, D. J. (2007). How to capture value from innovation: Shaping intellectual
property and industry architecture. California Management Review, 50(1), 278–296.
Poetz, M. K., and Schreier, M. (2012). The Value of Crowdsourcing: Can Users Really Compete with
Professionals in Generating New Product Ideas? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2),
245-256.
Ringo, T. (2007). IBM Explores New Frontiers in Collaborative Innovation. Research Technology
Management, 50(5), 6–7.
Sherry, E. F., and Teece, D. J. (2004). Royalties, evolving patent rights, and the value of innovation.
Research Policy, 33(2), 179–191.
Stewart, O., Huerta, J., Sadder, M., Sakrajda, A., Marcotte. J., and Lubensky, D. (2009). Designing
crowdsourcing community for the enterprise. Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human
Computation, 50-53.
Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration,
licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.
Tolbert, P., and Zucker, L. G. (1994, October). Institutional Analyses of Organizations: Legitimate but Not
Institutionalized . ISSR Working Papers in Social Sciences (Vol 6 No. 5). University of California Los
Angeles: Institute for Social Science Research.
Tushman, M. L. and O’Reilly, C. A. (2002). Winning Through Innovation. A Practical Guide to Leading
Organizational Change and Renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Tushman, M. L., Smith, W., Wood, R., Westerman, G., and O’Reilly, C. (2003). Innovation streams and
ambidextrous organizational designs: On building dynamic capabilities. Working paper no. 03-106,
Harvard Business School, Boston. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/sloan/osg-
seminar/f02_docs/TushmanEtAl_2002.pdf.
von Hippel, E. A. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Whitla, P. (2009, March). Crowdsourcing and its application in marketing activities. Contemporary
Management Research, 5(1), 15-28.
Wiggins, A. and Crowston, K. (2011). From conversation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science.
Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Science. Kauai, Hawaii.
Yin, R. K. (1998). Case Study Research : Design and Methods. London: Sage Publications.

Thirty Third International Conference on Information Systems, Orlando 2012 11