{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018625561978163133, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0019267822736030828, 'mean_word_length': 5.6581196581196584, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
To Rate or to Fund? - The Effect of Idea Evaluation Platform Design on Decision Quality and User Engagement

Given the importance of scalable and real-time idea evaluation for commercial success and survival, organizations increasingly draw on the principle of the wisdom of crowds. This principle is commonly being operationalized in platforms that involve customers or employees in the task of idea evaluation. However, there is still a lack of scientific evidence on how the design of such platforms can contribute to the assessment of idea quality, while providing users with a meaningful and enjoyable experience. This study elaborates on two characteristic design components of open idea evaluation platforms: the selection of an evaluation mechanism (rating scales vs. crowdfunding) and the availability of peer ratings. We conduct a multi-method study including a web-based experiment with 202 participants evaluating ideas in the context of electric mobility, a survey capturing user experience, and an expert focus group that provides an elaborate ranking of the ideas. Results indicate that crowdfunding–despite its rising popularity–and peer rating availability–despite often chosen as a default option–negatively impact decision quality, while not increasing user engagement. This research-in-progress paper contributes to research on both collective intelligence and innovation management, by investigating how different design components of idea evaluation platforms translate into differences concerning decision quality and user engagement.