Crowdsourcing Novel Problem Statements

Recently, organizations started exploring the use of crowdsourcing not only to solve pre-defined problems, but also to identify novel problems worth solving – not least in the hopes of more effectively aligning research and innovation agendas with issues of societal relevance. Yet, a key challenge is that many crowd-identified problem statements are not novel and simply re-state well-known problems, resulting in an ineffective way to organize problem identification. In this study, we theorize that the extent of "user knowledge" among crowd members, which can be acquired both through one's own experience as someone affected by a particular situation (e.g., as a patient) and through engagement with the experiences of others (e.g., as a caretaker or medical professional), increases the novelty of problem statements. In addition, we explore whether the novelty of crowd-identified problem statements might be improved by providing crowd members with two types of complementary knowledge related to the problem space: declarative and procedural. Our preliminary results from a large-scale online experiment show a significant positive relationship between "user knowledge" of crowd members and the novelty of the problem statements they submit. Providing crowd members with complementary knowledge related to the problem space does not lead to significant novelty improvements, according to our preliminary analysis. Nevertheless, these initial findings indicate that the impact of experiential knowledge in problem-solving also applies to problem finding. This has significant implications for organizations aiming to effectively utilize crowdsourcing for establishing their research and innovation agendas.