ArticlePloS one2025
Driving innovation: When design collaboration becomes open source, how do reward mechanisms and in-process feedback act as catalysts.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Open innovation, prevalent in projects like design crowdsourcing, is widely acknowledged for its role in advancing technology through knowledge flow. However, the competitive nature of design teams often keeps core knowledge confidential, hindering collaboration in the field. Open-source ideation in software facilitates resource sharing, which has been demonstrated to overcome information barriers, fostering intellectual progress and driving remarkable outcomes. If applied to product design, could it make collaborative innovation more efficient or more difficult? External incentives are key in this dynamic. This study focuses on two representative motivational factors: reward mechanisms and transparent in-process feedback, and conducts a 2 × 2 experiment where designers completed multiple rounds of product colorization tasks with simultaneous resource exchange in an online environment. We evaluate design outcomes, collaborative referencing networks, and individual behaviors as key characteristics. Results indicate that the Quota Allocation Method (QAM) increases individual productivity (quantity) and competitive awareness, while the Contribution-Based Allocation Method (CAM) fosters creativity (quality) and long-term engagement, along with higher referencing density and satisfaction. Offering in-process feedback further optimizes collaboration outcomes but may introduce profit-driven behaviors in the CAM setting. By revealing the interaction between incentive mechanisms and individual motivations in open-source design collaboration, this study offers practical strategies to advance previous theories, promoting the effective implementation and sustainable collaboration of open-source models in product design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.