The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How good are ideas identified by an automatic idea detection system?
Open accessAbstract
Online communities can be an attractive source of ideas for product and process innovations. However, innovative user‐contributed ideas may be few. From a perspective of harnessing “big data” for inbound open innovation, the detection of good ideas in online communities is a problem of detecting rare events. Recent advances in text analytics and machine learning have made it possible to screen vast amounts of online information and automatically detect user‐contributed ideas. However, it is still uncertain whether the ideas identified by such systems will also be regarded as sufficiently novel, feasible and valuable by firms who might decide to develop them further. A validation study is reported in which 200 posts from an online home brewing community were extracted by an automatic idea detection system. Two professionals from a brewing company evaluated the posts in terms of idea content, idea novelty, idea feasibility and idea value. The results suggest that the automatic idea detection system is sufficiently valid to be deployed for the harvesting and initial screening of ideas, and that the profile of the identified ideas (in terms of novelty, feasibility and value) follows the same pattern identified in studies of user ideation in general.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Supervised machine learning has been implemented to evaluate product ideas according to novelty, feasibility, and value based on user-generated content.
“Supervised machine learning has been implemented to evaluate product ideas according to novelty, feasibility, and value based on user-generated content (Christensen et al., 2018).”
From Artificial intelligence in innovation management: A review of innovation capabilities and a taxonomy of AI applications (2025) · cites this paper as Christensen et al., 2018
Citations
Cites
Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: a case study
von Krogh, G., Spaeth, S., & Lakhani, K. R. (2003) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(03)00050-7 · Cited by 1,025
Zwitter, A. (2014) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951714559253 · Cited by 465
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 39
- 10.1111/jpim.12300 · DOI
- Antorini Y. M., 2007, Brand Community Innovation: An Intrinsic Case Study of the Adult Fans of LEGO Community
- Antorini Y. M., 2012, Collaborating with customer communities: Lessons from the Lego Group, MIT Sloan Management Review, 53, 73
- 10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878 · DOI · Paper page
- Brennan R. L., 2001, Generalizability theory. New York, 10.1007/978-1-4757-3456-0 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/41703503 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.06.001 · DOI
- 10.1111/caim.12202 · DOI
- 10.1177/001316446002000104 · DOI · Paper page
- Cronbach L. J., 1972, The dependability of behavioral measurements
- 10.17705/1jais.00106 · DOI
- 10.1111/1467-8691.00070 · DOI
- 10.1111/jpim.12213 · DOI
- 10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.305 · DOI
- 10.1111/caim.12204 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10660-006-5988-7 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.019 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.007 · DOI · Paper page
- Gangi P. M., 2010, Getting customers' ideas to work for you: Learning from Dell how to succeed with online user innovation communities, MIS Quarterly Executive, 9, 213
- Hippel E., 2011, The age of the consumer‐innovator, MIT Sloan Management Review, 53, 27
- 10.1287/orsc.1050.0156 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.bdr.2015.01.006 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00050.x · DOI
- 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0560 · DOI
- 10.2307/2529310 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.005 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00684.x · DOI
- 10.1111/jpim.12251 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.respol.2011.08.006 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jsis.2013.07.004 · DOI
- McAfee A., 2012, Big data: The management revolution, Harvard Business Review, 90, 60
- 10.1142/S1363919616500468 · DOI
- 10.2501/IJMR-2013-015 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cofs.2014.11.006 · DOI
- 10.1111/caim.12105 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00893.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.eswa.2013.01.013 · DOI
- 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00590.x · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gama, F., & Magistretti, S. (2025) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12698 · Cited by 388
Metadata
- Authors
- Christensen, K., Scholderer, J., Hersleth, S. A., Næs, T., Kvaal, K., Mollestad, T., Veflen, N., & Risvik, E.
- Affiliations
- Nofima (NO)
- Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NO)
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- Acando Norway
- Nofima A/S Ås Norway
- Corresponding author
- Christensen, Kasper
- Venue
- Creativity and Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-02-19
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-31
- ISSN
- 0963-1690 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8691
- OpenAlex
- W2791100836
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 3.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.zora.uzh.ch
- Licence
- Locations
- Creativity and Innovation Management (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Funders
- The Foundation for Research and Levy on Agricultural Products in Norway
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
- Keywords
- online communities, inbound open innovation, rare event detection, user-generated ideas, idea novelty, idea screening, big data
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review