Cited by 31Open Source Software InnovationsDesign Education and PracticeService and Product Innovation

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 access

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1111/caim.12260

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 10.1111/jpim.12300 · DOI
  2. Antorini Y. M., 2007, Brand Community Innovation: An Intrinsic Case Study of the Adult Fans of LEGO Community
  3. Antorini Y. M., 2012, Collaborating with customer communities: Lessons from the Lego Group, MIT Sloan Management Review, 53, 73
  4. 10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Brennan R. L., 2001, Generalizability theory. New York, 10.1007/978-1-4757-3456-0 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.2307/41703503 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.06.001 · DOI
  8. 10.1111/caim.12202 · DOI
  9. 10.1177/001316446002000104 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Cronbach L. J., 1972, The dependability of behavioral measurements
  11. 10.17705/1jais.00106 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/1467-8691.00070 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/jpim.12213 · DOI
  14. 10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.305 · DOI
  15. 10.1111/caim.12204 · DOI
  16. 10.1007/s10660-006-5988-7 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.019 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.007 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 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
  20. Hippel E., 2011, The age of the consumer‐innovator, MIT Sloan Management Review, 53, 27
  21. 10.1287/orsc.1050.0156 · DOI
  22. 10.1016/j.bdr.2015.01.006 · DOI
  23. 10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00050.x · DOI
  24. 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0560 · DOI
  25. 10.2307/2529310 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.005 · DOI
  27. 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00684.x · DOI
  28. 10.1111/jpim.12251 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.respol.2011.08.006 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/j.jsis.2013.07.004 · DOI
  31. McAfee A., 2012, Big data: The management revolution, Harvard Business Review, 90, 60
  32. 10.1142/S1363919616500468 · DOI
  33. 10.2501/IJMR-2013-015 · DOI
  34. 10.1016/j.cofs.2014.11.006 · DOI
  35. 10.1111/caim.12105 · DOI
  36. 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00893.x · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.eswa.2013.01.013 · DOI
  38. 10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590 · DOI
  39. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00590.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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