Capturing the Bigger Picture? Applying Text Analytics to Foster Open Innovation Processes for Sustainability-Oriented Innovation
2. Background and Terminology
2.1. Complexities of Sustainability-Oriented Innovation
- The innovation object encompasses product, process, service, product-service system, and methodological innovations as well as organizational innovations.
- The market orientation of the innovation is characterized by the satisfaction of needs and their competitiveness on the market.
- The innovation should reduce negative environmental and/or social impacts.
- The whole life-cycle of an innovation should be considered, especially material flows and their ecological but also social effects.
- The intentions of the innovation are economic and ecological and/or social aspects.
- At the organizational level, the innovation should set a new standard.
2.2. Open Innovation as an Instrument for Participation
- Ideation contests: In an innovation contest, the organizer broadcasts a particular innovation-related challenge for which participants can contribute their proposals. Typically, these contests include certain rewards to foster motivation and are realized via the internet to ensure a broad reach [56,57,58].
2.3. Sustainable-Oriented Innovation and Open Innovation
2.4. Silent Stakeholders
2.5. Research Focus: Text Analytics in Direct Search Methods for Sustainability-Oriented Innovation
3. Action Research Study
3.1. Description of the Action Research Cycle
3.2. Diagnosing the Project Background
- Knowledge Creation: To reduce the lack of knowledge and to qualify community members to participate in service innovation, e-learning courses on e-mobility topics were provided. Additionally, community members were allowed to take part in the development of e-learning courses by contributing e-mobility-related experiences or knowledge.
- Service Innovation: This module built upon several of the OI methods previously (cf., Section 2.2) described, namely ideation contests, the online innovation community, and innovation workshops. Based on these methods, community members cooperatively created novel services and solutions for e-mobility. After defining a certain innovation object, the services were developed in four consecutives phases (see Figure 1). In the early stages, ideas were collected, filtered, and selected. After that, the chosen ideas were transferred into concepts which were then evaluated. Based thereon, development and testing of prototypes took place. Subsequently, the market launch and management phases would have been conducted, but were not performed within the project CODIFeY.
- Community Analytics: The behavior of participants on eMobilisten was monitored and evaluated by data analytics. Thereby, the interaction between service innovation and knowledge creation was promoted.
- The “Orientation” phase serves to identify and analyze opportunities for SOI . In this phase, the focus lies, in particular, on exploring the sustainability context including the concrete problems and legislation changes . Thus, the boundaries of the innovation space are defined. In CODIFeY, secondary data were collected and analyzed manually followed by a workshop with e-mobility experts. As a result, this step yielded a categorization of sustainability-related effects and stakeholders of e-mobility (see ). Based on that categorization, opportunities for sustainability-oriented service innovations in the field of e-mobility such as sustainability labels were determined.
- In the next phase “Idea Generation”, ideas for the determined innovation objects are obtained in a broad way e.g., . For the idea collection in CODIFeY, we used different online and offline channels. Online community members were encouraged to contribute their ideas and opinions by a call for ideas for the creation of sustainability labels for e-mobility. To reach out to many stakeholders and ensure participation, we promoted this call on social media (i.e., Facebook and Twitter) and via direct acquisition (i.e., email and telephone). Furthermore, ideas were collected during relevant offline events. During the idea generation, however, we encountered the challenges explained below. As our action research study is conducted during this phase, we explain the subsequent development process of the sustainability labels only hypothetically.
- Next, the phase of “Idea Selection and Concept Development” serves to screen and evaluate the obtained ideas according to their environmental, economic , or social relevance. We then selected and transformed the most promising ones into concepts of new offerings . In CODIFeY, the collected ideas were first subjected to a quantitative and qualitative content analysis. Based on that, an offline innovation workshop was initiated in which heterogeneous stakeholders such as lead users or experts develop concepts for the respective SOI.
- In the “Concept Evaluation” phase, these concepts are then evaluated by relevant stakeholders, experts, and lead users . To realize that, in CODIFeY, the online innovation community on eMobilisten assessed the SOI concepts in a survey format.
- Subsequently, the “Prototyping and Testing” phase serves to develop prototypes of the respective innovation based on the assessed concepts which are tested afterwards . In CODIFeY, we created the prototypes internally in collaboration with experts. Testing was then realized by offline workshops in which experts and lead users, among others, participated in.
- The phase of “Market Launch” is about subsequently developing the final prototypes to market maturity and commercializing them with implementation partners. At this point, the final outcome reaches the end users in the market and is implemented on a larger scale addressing the actual target group .
- During the “Management” phase, the innovation is subject to a continuous examination in order to adapt it to possible changes or for repeated applications in the future . Thus, the innovation is reviewed regarding, for example, its sustainability impacts. Tufte and Mefalopulos  emphasize the role of stakeholder engagement in this phase to give feedback and participate in formulating indicators as well as measurements for evaluation.
3.3. Action Planning and Taking—Application of Text Analytics
- We have only included primary sources and no news aggregators, search engines, or other secondary sources.
- Since we aimed to capture the general discourse on the topic of e-mobility in Germany and no discussions in expert communities or specific regions, we have selected nationwide general interest media that are thematically broad-based.
- In order to ensure reliability and to achieve comparability within our sample, we chose only news websites operated by renowned German publishers.
- Since we analyzed articles published during a period of several years, we included only websites offering an online archive that allows us to access all articles published in the period from 2010 to 2015.
4.1. Findings from the Overall Discourse Analysis
4.2. Findings from Zooming into Single Topics
4.3. Applicability in the Innovation Process for the Label Development
6. Implications and Conclusions
Conflicts of Interest
- Baregheh, A.; Rowley, J.; Sambrook, S. Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Manag. Decis. 2009, 47, 1323–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, E.G.; Große-Dunker, F. Sustainability-Driven Innovation. In Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; Volume I, pp. 2407–2417. [Google Scholar]
- Hansen, E.G.; Grosse-Dunker, F.; Reichwald, R. Sustainability Innovation Cube—A framework to evaluate sustainability of product innovations. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2009, 13, 683–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2011, 20, 222–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hörisch, J.; Freeman, R.E.; Schaltegger, S. Applying Stakeholder Theory in Sustainability Management: Links, Similarities, Dissimilarities, and a Conceptual Framework. Organ. Environ. 2014, 27, 328–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wendelken, A.; Danzinger, F.; Rau, C.; Moeslein, K.M. Innovation without me: Why employees do (not) participate in organizational innovation communities. R&D Manag. 2014, 44, 217–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piller, F.; Hilgers, D. Von Controlling für Open Innovation zu Open Controlling–Implementierung und Steuerung kollaborativer Innovationsprozesse. In Nachhaltiges Entscheiden; Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2016; pp. 333–350. [Google Scholar]
- Chesbrough, H.; Bogers, M. Explicating Open Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for Understanding Innovation. New Front. Open Innov. 2014, 1, 1–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodgson, M.; Gann, D.; Salter, A. The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: The case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Manag. 2006, 36, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Susman, G.I.; Evered, R.D. An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research. Adm. Sci. Q. 1978, 23, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bürgel, H.D.; Zeller, A. Forschung & Entwicklung als Wissenscenter. In Wissensmanagement: Schritte Zum Intelligenten Unternehmen; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germnay, 1998; pp. 53–65. [Google Scholar]
- Lang-Koetz, C.; Beucker, S.; Heubach, D. Estimating environmental impact in the early stages of the product innovation process. In Environmental Management Accounting for Cleaner Production; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 49–64. [Google Scholar]
- Arnold, M.G. The role of open innovation in strengthening corporate responsibility. Int. J. Sustain. Econ. 2011, 3, 361–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fichter, K. Innovation communities: The role of networks of promotors in open innovation. R&D Manag. 2009, 39, 357–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, E.G.; Bullinger, A.C.; Reichwald, R. Sustainability innovation contests: Evaluating contributions with an eco impact-innovativeness typology. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 5, 221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frooman, J. Stakeholder influence strategies. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Figge, F.; Hahn, T.; Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. The sustainability balanced scorecard–linking sustainability management to business strategy. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2002, 11, 269–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowley, T.J. Moving beyond Dyadic Ties: A Network Theory of Stakeholder Influences. Source Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 22, 887–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, B.; Kahn, P.; Borning, A. Value Sensitive Design: Theory and Methods; University of Washington Technical Report: Seattle, WA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Reichwald, R.; Piller, F. Interaktive Wertschöpfung. Open Innovation, Individualisierung und Neue Formen der Arbeitsteilung; Gabler Verlag: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Paech, N. Directional Certainty in Sustainability-Oriented Innovation Management. In Innovations towards Sustainability; Lehmann-Waffenschmidt, M., Ed.; Physica-Verlag HD: Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 121–139. [Google Scholar]
- Vahs, D.; Brem, A. Innovationsmanagement: Von Der Produktidee Zur Erfolgreichen Vermarktung; Schäffer-Poeschel: Stuttgart, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Gregor, S. The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 611–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogers, M.; Zobel, A.K.; Afuah, A.; Almirall, E.; Brunswicker, S.; Dahlander, L.; Frederiksen, L.; Gawer, A.; Gruber, M.; Haefliger, S.; et al. The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Ind. Innov. 2017, 24, 8–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozinets, R.V. Netnography. In The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society; Wiley Blackwell: Chichester, UK, 2015; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Kaiser, C.; Bodendorf, F. Mining consumer dialog in online forums. Internet Res. 2012, 22, 275–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pajo, S.; Verhaegen, P.A.; Vandevenne, D.; Duflou, J.R. Towards automatic and accurate lead user identification. Procedia Eng. 2015, 131, 509–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiederig, T.; Tietze, F.; Herstatt, C. Green innovation in technology and innovation management—An exploratory literature review. R&D Manag. 2012, 42, 180–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klewitz, J.; Hansen, E.G. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blind, K.; Quitzow, R. Nachhaltige Innovationen. In CSR Und Nachhaltige Innovation; Springer Gabler: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 13–24. [Google Scholar]
- Adams, R.; Jeanrenaud, S.; Bessant, J.; Denyer, D.; Overy, P. Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 180–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hall, J. Sustainable development innovation; A research agenda for the next 10 years—Editorial for the 10th anniversary of the Journal of Cleaner Production. J. Clean. Prod. 2002, 10, 195–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Achterkamp, M.C.; Vos, J.F.J. A framework for making sense of sustainable innovation through stakeholder involvement. Int. J. Environ. Technol. Manag. 2006, 6, 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauter, R.; Vorbach, E.P.; Baumgartner, R.J. Is open innovation supporting sustainable innovation? Findings based on a systematic, explorative analysis of existing literature. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 11, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ketata, I.; Sofka, W.; Grimpe, C. The role of internal capabilities and firms’ environment for sustainable innovation: Evidence for Germany. R&D Manag. 2015, 45, 60–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atuahene-Gima, K. Market orientation and innovation. J. Bus. Res. 1996, 35, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, R.G. Winning at New Products: Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch, 2nd ed.; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Kolsch, D.; Saling, P.; Kicherer, A.; Sommer, A.G.; Schmidt, I. How to measure social impacts? A socio-eco-efficiency analysis by the SEEBALANCE® method. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2008, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rennings, K.; Zwick, T. Employment Impact of Cleaner Production on the Firm Level: Empirical Evidence from a Survey in Five European Countries. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2002, 6, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paech, N. Richtungssicherheit im nachhaltigkeitsorientierten Innovationsmanagement. In Nachhaltige Zukunftsmärkte; Fichter, K., Ed.; Metropolis: Marburg, Germany, 2005; pp. 327–352. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, D.; Treiber, M. 24. Verkehrswissenschaftliche Tage 2014—Sind Elektroautos Wirklich Umweltfreundlich? TU Dresden: Dresden, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Maxwell, D.; Van der Vorst, R. Developing sustainable products and services. J. Clean. Prod. 2003, 11, 883–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Firnkorn, J.; Müller, M. What will be the environmental effects of new free-floating car-sharing systems? The case of car2go in Ulm. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1519–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rid, W.; Parzinger, G.; Grausam, M.; Müller, U.; Herdtle, C. Potenziale von (E-)Carsharing. In Carsharing in Deutschland; Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2018; pp. 21–44. [Google Scholar]
- Chesbrough, H.W. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology; Harvard Business Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation. In Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Dahlander, L.; Gann, D.M. How open is innovation? Res. Policy 2010, 39, 699–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gassmann, O.; Enkel, E.; Chesbrough, H. The Future of Open Innovation. R&D Management. R&D Manag. 2010, 40, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yun, J.J.; Avvari, M.V.; Jeong, E.; Lim, D.-W. Introduction of an objective model to measure open innovation and its application to the information technology convergence sector. Int. J. Technol. Policy Manag. 2014, 14, 383–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herstatt, C.; von Hippel, E. From experience: Developing new product concepts via the lead user method: A case study in a “low-tech” field. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 1992, 9, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Von Hippel, E. Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32, 791–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franke, N.; Shah, S. How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Res. Policy 2003, 32, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piller, F.; Schubert, P.; Koch, M.; Möslein, K. Overcoming Mass Confusion: Collaborative Customer Co-Design in Online Communities. J. Comput. Commun. 2005, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Füller, J.; Jawecki, G.; Mühlbacher, H. Innovation creation by online basketball communities. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 60, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sawhney, M.; Verona, G.; Prandelli, E. Collaborating to create: The internet as a platform for customer engagement in product innovation. J. Interact. Mark. 2005, 19, 4–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piller, F.T.; Walcher, D. Toolkits for idea competitions: A novel method to integrate users in new product development. R&D Manag. 2006, 36, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bullinger, A.C.; Möslein, K. Innovation Contests—Where are we? In Proceedings of the AMCIS 2010 Proceedings, Lima, Peru, 12–15 August 2010; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Terwiesch, C.; Xu, Y. Innovation Contests, Open Innovation, and Multiagent Problem Solving. Manag. Sci. 2008, 54, 1529–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Lang, D.J.; Wiek, A.; Bergmann, M.; Stauffacher, M.; Martens, P.; Moll, P.; Swilling, M.; Thomas, C.J. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 2012, 7 (Suppl. 1), 25–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Beckmann, M.; Hansen, E.G. Transdisciplinarity in Corporate Sustainability: Mapping the Field. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2013, 22, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wehnert, P.; Beckmann, M. Partizipation durch Open Innovation: Wie kann Beteiligung die Nachhaltigkeit von eMobilität erhöhen. In Handbuch Energiewende Und Partizipation; Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2018; pp. 259–280. [Google Scholar]
- Laursen, K.; Salter, A. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 2006, 27, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozinets, R.V. The Field behind the Screen: Using Netnography for Marketing Research in Online Communities. J. Mark. Res. 2002, 39, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kozinets, R.V. Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. Int. J. Advert. 2010, 29, 328–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lilien, G.L.; Morrison, P.D.; Searls, K.; Sonnack, M.; von Hippel, E. Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development. Manag. Sci. 2002, 48, 1042–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.; Jeon, J.; Park, Y. Monitoring trends of technological changes based on the dynamic patent lattice: A modified formal concept analysis approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78, 690–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeon, J.; Lee, C.; Park, Y. How to Use Patent Information to Search Potential Technology Partners in Open Innovation. J. Intell. Prop. Rights 2011, 16, 385–393. Available online: http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/12688/1/JIPR 16%285%29 385-393.pdf (accessed on 31 March 2018).
- Hult, M.; Lennung, S. Towards a definition of action research: A note and bibliography. J. Manag. Stud. 1980, 17, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Checkland, P. From framework through experience to learning: The essential nature of action research. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 11, 397–403. [Google Scholar]
- McKay, J.; Marshall, P. The dual imperatives of action research. Inf. Technol. People 2001, 14, 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Daiberl, C.; Roth, A.; Höckmayr, B.; Möslein, K.M. Project CODIFeY: Community-based Service Innovation for E-Mobility. In Proceedings of the XXVI ISPIM Innovation Conference, Budapest, Hungary, 14–17 June 2015; Available online: http://ldt.fau.de/de/node/6330 (accessed on 24 January 2018).
- Dinter, B.; Kollwitz, C.; Möslein, K.; Roth, A. Combining Open Innovation and Knowledge Management for a Communities of Practice—An Analytics Driven Approach. In Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), San Diego, CA, USA, 11–14 August 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Jahn, G.; Schramm, M.; Spiller, A. The reliability of certification: Quality labels as a consumer policy tool. J. Consum. Policy 2005, 28, 53–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyl, B.; Vallet, F.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Real, M. The integration of a stakeholder perspective into the front end of eco-innovation: A practical approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verworn, B.; Herstatt, C. Prozessgestaltung der frühen Phasen. In Management der frühen Innovationsphasen; Gabler Verlag: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2003; pp. 195–214. [Google Scholar]
- Daiberl, C.; Danzinger, F.; Dinter, B.; Hess, J.; Höckmayr, B.; Jonas, J.M.; Kollwitz, C.; Luzsa, R.; Putz, M.; Roth, A.; et al. Online-Offline Co-Creation; Heuberger, A., Möslein, K.M., Eds.; Open Service Lab Notes: Nuremberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Tufte, T.; Mefalopulos, P. Development Communication. In Participatory Communication: A Practical Guide; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Leximancer. Leximancer User Guide; Leximancer: Brisbane, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, A.E.; Humphreys, M.S. Evaluation of unsupervised semantic mapping of natural language with Leximancer concept mapping. Behav. Res. Methods. 2006, 38, 262–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Martin, N.J.; Rice, J.L. Profiling Enterprise Risks in Large Computer Companies Using the Leximancer Software Tool. Risk Manag. 2007, 9, 188–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cretchley, J.; Rooney, D.; Gallois, C. Mapping a 40-year history with leximancer: Themes and concepts in the journal of cross-cultural psychology. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 2010, 41, 318–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hewett, D.G.; Watson, B.M.; Gallois, C.; Ward, M.; Leggett, B.A. Intergroup communication between hospital doctors: Implications for quality of patient care. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 69, 1732–1740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Davies, I.; Green, P.; Rosemann, M.; Indulska, M.; Gallo, S. How do practitioners use conceptual modeling in practice? Data Knowl. Eng. 2006, 58, 358–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ridley, G.; Young, J. Theoretical approaches to gender and it: Examining some Australian evidence. Inf. Syst. J. 2012, 22, 355–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.; Kim, S. Sustainable supply chain based on news articles and sustainability reports: Text mining with Leximancer and DICTION. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angus-Leppan, T.; Benn, S.; Young, L. A Sensemaking Approach to Trade-Offs and Synergies between Humans and Ecological Elements of Corporate Sustainability. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2010, 19, 230–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Debortoli, S.; Müller, O.; vom Brocke, J. Comparing business intelligence and big data skills: A text mining study using job advertisements. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2014, 6, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shearer, C. The CRISP-DM Model: The New Blueprint for Data Mining. J. Data Wareh. 2000, 5, 13–22. [Google Scholar]
- Piatetsky, G. CRISP-DM, Still the Top Methodology for Analytics, Data Mining, or Data Science Projects. KDD News. 2014. Available online: https://www.kdnuggets.com/2014/10/crisp-dm-top-methodology-analytics-data-mining-data-science-projects.html (accessed on 12 October 2018).
- AGOF. Nettoreichweite der Top 15 Nachrichtenseiten (ab 16 Jahre) nach Unique Usern im August 2018 (in Millionen). Statista—Das Statistik-Portal. 2018. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/165258/umfrage/reichweite-der-meistbesuchten-nachrichtenwebsites/ (accessed on 12 October 2018).
- Leximancer. Leximancer White Paper Leximancer; Leximancer: Brisbane, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Beckmann, M.; Schaltegger, S. Unternehmerische Nachhaltigkeit. In Nachhaltigkeitswissenschaften; Heinrichs, G.M., Ed.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 321–367. [Google Scholar]
- Fichter, K.; Paech, N. Nachhaltigkeitsorientiertes Innovationsmanagement: Prozessgestaltung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Internet-Nutzungen: Endbericht Der Basisstudie 4 des vom BMF geförderten Vorhabens “SUstainable Markets EMERge” (SUMMER). 2004. Available online: https://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=53.%09Fichter%2C+K.%2C+and+N.+Paech.+2004.+Nachhaltigkeitsorientiertes+Innovationsmanagement%3A+Prozessgestaltung+&btnG= (accessed on 24 January 2018).
|Pecuniary OI||Non-Pecuniary OI|
|Inbound OI||Acquiring: e.g., paying for ideas or technologies||Sourcing: e.g., obtain ideas or technologies without payment|
|Outbound OI||Selling: e.g., getting paid for ideas or technologies||Revealing: e.g., providing ideas or technologies without payment|
|Criteria of OI Method||Innovation Workshops||Community||Ideation Contests|
|Aims and functions|
|User groups||Lead users, dedicated users||Very involved individuals interested in interaction and knowledge exchange||People concerned with the specific topic|
|Phases of innovation process||Depends on the desired objective||Depends on the desired objective||Depends on the desired objective|
|Users’ knowledge||Need-based and solution-oriented||Solution-oriented||Need-based and solution-oriented|
|Influence on SOI|
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Wehnert, P.; Kollwitz, C.; Daiberl, C.; Dinter, B.; Beckmann, M. Capturing the Bigger Picture? Applying Text Analytics to Foster Open Innovation Processes for Sustainability-Oriented Innovation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3710. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103710
Wehnert P, Kollwitz C, Daiberl C, Dinter B, Beckmann M. Capturing the Bigger Picture? Applying Text Analytics to Foster Open Innovation Processes for Sustainability-Oriented Innovation. Sustainability. 2018; 10(10):3710. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103710Chicago/Turabian Style
Wehnert, Peter, Christoph Kollwitz, Christofer Daiberl, Barbara Dinter, and Markus Beckmann. 2018. "Capturing the Bigger Picture? Applying Text Analytics to Foster Open Innovation Processes for Sustainability-Oriented Innovation" Sustainability 10, no. 10: 3710. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103710