J PROD INNOV MANAG 2018;35(3):300–307

C 2018 Product Development & Management Association

V
DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12447

Guest Editorial

Emerging Research Themes in Innovation and New Product

Development: Insights from the 2017 PDMA-UNH Doctoral
Consortium*
Ludwig Bstieler, Thomas Gruen, Billur Akdeniz, Danielle Brick, Shuili Du, Lin Guo,
Moein Khanlari, James McIllroy, Matt O’Hern, and Goksel Yalcinkaya

I n July 2017, the University of New Hampshire

hosted and cosponsored the third triennial PDMA-
UNH Doctoral Consortium. As in the two prior
events held at the University of Illinois at Chicago, the
Consortium brought together leading new product devel-
opment (NPD) and innovation scholars and practitioners,
as well as 16 of some of the most promising doctoral
students doing research in this respective field. One
highlight of the Consortium involved the “hot-topics”
research workshop that aimed to develop and expound
on some of the most promising research questions of
theoretical and practical significance related to five
emerging areas identified in consultation with outside
innovation academics and practitioners. The five “hot
topics” include open innovation, 3D printing and
innovation, Internet of Things (IoT), big data/analytics
and innovation, and sustainability focused innovation.
Each area was focused on in two round-robin sessions,
led by an academic and addressed by two separate groups
consisting of a mix of academics, practitioners, and doc-
toral candidates. This editorial is a summary of the
research themes, possibilities, ideas, and priorities that
emerged from this research workshop. Our goal is to
stimulate substantial further research on these topics that
advances the knowledge in NPD and innovation and con-
tributes to both managerial and academic practice.
In the subsequent sections, and in no particular
order, we briefly describe each of these hot topics and
offer a list of possible research questions that may
guide scholarly research in this area.

Address correspondence to: Ludwig Bstieler, Department of Market- Open Innovation

ing, Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics, University of
New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire 03824. E-mail: ludwig.bsti-
eler@unh.edu. Tel: 603 862 3306. Many companies utilize some form of open innovation
*We wish to thank the doctoral fellows, and the faculty and managerial to tap the outside knowledge, expertise, or technologies
fellows that participated in the 2017 PDMA-UNH Doctoral Consortium held
at the University of New Hampshire (in alphabetical order): Michael that facilitate NPD. Companies also recognize open inno-
Ahearne, University of Houston; Rob Albert, AstraZeneca; Ana Paula Paes vation as a strategic tool that enables them to explore
Leme Barbosa, University of Sao Paulo; Gloria Barczak, Northeastern Uni-
versity; Barry Bayus, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Lagnajita
new growth opportunities while minimizing risk. For
Chatterjee, University of Illinois at Chicago; Ken (Yongjian) Chen, Wilfried example, open innovation platforms provide flexibility
Laurier University; Anthony Di Benedetto, Temple University; Yvon and responsiveness without necessarily requiring substan-
_
Durant, Itaconix; Ismail Erzurumlu, Koç University; Hadi Eslaminosrata-
badi, McMaster University; Paul Fombelle, Northeastern University; Tom tial costs. Open innovation can enhance firms’ NPD
Grad, Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU Vienna); Anasta- efforts either by enabling them to source knowledge
sia Grass, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit€at Munich (LMU); Thomas Hus-
tad, Indiana University; Mark Kirby, Liberty Mutual; Praveen Kopalle, from external innovators (i.e., an outside-in approach) or
Dartmouth College; Regina “Gina” McNally, Saint Xavier University; Bar- by allowing their under-utilized ideas and technologies to
bara Mehner, Vienna University of Economics and Business (WU Vienna);
Jan Andre Millemann, Saarland University; Hooman Mirahmad, Texas
be incorporated into others’ innovation processes (i.e., an
A&M University; Cheryl Nakata, University of Illinois at Chicago; Charles inside-out approach). Against this backdrop, the work-
Noble, University of Tennessee and Vice Chair Executive Committee shop discussions identified four main themes.
PDMA; Gina O’Conner, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Josue Reynoso,
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Aric Rindfleisch, University of Illinois at
Urbana–Champaign; Sunny Sanwar, University of Missouri-Kansas City;
Kolin Schunck, WHU–Otto Beisheim School of Management; Jelena Span- Theme 1: Open Innovation in the Age of Digitalization
jol, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit€at Munich (LMU); Pete Lankford, Tim-
berland; Markus Welle, University of Mannheim; Gerard Tellis, University
of Southern California; Shaoling (Katee) Zhang, University of Massachusetts The digital transformation provides new tools for gen-
Amherst; Yufei Zhang, Michigan State University. erating, sharing, retrieving, and storing the knowledge
INSIGHTS FROM THE 2017 PDMA-UNH DOCTORAL CONSORTIUM
resources that underlie open innovation. As a result,
more decentralized innovation ecosystems allow a
diverse set of actors to co-create novel solutions to
complex problems. The following research questions
highlight some of the opportunities and challenges that
are directly related to the digital transformation.
Research Questions:
 What is the role of digital platforms in helping (or
hindering) open innovation? In which phase(s) of
new product development (ideation to commerciali-
zation) are digital platforms most (or least) effective
in fostering open innovation?
 How do new digital technologies contribute to
sourcing, sharing, filtering, and evaluating external
knowledge for open innovation?
 What are some of the challenges companies are
likely to encounter when transitioning toward open
innovation in the age of digitalization? What steps
can they take to build organizational readiness for
open innovation?
 Can open innovation be used for developing core
capabilities? If so, how can digital technologies
facilitate this process?
Theme 2: Challenges of Co-creation and
Crowdsourcing
Many managers view open innovation as a combina-
tion of co-creation and crowdsourcing. Co-creation
(e.g., a collaboration between different actors) and
crowdsourcing (e.g., the sourcing of novel solutions
from a group of external innovators) differ slightly in
their meaning, and each carries its own risk. In crowd-
sourcing, e.g., harnessing the “wisdom of the crowd”
without succumbing to the “tyranny of the crowd” is a
significant challenge. Recent research also suggests
that an excessive level of openness can harm perfor-
mance through information redundancy and over-
complexity (Du, Yalcinkaya, and Bstieler, 2016;
Stanko, Fisher, and Bogers, 2017). Consequently, bal-
ancing openness while maintaining control is a major
concern in both co-creation and crowdsourcing.
Research Questions:
 When is the enforcement of intellectual proprietary
rights beneficial in knowledge identification and
acquisition? Under what settings do they hinder
knowledge acquisition?
J PROD INNOV MANAG 301
2018;35(3):300–307
 How do companies blend an internal R&D program
with an external approach such as a crowdsourcing
or co-creation platform?
 Under what conditions will companies be more
likely to engage in (or be effective at) open innova-
tion? At what level does openness become a chal-
lenge? Are there differences in different industries
and across borders?
Theme 3: Measuring the Impact of Open
Innovation
Open innovation approaches vary considerably in terms
of the arrangements between stakeholder groups, the
governance mechanisms chosen by each company, the
type of incentives used, and the short- and long-term
goals to be achieved (Carroll, Srivastava, Volini, Pi~neiro-
Nu~nez, and Vetman, 2017). In an open innovation envi-
ronment collaboration will not just be cross-functional,
but may span a variety of actors including companies,
universities, governments, suppliers, customers, or indi-
viduals. The incorporation of such a large number of
diverse actors and insights can be challenging. Moreover,
traditional performance indicators are often ill-equipped
to measure the relevant inputs, processes, and outcomes
associated with an open innovation program. Hence there
is a substantial need for generally applicable and easily
implementable open innovation metrics. The next set of
research questions addresses this important issue.
Research Questions:
 What methodologies and metrics enable companies
to successfully control and measure progress in their
open innovation projects?
 How should companies utilize open innovation met-
rics effectively, particularly considering that differ-
ent types of measures (i.e., input, process, and
outcome) are needed?
 How could companies measure value creation such
as speed of innovation, stakeholder contribution, and
contribution quality?
Theme 4: Mechanisms Linking Open Innovation to
Performance Outcomes
While there is research linking open innovation to per-
formance outcomes (e.g., Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke,
and West, 2014), and identifying some mediators that
302 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2018;35(3):300–307
underlie the relationship between open innovation and
firm performance (e.g, Faems, De Visser, Andries, and
Van Looy, 2010), the examination of factors that moder-
ate this relationship remains inadequate. There is much
to gain from investigating the relevant antecedents,
mediators, and moderators in open innovation processes.
Research Questions:
 What institutional factors influence the relationship
between open innovation and firm performance?
 How do the mechanisms linking open innovation to
performance outcomes differ in various industries or
international markets?
 How does the measurement of the effectiveness of
open innovation differ across external actors (e.g.,
customers, suppliers, universities)?
3D Printing and Innovation
Recognizing that firms have employed 3D printing
(3DP) technologies for decades, research interest in
this domain has grown only recently. Consortium par-
ticipants identified three important themes within the
domain of 3DP that need additional scholarly study.
Theme 1: 3DP’s Role in Enhancing Firms’
Internal Innovation Efforts
What are the ways that a firm might apply 3DP to
enhance the innovative potential of its internal NPD
teams? For example, do teams that actively utilize 3DP in
NPD find that they can more easily create a variety of
physical prototypes and models? The availability of 3DP
physical artifacts could enable NPD team members to bet-
ter comprehend important aspects of the products they
seek to develop and more effectively communicate new
ideas with one another. Other possible benefits of applying
3DP technologies in this manner might include enhanced
learning outcomes among NPD team members and an
increased ability to work collaboratively to achieve collec-
tive goals. These intermediate outcomes, in turn, might
influence NPD-relevant metrics such as product feasibility,
product innovativeness, and/or NPD speed.
Research Questions:
 How does the application of 3DP technology in the
NPD process influence outcome metrics such as
product feasibility, product innovativeness, and
L. BSTIELER ET AL.
product development speed? What are the underly-
ing mechanisms through which this occurs?
 Under what circumstances is the impact of 3DP tech-
nology on relevant NPD outcomes most pronounced
(e.g., for geographically disparate virtual teams, in sit-
uations where effective communication between dif-
ferent functional areas is especially challenging)?
 What is the relative impact of 3DP technologies on
NPD team output at different stages of the NPD pro-
cess (e.g., ideation phase versus development
phase)?
Theme 2: 3DP Users’ Role in Providing Firms
with NPD-Relevant Knowledge
Because 3DP inherently involves transformations of
digital information to physical products (and vice
versa), this technology has the potential to impact a
wide variety of new sectors and will likely be of inter-
est to many firms in the near future (Rindfleisch,
O’Hern, and Sachdev, 2017). Industries in which user
activity was previously restricted due to the difficulties
involved in acquiring the necessary manufacturing tools
(e.g., prosthetics) now serve as fertile new grounds for
user innovation. As in other community-based user
innovation contexts (e.g., open source software), users
are actively involved in creating and sharing new prod-
uct designs to satisfy their own and their peers’ unmet
needs. Consequently, forward thinking firms may be
well advised to regard this user-generated content as a
vital knowledge resource that can serve as an important
source of new inspirations and offer them a more com-
prehensive set of real-time insights into users’ evolving
needs.
Research Questions:
 To what extent should firms actively involve users
in selecting the most promising of 3DP innovations,
and what are the limitations of this approach?
 What are the characteristics that make some users
more/less adept at identifying promising innovations
than their peers?
 What mechanisms and approaches can firms use to
better evaluate and gauge the market potential of
user-generated 3DP innovations?
INSIGHTS FROM THE 2017 PDMA-UNH DOCTORAL CONSORTIUM
Theme 3: The Disruptive Role of 3DP Innovation
Occurring Outside the Firm
The “democratization” of innovation in the 3DP
domain promises to make user innovation more rele-
vant to a larger number of industries and NPD contexts.
This challenges the traditional NPD logic that the firm
plays the primary role in deciding which innovations
will be adopted (Bayus, 2013). The traditional perspec-
tive understates the important role that user-to-user and
firm-to-user knowledge flows may play in fostering
3DP innovation. In order to succeed in the 3DP
domain, firms may need to adopt a very different set of
roles that serve to enhance communications between
groups of users or between the firm and the user base.
This strategy may become increasingly viable for firms,
as recent advances in 3DP technology (e.g., lower cost
3D printers, increasingly user-friendly 3D scanners)
allow users of various skill levels to actively participate
in the user innovation process. Thus, 3DP encourages
firms to reassess the role they play in the NPD process
as well as their willingness to share NPD-relevant
knowledge with their customers.
Research Questions:
 What are the social motivations that drive users to share
ideas with one another and/or create their own 3D
printed products?
 To what extent must firms actively share NPD-relevant
knowledge (e.g., modifiable design files) with their user
communities in order to enhance the acquisition and
retention of high quality user innovators?
 Are firms that actively share NPD-relevant knowl-
edge with their user communities better able to
facilitate user innovation and arrive at more innova-
tive new product protoypes than firms that adopt a
more traditional intellectual property approach?
 Can firms that actively share NPD-relevant knowl-
edge with their user communities build goodwill and
stimulate customer loyalty enough to offset the possi-
ble negative consequences of sharing intellectual
property assets with their users (e.g., product coun-
terfeiting, piracy)?
“Internet of Things”
The Internet of Things (IoT) is generally described as
a network of entities that are connected by sensors that
J PROD INNOV MANAG 303
2018;35(3):300–307
can be arranged to communicate information regarding
their use, context, environment, and location. In the IoT,
any physical object can become an information resource
where the information can be combined and rearranged to
create new forms of value, and this value typically goes
beyond the original design for the use of the object. For
example, textiles with smart sensors can collect and pro-
vide information not only about the garment, but also the
user of the garment, and the environment in which the gar-
ment is being worn or stored. This information can be
communicated, shared, and organized for a number of
uses (fit and wear of the fabrics, health of the wearer, or
surrounding air quality).
In this workshop the participants discussed research
issues surrounding the IoT including its building
blocks, encouragers/inhibitors of adoption, research
methodologies, and managerial applications. A recent
article by Ng and Wakenshaw (2017) provided partici-
pants the background and history of IoT and served as
the springboard for the discussion. Even though the
term seems to have been first established in 1999
(Ashton, 2009), there is “scant research” available on
the topic. Using the list of research questions and
approaches outlined in Ng and Wakenshaw (2017),
participants found the most consensus surrounding the
following research themes and questions:
Theme 1: Inhibitors of IoT Adoption
The first and foremost issues that could inhibit the
adoption of IoT include cyber security, privacy, and
control. Specific issues include the level of individu-
als’ concerns about potential negative effects regarding
the loss of privacy, the need for additional information
security, and ceding control of everyday tasks.
Research Questions:
 Which new individual capabilities and resources will
need to be developed that will be required to adapt
to IoT such as personal information management
and working with crypto-currencies?
 As the nature of the IoT is to share information,
how would individuals relate to others and how
would new networks of individuals be formed?
Theme 2: Enhacing the Consumer Experience
A second major area of discussion surrounded the
understanding of the building blocks for the IoT includ-
ing logics, standards, interoperability, and scalability.
304 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2018;35(3):300–307
This also addresses the paradox of customization and
the need for standardization, i.e., how to provide a cus-
tomized experience while standardizing for efficiency. A
related research area concerns the degree to which the
IoT provides incremental functionalities to existing
objects’ purposes (e.g., traditional automobiles become
self-driving) as opposed to developing entirely new pur-
poses for existing objects (new business models where
new information based revenues replace the traditional
revenue model from the product’s original purpose).
Research Questions:
 From the firm perspective, how is value created, dis-
tributed, attributed, and shared in the IoT?
 What are the best arrangements for manufacturing
firms to acquire the new competencies required to
compete in the IoT?
Theme 3: Research Methodologies and Managerial
Applications
In IoT research, the unit of analysis focus can be
either on the individual product component
(“internet-connected constituent”) or at the network
or system level. The focus can also be on the indus-
trial IoT or the consumer IoT. For research methods,
the workshop centered on opportunities for field
experiments to supplement controlled experiments.
The group affirmed the need for cross-disciplinary
research, although marketing can be the organizing
field as ultimately all IoT must be adopted by users.
The adoption of a service-dominant logic approach
and its recent evolution to include institutions (Vargo
and Lusch, 2015) can be key to addressing the ser-
vice nature of the IoT and the interface of marketing
research with other disciplines.
Research Questions:
 What are the most promising research methods or
combinations thereof to study the IoT in different
contexts?
 How can the adoption of a service-dominant logic
approach and its recent evolution to include institu-
tions (Vargo and Lusch, 2015) address the service
nature of the IoT and the interface of marketing
research with other disciplines?
L. BSTIELER ET AL.
Big Data/Analytics and Innovation
“Big data and analytics” has become a vital driver of
innovation, competition, and growth in the global
economy (Bharadwaj and Noble, 2017). The examina-
tion of the interface of innovation and big data/analyt-
ics resulted in several key themes that emerged as
potential research avenues.
Theme 1: Radical Innovation Driven by Big Data
The big data revolution leading to data-rich business envi-
ronments has significant implications for NPD and innova-
tion. Big data are often described by their volume,
velocity, and variety, which can serve as a source of com-
petitive advantage to create value and drive innovation.
The 2014 IBM Innovation survey suggests that using big
data in their innovation processes helps firms to beat their
competition in terms of revenue, growth, and efficiency
with a higher probability. Yet, there is still a lack of under-
standing of whether and how big data drives radical and
disruptive innovation. Research has examined how firms
like Netflix, Uber, and Airbnb use consumer data from the
use of actual products to reduce costs, increase accessibil-
ity, improve the next generation of products, and create
new business models. In addition to these downstream
effects of big data on NPD, firms can also use it to pursue
a demand-side opportunity analysis to reveal new insights
and upstream implications.
Research Questions:
 Which antecedents elicit more radical and disruptive
innovation from big data?
 How can big data and its components help companies
uncover the untapped opportunities in the market?
For instance, how does the value and veracity of
data-rich environments help organizations detect early
users and alternative benefits of existing products to
develop the next new-to-the world products and iden-
tify unmet customer needs?
 What type of contextual variables can accentuate the
potential benefits of big data for disruptive
innovation?
Theme 2: Innovation in the Light of Descriptive,
Predictive, and Prescriptive Analytics
Eighty percent or more of analytics that are provided to
most businesses are descriptive, which is the simplest
INSIGHTS FROM THE 2017 PDMA-UNH DOCTORAL CONSORTIUM
type used for understanding the past and current situa-
tion. Yet, predictive and prescriptive analytics are con-
sidered as the next and more insightful steps in helping
organizations with forecasting as well as predicting the
possible outcomes of a course of action (such as a new
product launch). By using a variety of techniques such
as machine learning and data mining, predictive analyt-
ics can help companies identify early users and focus
their communications to address this specific customer
segment and forecast future demand. Prescriptive ana-
lytics, using simulation and/or optimization, can help
companies to determine the most optimal improvements
to a certain product or service for the next generation
launch. Both of these techniques along with descriptive
analytics provide organizations with deeper learning
capabilities and actionable insights as a sustainable
competitive advantage.
Research Questions:
 In what ways do descriptive, predictive, and pre-
scriptive analytics lead to innovative ideas or inform
the innovation process?
 How is each type superior to the others for increas-
ing the likelihood of innovation success, and where
and when is each type best applied?
 How can predictive and prescriptive analytics help
companies with their product and process innovation?
Theme 3: Collaboration Between IT and
Marketing, and its Impact on Innovation
While marketers would benefit from expanding their
skills in data handling and analysis, it is also an oppor-
tune time for them to form interdisciplinary collabora-
tions with data scientists and IT experts to co-create
value and new knowledge that stems from expertise in
multiple domains. Such collaborations would lead to
synergies that can expedite the rate at which innova-
tion from data takes place.
Research Questions:
 Does business domain expertise affect the quantity
and quality of innovative insights that can be drawn
from raw data?
 How can the skill sets of data analytics and market-
ing be brought together to benefit NPD?
J PROD INNOV MANAG 305
2018;35(3):300–307
 Would collaboration between data scientists and
marketers make radical or incremental innovations
from data more likely to happen?
Theme 4: Creation of Smart Products and Services
Fueled by Big Data and Analytics
Smart products include those that can perform one or
more of these tasks: collect and transmit user data, inde-
pendently interact with users, or adapt and self-
customize their features in response to user preferences.
These products can process and analyze user data in a
decentralized fashion at the individual level through
built-in algorithms, and they can also send their user
data to a computer server for central processing. With
central processing, each smart product can also tap into
a “crowd wisdom” gleaned from all existing users to
inform its interactions with the user or its self-
customization. As products become smarter, they breed
new opportunities for innovation. Continuous creation
and collection of user data also provides the opportunity
for automating the innovation process or at least parts of
it, such as idea generation.
Research Questions:
 How can heterogeneities in user preferences and
product usage lead to the development of new prod-
ucts or making existing products smarter?
 How can we use intelligent algorithms to not only
examine the head of the distributions of user prefer-
ences and usage patterns, but also analyze the tail of
such distributions for new ideas?
 What characteristics must an intelligent algorithm or
machine possess to independently come up with
innovative ideas?
Sustainability-Focused Innovation
Sustainability-focused innovation refers to a firm’s inten-
tional and systematic integration of multiple social and
environmental criteria in its NPD to create joint social
and business value. Leading scholars have called for
more research to investigate effective methods and pro-
cesses that help explain how to effectively and efficiently
integrate sustainability into new product innovation
(Barczak, 2012; Slotegraaf, 2012). Against this backdrop,
the workshop participants identified three main themes.
306 J PROD INNOV MANAG
2018;35(3):300–307
Theme 1: Sources of Sustainable Innovation
There is limited knowledge on sources and antecedent
conditions of sustainable innovation (Adams, Jeanre-
naud, Bessant, Denyer, and Overy, 2015). Sustainable
innovation balances the interests and well-being of a
firm’s various stakeholders, ranging from shareholders,
consumers, employees, to business partners, local com-
munities, and the natural environment. Most prior
research has focused on either the benefits of sustain-
ability or the macro and institutional influences on
firms’ sustainable practices. An in-depth, nuanced
understanding of the stakeholder- and firm-related
sources of sustainable innovation begs attention.
Research Questions:
 What roles do external factors, such as consumer
insights, marketplace trends, and competitors’ actions,
play in generating ideas for sustainable innovations?
 How do firm-level factors, such as corporate culture,
leadership characteristics, and innovation strategy,
influence a firm’s engagement in sustainable
innovation?
 Why are some firms more likely to adopt a proactive
(versus a reactive) approach to sustainability-focused
innovation? Is there a first-mover advantage in sustain-
able innovation? Under what circumstances is the first-
mover more (or less) likely to succeed in sustainable
innovation?
Theme 2: Implementation of Sustainable
Innovation
Consumer adoption of sustainable innovation is critical
for new product success. Research from consumer
behavior could shed light on key influences on consumer
sustainable consumption (e.g., Goldstein, Cialdini, and
Griskevicius, 2008). Successful implementation of sus-
tainable innovation requires collaboration across the
entire business ecosystem. There are many research
opportunities surrounding the effective implementation
of sustainable innovation including the development of
initial ideas into concrete new products, introduction of
sustainable products in the marketplace, and managing
the network of partners to facilitate the success of these
innovations (Varadarajan, 2017).
Research Questions:
 How could firms first get buy-in from employees
and then leverage the knowledge and expertise from
L. BSTIELER ET AL.
employees and external business partners (e.g., cus-
tomers, suppliers) to develop sustainable new
products?
 What are the variables (e.g., culture, social norms,
values, and identity signaling) that influence con-
sumer demand for sustainable products?
 How should firms cooperate with partners in the dis-
tribution channel to bring sustainable new products
to customers in the right place? What are the pro-
cesses through which firms could facilitate the estab-
lishment of relevant industry standards and public
policies regarding sustainable innovations?
Theme 3: Challenges in Sustainable Innovation
To better facilitate sustainable innovation and embed it
in a firm’s business model, managers need to fully
grasp the unique characteristics of sustainable innova-
tion in comparision to conventional innovation and
establish decision criteria and policies for making com-
pex trade-offs, if any, between the two. Enhancing the
credibility and effectiveness of marketing communica-
tion related to sustainable new products is critical for
fostering consumer adoption. Firms also need to quan-
tify and calibrate the progress and outcomes of sustain-
able innovation, and use these insights to continuously
improve and optimize their sustainability-related busi-
ness endeavors.
Research Questions:
 How do firms reconcile the social/environmental and
the economic dimensions of new products when
these aspects do not go together? Is there a dark
side of sustainable innovation?
 How do firms communicate the benefits of sustain-
able products to facilitate quicker adoption of such
products? How should firms communicate the value
of sustainable innovation to investors to maximize
firm valuation? What factors maximize stakeholders’
perception of the value of sustainability?
 What metrics should firms use to measure their sus-
tainability performance? How should firms measure
and quantify the linkages between inputs and outputs
of sustainability? On a global scale, how could the
ramifications of sustainable innovations be assessed
and monitored?
INSIGHTS FROM THE 2017 PDMA-UNH DOCTORAL CONSORTIUM
References
Adams, R., S. Jeanrenaud, J. Bessant, D. Denyer, and P. Overy. 2015.
Sustainability-oriented innovation: A systematic review. Interna-
tional Journal of Management Reviews 18 (2): 180–205.
Ashton, K. 2009. That “internet of things” thing. RFID Journal June 22.
Barczak, G. 2012. The future of NPD/innovation research. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 29 (3): 355–57.
Bayus, B. L. 2013. Crowdsourcing new product ideas over time: An
analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm community. Management Science 59
(1): 226–44.
Bharadwaj, N., and C. Noble. 2017. Finding innovation in data rich envi-
ronments. Journal of Product Innovation Management 34 (5): 560–64.
Carroll, G. P., S. Srivastava, A. S. Volini, M. M. Pi~ u~
neiro-N nez, and T.
Vetman. 2017. Measuring the effectiveness and impact of an open
innovation platform. Drug Discovery Today 22: 776–85.
Chesbrough, H., W. Vanhaverbeke, and J. West. eds. 2014. New fron-
tiers in open innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Du, S., G. Yalcinkaya, and L. Bstieler. 2016. Sustainability, open inno-
vation, and new product development performance. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 33 (S1): 55–71.
Faems, D., M. De Visser, P. Andries, and B. Van Looy. 2010. Technol-
ogy alliance portfolios and financial performance: Value-enhancing
J PROD INNOV MANAG 307
2018;35(3):300–307
and cost-increasing effects of open innovation. Journal of Product
Innovation Management 27: 785–96.
Goldstein, N. J., R. B. Cialdini, and V. Griskevicius. 2008. A room with
a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conserva-
tion in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research 35 (3): 472–82.
Ng, I. C. L., and S. Y. L. Wakenshaw. 2017. The internet-of-things:
Review and research directions. International Journal of Research
in Marketing 34: 3–21.
Rindfleisch, A., M. O’Hern, and V. Sachdev. 2017. The digital revolu-
tion, 3D printing, and innovation as data. Journal of Product Inno-
vation Management 34 (5): 681–90.
Slotegraaf, R. J. 2012. Keep the door open: Innovating toward a more
sustainable future. Journal of Product Innovation Management 29
(3): 349–51.
Stanko, M. A., G. J. Fisher, and M. Bogers. 2017. Under the wide
umbrella of open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Man-
agement 34 (4): 785–96.
Varadarajan, R. 2017. Innovating for sustainability: A framework for
sustainable innovations and a model of sustainable innovations
orientation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 45 (1):
14–36.
Vargo, S. L., and R. F. Lusch. 2015. Institutions and axioms: An exten-
sion and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science 44 (1): 5–23.