Social product development: a systematic review and reference model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social Product Development (SPD) uses social technologies to engage diverse stakeholders, yet the current literature on the topic remains fragmented, lacking a comprehensive model to guide its implementation. This study aims to address this gap by conducting a systematic literature review to develop a comprehensive SPD reference model. A total of 72 articles from the Web of Science database (2014–2023) were analysed. The analysis identifies the core components of the SPD ecosystem (i.e. activities, tenants, actors, and mechanisms) and sixteen key influencing factors. These factors are ranked by frequency to highlight their relative importance, with user knowledge and social network ties emerging as the most prominent. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to systematically derive these elements and synthesise them into a cohesive model. The resulting framework provides a robust theoretical foundation for future research and offers those involved in product development with a practical roadmap, with clear guidance on leveraging the most critical factors to enhance collaborative innovation and improve produ`ct development outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it