@article {1218,
	title = {Understanding Digital Innovation from a Layered Architectural Perspective},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {02/2019},
	pages = {51-63},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Managing successful digital innovation processes is a challenging task, especially when it involves heterogeneous actors with different sets of knowledge. By gaining a better understanding of how different architectural layers of digital technology interplay with digital innovation, we can be better prepared for managing the complex and messy processes that often arise when working with digital innovation. In this article, we therefore ask: How does the layered architecture of digital technology interplay with digital innovation processes? A case study approach was selected to studied events involving multiple actors in an innovation and development project called the Smart Lock project. The theoretical basis for our study is digital innovation from the perspective of knowledge exchange and relationships. A temporal bracketing strategy was used to support a process analysis of the case data. The article primarily contributes to the body of research concerning digital innovation and provides an example to practitioners of how digital innovation processes can be coordinated and managed based on the innovation at hand.},
	keywords = {collaborative innovation, concept development, digital innovation, digital technology, innovation process},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1218},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1218},
	author = {Jesper Lund and Esbj{\"o}rn Ebbesson}
}
@article {1045,
	title = {Innovation in the Public Sector: Exploring the Characteristics and Potential of Living Labs and Innovation Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {01/2017},
	pages = {7-14},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living labs and innovation labs share many common traits and characteristics. Both concepts are linked to the public sector, and both concepts can be regarded as coping mechanisms to deal with contemporary changes in the innovation landscape and within society as a whole. Both build on past initiatives and practices, but are also struggling to find their own clear identity and {\textquotedblleft}raison d{\textquoteright}{\^e}tre{\textquotedblright}. Because both concepts are largely practice-driven, their theoretical underpinnings and foundations are mostly established after the fact: making sense of current practice rather than carefully researching and planning the further development. However, despite their similarities and common ground, most researchers treat living labs and innovation labs as separate literature streams. Here, starting from a review of the current issues and challenges with innovation in the public sector, we look for links between both concepts by analyzing the current definitions, the predecessors, and the {\textquotedblleft}state of the art{\textquotedblright} in terms of empirical research. Based on these findings, we summarize a set of similarities and differences between both concepts and propose a model towards more collaboration, mutual exchange, and integration of practices between innovation labs, which can be regarded as initiators of innovation, and living labs, which can be regarded as executors of innovation. Thus, we add to the conceptual development of both concepts and propose a roadmap for the further integration of both the theory and practice of living labs and innovation labs.},
	keywords = {collaborative innovation, innovation labs, living labs, Open innovation, public sector, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1045},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1045},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Piret T{\~o}nurist}
}
@article {1118,
	title = {Towards Third-Generation Living Lab Networks in Cities},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {11/2017},
	pages = {21-35},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Many cities engage in diverse experimentation, innovation, and development activities with a broad variety of environments and stakeholders to the benefit of citizens, companies, municipalities, and other organizations. Hence, this article discusses such engagement in terms of next-generation living lab networks in the city context. In so doing, the study contributes to the discussion on living labs by introducing a framework of collaborative innovation networks in cities and suggesting a typology of third-generation living labs. Our framework is characterized by diverse platforms and participation approaches, resulting in four distinctive modes of collaborative innovation networks where the city is: i) a provider, ii) a neighbourhood participator, iii) a catalyst, or iv) a rapid experimenter. The typology is based on an analysis of 118 interviews with participants in six Finnish cities and reveals various ways to organize innovation activities in the city context. In particular, cities can benefit from innovation networks by simultaneously exploiting multiple platforms such as living labs for innovation. We conclude by discussing implications to theory and practice, and suggesting directions for future research.},
	keywords = {city, co-creation, collaborative innovation, innovation, Living lab, networks, Open innovation, smart city, third-generation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1118},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1118},
	author = {Seppo Leminen and Mervi Rajahonka and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {1041,
	title = {Collaborative Innovation with External Actors: An Empirical Study on Open Innovation Platforms in Smart Cities},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {12/2016},
	pages = {49-60},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Despite the rapid increase of public{\textendash}private{\textendash}people partnership (PPPP) programs at the global scale, the scientific knowledge of collaborative innovation in cities is scarce. All smart city initiatives emphasize collaborative innovation for better services and products to address the needs and problems of modern cities. Indeed, there is an evident need for both scientific and practical knowledge in this area. Based on an extensive empirical study of open innovation platforms in smart cities, this article seeks to address this knowledge gap by increasing the knowledge of opportunities and challenges of collaborative innovation between a city and external actors, including companies, third sector organizations, research institutions, and citizens. The opportunities relate to novel services, products, and solutions, as well as economic gains, regional development, and systemic and process improvements. The challenges relate to city governments and external actors.},
	keywords = {collaboration, collaborative innovation, innovation intermediaries, innovation platform, PPPP, public innovation, public{\textendash}private{\textendash}people partnership, smart city, urban development},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1041},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1041},
	author = {Jukka Ojasalo and Heini Kauppinen}
}
@article {1037,
	title = {Editorial: Smart Cities and Regions (December 2016)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {12/2016},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {collaborative innovation, ecosystems, living labs, online platforms, Open innovation, regional innovation, smart cities, smart regions},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1037},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1037},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Taina Tukiainen and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {1040,
	title = {Integrating Open Innovation Platforms in Public Sector Decision Making: Empirical Results from Smart City Research},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {12/2016},
	pages = {38-48},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The purpose of this article is to increase knowledge of integrating an open innovation platform into public sector decision-making processes. Many of the distinctive characteristics of public sector decision-making processes pose a challenge for innovation collaboration with external actors. Often, external actors are not aware of these distinctive characteristics, or they find it very difficult to adapt to them. Particularly SMEs and startups find it difficult to adjust their operation to public sector decision-making processes. The existing literature includes very little knowledge of how such an innovation platform, which is an intermediary between a city and external actors, relates to the city{\textquoteright}s decision-making processes. Still, this is an important issue considering the prerequisites of the success of an innovation platform. This qualitative explorative study is based on data from in-depth interviews and co-creative multi-actor workshops with participants from city governments and other organizations. It proposes a model of open innovation platform for public sector decision making in a city. The article contributes to the literature dealing with innovation intermediaries as well as public sector decision making in enhancement of innovation. It identifies and introduces three different kinds of relationships that are present and partly interwoven in open innovation platforms and intermediary organizations: governing, sparring, and collaborative. The prosed model shows a practical way of organizing the three types of relationships of an innovation platform with the city{\textquoteright}s decision making and external actors. The model also helps in combining different decision-making cultures between the public, private, and third sectors in the context of collaborative innovation. },
	keywords = {collaborative innovation, innovation intermediary, open innovation platform, public decision making, smart city},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1040},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1040},
	author = {Jukka Ojasalo and Lassi T{\"a}htinen}
}
@article {933,
	title = {Cities as Collaborative Innovation Platforms},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {10/2015},
	pages = {16-23},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article, we focus on the role of a city as an orchestrator for innovation. We argue that cities should establish active dialogue with their citizens,  and private and public sectors actors to co-create, develop, test, and offer service innovations that utilize diverse sets of platforms such as living labs. Our research contributes to the discussions of open and user innovations from the perspective of cities as communities that involve and integrate citizens and companies to collaborative innovation activities. While acknowledging that cities are platforms for simultaneous and divergent innovation initiatives, we identify four principal types of collaborative innovation. Cities serve as platforms for: i) improving everyday life; ii) conducting consumer and citizen experiments; iii) experimenting and implementing new technologies and services; and iv) creating new innovations and economies. Finally, we offer guidelines for fostering collaborative innovation activities between the public and private sectors.},
	keywords = {collaborative innovation, creative citizen, industry, Living lab, Open innovation, smart city},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/933},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/933},
	author = {Taina Tukiainen and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {939,
	title = {Editorial: 100th Issue (November 2015)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {11/2015},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {3D printing, born-global firms, collaborative innovation, cybersafety, cybersecurity, cyberspace, future research, innovation, lean global startups, lean startups, management, Open innovation, social innovation, supply chains, technology, technology innovation management review, TIM Review},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/939},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/939},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
