@article {1461,
	title = {Expect the Unexpected: Investigating co-creation projects in a Living Lab},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2021},
	month = {12/2021},
	pages = {6-20},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {6},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living Labs (LLs) are complex multi-stakeholder environments that enable real-life testing and experimentation of products, services, and systems. Despite increasing attention by practitioners as well as policymakers, and growing scholarly interest in the field, the literature exploring congruency between organisational objectives and outcomes when utilising LLs is still scarce. To fill this gap, a qualitative case study is employed to gain an in-depth understanding of objectives and project outcomes of organisations utilising LLs. The LL JOSEPHS{\textregistered} was chosen as this study{\textquoteright}s empirical context, in which 14 different projects were analysed. In-depth interviews revealed eight categories of measurable project outcomes: market acceptance, price acceptability, exposure, product testing, market intelligence, legitimisation, method testing, and networking. This study not only highlights what companies have achieved in comparison to their original project objectives, but also identifies additional unplanned outcomes that they accomplished. The findings offer important project-level insights into the potential and limitations of LLs. The results form a basis upon which to develop a better understanding of how innovation performance can be nurtured in LLs. Insights from the study may also help firms and facilitators by providing a deeper understanding of LLs at an individual project-level, and by articulating potential objectives and outcomes associated with organisations{\textquoteright} involvement in LLs.},
	keywords = {co-creation, innovation, Innovation management, Living lab, Open innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1461},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1461},
	author = {Katharina De Vita and Riccardo De Vita}
}
@article {1464,
	title = {Living Labs for Public Sector Innovation: insights from a European case study},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2021},
	month = {12/2021},
	pages = {47-58},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {47},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living labs have gained increased attention in research and practice as both a practical and theoretical innovation phenomenon that emphasizes co-creation, real-life settings, and user/customer involvement. More recently, living labs have also emerged as a specific approach to open innovation processes in the context of publics across the EU. Nevertheless, it is still not clear how the understanding of living labs can be translated and organized into new sectorial settings, what type of public sector innovation challenges it addresses, and what role citizens and users have. The aim of this article is therefore to explore and analyze how living labs are applied as processes for public sector innovation. Based on a mixed method approach of 21 European living lab cases, the analysis reveals a pattern of three different processes for living lab organizational and actor roles: living labs organized as cross-sectorial collaboration, living labs emerging within the public sector as main initiator and beneficiary, and living labs developed by civil society actors. The findings are presented as three scenarios for implementing living labs, which also acts as a background for the article{\textquoteright}s final discussion about the potentials and pitfalls of living labs in public sector contexts.},
	keywords = {Citizen engagement, co-creation, living labs, Open innovation, Public sector innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1464},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1464},
	author = {Anne Vorre Hansen and Lars Fuglsang and Christine Liefooghe and Luis Rubalcaba and David Gago and Ines Mergel \& Nathalie Haug and Maria Taivalsaari R{\o}hneb{\ae}k \& Francesco Mureddu}
}
@article {1467,
	title = {A Review of Living Lab Research and Methods for User Involvement},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2021},
	month = {12/2021},
	pages = {88-107},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {88},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living lab initiatives attempt to solve challenges by stimulating innovative collaboration and outcomes, which unfold in multifarious activities. This study investigates the progress of Living lab research over time. It explores its current trends, along with methods and tools used by Living labs for user involvement. By employing a two-step approach, the study first presents a bibliometric analysis of 535 publications, including detection of convergence towards areas like the aging problem of societies, smart cities, Urban Living labs, and overall sustainability. Urban Living lab clusters have been growing rapidly and forming their own research domain. Subsequently, a review of 42 empirical papers explores the methods and tools adopted by Living labs for user involvement during the innovation process. We categorize the methods into the following eight groups: 1) Structured interaction, 2) Flexible interaction, 3) Extended network, 4) Special actors, 5) Learning and engaging, 6) Design approaches; 7) Techniques, 8) Operational guidelines. The study contributes both to theoretical and practice-oriented Living lab research and offers potential support especially to practitioners.},
	keywords = {bibliometric analysis, co-creation, literature review, Living lab, user involvement},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1467},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1467},
	author = {Judy Hong Huang and Elisa Thomas}
}
@article {1385,
	title = {Human-Centered Design for Collaborative Innovation in Knowledge-based Economies},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {09/2020},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {5},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This research explores a university-industry collaboration based on the case study of an innovation project based on Stanford University{\textquoteright}s ME310 Design Innovation program. The Porto Design Factory and IKEA Industry joined forces to tackle a problem using what has come to be called a human-centered design approach. The case study provides an understanding of outcomes that reveal the potential of using a human-centered design approach to solve technical problems while enhancing customer experience. It also identifies the benefits that each institution gained by collaborating. The outcomes show that companies benefit from building interfaces with external partners, and that universities are relevant players in the innovation ecosystem, satisfying their third mission of being entrepreneurial institutions.},
	keywords = {co-creation, design thinking, Human-Centered Design, innovation, ME310, new product development, Project-based Learning, University-Industry Collaboration},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1385},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1385},
	author = {Tiago Filipe Pereira da Silva and Jo{\~a}o Paulo Coelho Marques}
}
@article {1336,
	title = {Rapid Product Development in University-Industry Collaboration: Case Study of a Smart Design Project},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {03/2020},
	pages = {49-59},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {49},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {University-industry collaboration aims at mutually beneficial knowledge and technology exchange between higher education and business. Prototyping new products is one sweet spot where industry can gain new valuable knowledge and understanding of technology, while higher education institutions develop the skills and competences of students by encouraging them to work on authentic real-life problems. From the \&ldquo;design thinking\&rdquo; perspective, rapid product development can be defined as the creation of new products, in the shortest timescales possible, that meet the criteria of desirability, feasibility, and viability. This article addresses rapid product development by presenting a case study of developing prototypes in university-industry collaboration. As a result, the study highlights key design principles, such as the importance of involving teachers, business representatives, and students in collaborative project design, of focusing on the customers or service users who will benefit from the design, and of guiding students participating in co-creation activities. Presenting conclusions for both academics and the industry, the article contributes to design thinking and rapid product development in university-industry collaboration.},
	keywords = {co-creation, Co-creation pedagogy, design thinking, Rapid product development, University-Industry Collaboration},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1336},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1336},
	author = {Jari Jussila and Jukka Raitanen and Atte Partanen and Vesa Tuomela and Ville Siipola and Irma Kunnari}
}
@article {1231,
	title = {Bridging Participatory Policy Trends and Research Traditions through Social Innovation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {04/2019},
	pages = {27-36},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This study explores whether social innovation may serve as a bridge between participatory policy trends and research traditions when striving for improved societal relevance and impact of research and innovation (R\&I). Despite their shared aim of relevance and impact through civic involvement, European R\&I policies and participatory action research approaches seldom refer to each other or harness each other{\textquoteright}s resources. The study advances the knowledge regarding how the participatory elements in the policies and research approaches relate through a participatory case study of a joint R\&I process to develop a model for social innovation support in Sweden. The case study helps distinguish potential synergies between various degrees of involvement advocated in the policies and research approaches, as well as between the reliance on trending policy concepts vs. scientific notions of validity. Social innovation is perceived as a potential bridge between these elements, as it draws upon participatory academic traditions, while simultaneously tapping into current policy trends of co-creation, in the development of new approaches and solutions to societal challenges. },
	keywords = {action research, co-creation, innovation, participatory research, social innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1231},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1231},
	author = {Malin Lindberg and Daniel Hallencreutz and Anna Tengqvist}
}
@article {1154,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (May 2018)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {05/2018},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {business models, co-creation, drop out, entrepreneurship, facilitation, innovation, internationalization, lean global startups, living labs, services, servitization, stakeholders, users, value propositions, value-in-use},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1154},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1154},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1156,
	title = {Innovation Instruments to Co-Create Needs-Based Solutions in a Living Lab},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {05/2018},
	pages = {22-35},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This multiple case study focuses on co-creation facilitated with innovation instruments in three different environments {\textendash} a school, a hospital, and an airport {\textendash} in which 12 SMEs and startups developed solutions based on predefined needs of customer organizations, and where stakeholders actively participated through user involvement methods facilitated by a living lab. The article provides new knowledge regarding the benefits of the co-creation, user involvement, and use of the living lab approach within different contexts. Our findings show concrete benefits of co-creation for stakeholders such as companies, customer organizations, and end users. Based on our results, we propose a new, generic model for using innovation instruments to facilitate co-creation for the development of needs-based products and services in different service domains.},
	keywords = {co-creation, innovation instrument, innovation process, Living lab, SME, startup, user involvement},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1156},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1156},
	author = {Lotta Haukipuro and Satu V{\"a}in{\"a}m{\"o} and Pauliina Hyrk{\"a}s}
}
@article {1080,
	title = {Realistic Creativity Training for Innovation Practitioners: The Know{\textendash}Recognize{\textendash}React Model},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {06/2017},
	pages = {5-15},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Creativity is increasingly being recognized as important raw material for innovation, which highlights the importance of identifying ways to increase the creativity of practitioners. In this article, we describe our efforts to design a creativity training program specifically for innovation practitioners. Our aim was to develop a program that would be both theoretically sound (i.e., based on a rigorous scientific foundation) and relevant for practitioners (i.e., applicable to real-world contexts). Our transdisciplinary study employed co-creation as a method to ensure that three layers of focus would be taken into consideration: metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and metacognitive control. The result is a program called Creative Awareness Training, which is based on the new Know{\textendash}Recognize{\textendash}React model.},
	keywords = {co-creation, cognitive creativity, creative awareness, creative process, creativity, creativity training, front-end innovation, innovation process, metacognition, transdisciplinary},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1080},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1080},
	author = {Dagny Valgeirsdottir and Balder Onarheim}
}
@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 {1009,
	title = {Co-Creating User Stories: A Tool for Making Sense of Business Opportunities},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {08/2016},
	pages = {33-39},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article discusses co-creation as a means of sensemaking among business-to-business actors, and presents a case study from the information and communications sector, in which the aim is to understand current and future media consumption and behaviour. We propose to expand the notion of co-creation in such a way that it also recognizes interaction and sensemaking between different stakeholders within an industry or sector, compared to the current view, in which the focus is on the consumers{\textquoteright} role in co-creation activities. Stakeholder co-creation entails jointly creating meaning of a chosen complex phenomenon by using practical tools, such as narratives in the form of user stories. Sensemaking is a narrative process and can thus be used in combination with practical facilitation tools in order to co-create user stories or other stories, and in other contexts.},
	keywords = {business-to-business, co-creation, sensemaking, user stories},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1009},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1009},
	author = {Anna-Greta Nystr{\"o}m and Miia Mustonen and Seppo Yrj{\"o}l{\"a}}
}
@article {963,
	title = {Crowdsourcing Literature Reviews in New Domains},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {02/2016},
	pages = {5-14},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Conducting a literature review in new domains presents unique challenges. The literature in a new domain is typically broad, fragmented, and growing quickly. Because little is known about the new domain, the literature review cannot be guided by established classifications of knowledge, unlike in an existing domain. Rather, it will be driven by evidence that challenges and extends existing knowledge. In a way, exploring a new domain means looking for anomalies in the evidence that cannot be explained by what is already known. This article summarizes lessons from conducting two literature reviews in new domains in the area of cybersecurity. It then presents a design for using leader-driven crowdsourcing to collect evidence and synthesize it into insights in a new domain. The article will be relevant to those who are exploring a new domain, in particular students, researchers, and members of R\&D projects in industry.},
	keywords = {co-creation, crowdsourcing, crowdsourcing platform, cybersecurity, literature review, narrative, new domains, systematic},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/963},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/963},
	author = {Michael Weiss}
}
@article {1039,
	title = {The Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest Approach for Co-Creating Business Ecosystems in Smart Cities},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {12/2016},
	pages = {26-37},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The development of business ecosystems in smart cities is currently hampered by the absence of established approaches for facilitating long-term value and sustainability. In our view, the underlying reason is the lack of collective action involving various organizations in the design process. Collective action for the good of the whole ecosystem does not take place in existing participatory practices because of the dominating role of a single customer or designer organization (in urban development projects typically the owner-developer or lead architect), who uses their bargaining and decision-making power over others. This leads to sub-optimal behaviour where the system is optimized for the goals of one strong organization instead of collectively developed system-level goals of the business ecosystem as a whole. The Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest approach addresses this problem by inviting various expert organizations to design the system and assigning each organization design rights for the ecosystem and its system-level goal. The Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest approach enhances collective action among the organizations by making individuals from various organizations consider the interests, goals, objectives, and value-adding elements of other organizations {\textendash} not just those of their own organizations. With the Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest approach, the business ecosystem comes first, and single organizations{\textquoteright} goals or specific design features come second. This article discusses the outcomes of two workshops where the Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest approach was used for the purpose of developing business ecosystems in connection with smart city development projects within the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. We outline the steps involved in the Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest approach and how they were applied in these two smart city projects, and we describe how it is being refined for further use in other locations and contexts.},
	keywords = {business ecosystem, business network, campus development, co-creation, co-design, collective action, Cuckoo{\textquoteright}s Nest Approach, participatory planning, smart cities, sustainability},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1039},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1039},
	author = {Karlos Artto and Riikka Kyr{\"o} and Tuomas Ahola and Antti Peltokorpi and Kristiina Sandqvist}
}
@article {1029,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation in Tourism (November 2016)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {11/2016},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {action research, boundary objects, co-creation, crowdsourcing, innovation, living labs, smart cities, smart destinations, technology, tourism},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1029},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1029},
	author = {Chris McPhee and David Guimont and Dominic Lapointe}
}
@article {1006,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (August 2016)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {08/2016},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {audience commodification, business models, co-creation, corporate entrepreneurship, digital maturity model, digitization, front end of innovation, idea selection, user stories},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1006},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1006},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1033,
	title = {A Process for Co-Creating Shared Value with the Crowd: Tourism Case Studies from a Regional Innovation System in Western Switzerland},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {11/2016},
	pages = {32-39},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Despite the presence of a regional innovation system, the gross value added attributed to tourism in the Swiss region of Valais is declining. Innovation policies fostering private initiatives and collaboration between companies, researchers, and coaching services have been reinforced recently, and policy instruments are in place to support strategic industries. However, no incitement instrument is dedicated to supporting the co-creation and the creation of shared value through local actors. This article presents a co-creation process of shared value and the lessons learned while implementing a new mode of innovation and entrepreneurship in two case studies in the peripheral region of Valais, Switzerland. The aim of the process is the co-creation of shared value-based business models, with an emphasis on the use of crowdsourcing to find new ways to create shared value.},
	keywords = {business models, co-creation, crowdsourcing, innovation, regional innovation system, shared value, tourism, tourism cluster},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1033},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1033},
	author = {Vincent Gr{\`e}zes and B{\'e}atrice Girod Lehmann and Marc Schnyder and Antoine Perruchoud}
}
@article {952,
	title = {Contextuality and Co-Creation Matter: A Qualitative Case Study Comparison of Living Lab Concepts in Urban Research},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {12/2015},
	pages = {48-55},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Innovation development is key to transforming a product-based economy into an innovative service economy by integrating users as co-creators in real-life environments. User co-creation and user involvement are key elements in living labs. Urban living labs add not only the urban component to the conceptual design, but also societal, political, and technological questions. Fields of analysis in urban research relate to socio-spatial environment, living together, and urban policies. The leading question of this article is: to what extent can urban living labs be used as an instrument to support these fields of investigation? Comparing three different approaches for urban living labs, ranging from socially-centred to more technology-centred, we offer a more nuanced understanding of urban living lab design in diverging research contexts. All three case studies manage to go beyond testing and improving new products, which is normally the aim of existing living labs, by embedding innovation in appropriate social, structural, and institutional frameworks, and targeting civil society involvement. The community benefits from this case study comparison because it contextualizes living labs as research methodology to be applied in future urban research projects. },
	keywords = {co-creation, innovation ecosystem, participation, social innovation, urban living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/952},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/952},
	author = {Yvonne Franz and Karin Tausz and Sarah-Kristin Thiel}
}
@article {927,
	title = {The Organization of Living Labs: Coordinating Activities for Regional Innovation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {09/2015},
	pages = {23-28},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article contributes to the ongoing knowledge from the first decade of operating living labs with a study on the coordination of novel innovation activities in living labs. The article provides an organizational model for living labs to order the activities that eventually will allow the conceptualization of living labs as innovation systems, thus giving user involvement a more central role in innovation process theories. This article shows how innovation networks systematically align their activities to reliably achieve their objectives. Next to this interpretivist theoretical contribution, the article contributes relevant practical insights to technology innovation management practitioners based on in-depth living lab cases that exhibit interesting, relevant, and new activities.},
	keywords = {activities, co-creation, ideation, innovation systems, living labs, processes, venturing},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/927},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/927},
	author = {Bernhard R. Katzy and Claudia B{\"u}cker}
}
@article {944,
	title = {Q\&A. In the Innovation Game, Why Do So Many Companies Stay on the Sidelines?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {11/2015},
	pages = {35-39},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {co-creation, co-innovation, collaboration, innovation, lead users, Open innovation, open source},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/944},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/944},
	author = {Katri Valkokari}
}
@article {763,
	title = {Generative Innovation Practices, Customer Creativity, and the Adoption of New Technology Products},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {02/2014},
	pages = {5-10},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {We offer a critical reflection on one of the key reasons for the startlingly low success rate of innovation initiatives worldwide {\textendash} the fact that the interactive environment surrounding the customer is a critical part of the adoption process; it can and should be designed in a way that enables customer creativity, and thus adoption. In this article, we embrace a definition of innovation as {\textquotedblleft}the adoption of a new practice by a community{\textquotedblright} where the innovator is the one who does not only sense and move into new opportunities but also mobilizes all the necessary resources needed by customers to adopt a new practice. The emphasis on adoption merges together innovation and entrepreneurship by shifting the focus from the inventor and the designer, through the entrepreneur, to the ultimate recipient of the innovative outcomes. Looking at customers as co-creators is critically important for technological product adoption; missing the chance to enable their creativity is equivalent to missing the opportunity of seeing them for who they really are. The result is a distorted vision that is ultimately rooted in the misconception of the dynamics of customer value. We particularly emphasize two points: i) the increasing degree of complexity of everyday technological products requires a higher degree of creativity by customers to adopt; and ii) customer creativity is not only a function of user-technology interaction, it is a function of the various actors in the interactive environment surrounding the customer such as other customers, other technologies, local distributors, customer/technical support providers, and competitors. },
	keywords = {co-creation, customer creativity, customer value, entrepreneurship, innovation, technology adoption},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/763},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/763},
	author = {Stoyan Tanev and Marianne Harbo Frederiksen}
}
@article {793,
	title = {Integrating Design for All in Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {05/2014},
	pages = {50-59},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The European Union has identified innovation as a key driver behind business competitiveness and responsive governance. However, innovation in and of itself may not be sufficient to help businesses bring new products to market and to help governments shape public services that meet the real needs of citizens. The Integrating Design for All in Living Labs (IDeALL) project sought to identify and test methodologies for designing with users in real-life settings. The results of the experiments showed how different methodologies can be applied in different contexts, helping to provide solutions to societal issues and to create products and services that genuinely meet user requirements. In this article, we describe the methodologies used in the IDeALL project and provide examples of the project{\textquoteright}s experiments and case studies across four main areas: i) services; ii) health and social care; iii) information and communication technology; and iv) urban design. },
	keywords = {3H, co-creation, design, design for all, health, HUMBLES, ICT, innovation, living labs, LUPI, methodologies, service prototyping, services, social care, urban design, user-centred approaches},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/793},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/793},
	author = {Madeleine Gray and Mika{\"e}l Mangyoku and Artur Serra and Laia S{\'a}nchez and Francesc Aragall}
}
@article {748,
	title = {Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {12/2013},
	pages = {6-15},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Despite almost a decade of living lab activity all over Europe, there still is a lack of empirical research into the practical implementation and the related outcomes of living labs. Therefore, this article proposes a framework to create a better understanding of the characteristics and outcomes of living labs. We investigate three living labs in Belgium and one in Finland to learn how the different building blocks of living lab environments contribute to the outputs of innovation projects launched within the lab. The findings imply that managers and researchers contemplating innovation in living labs need to consider the intended inputs and outcomes, and reframe their innovation activities accordingly. We formulate practical guidelines on how living labs should be managed on the levels of community interaction, stakeholder engagement, and methodological setup to succeed in implementing living lab projects and to create user-centred innovations. That way, living lab practitioners can work towards a more sustainable way of setting up living labs that can run innovation projects over a longer period of time. },
	keywords = {co-creation, innovation ecosystem, Living lab, Open innovation, user involvement},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/748},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/748},
	author = {Carina Veeckman and Dimitri Schuurman and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {718,
	title = {Servitization in a Security Business: Changing the Logic of Value Creation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {08/2013},
	pages = {65-72},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {How can a firm change its value-creation logic from providing technology to selling technology-based services? This is a question many security companies face today when trying to apply a solutions-based business model in response to recent macro- and microeconomic trends. The fact that customers increasingly demand security as a service, rather than technical equipment, challenges the basis of a security firm{\textquoteright}s value provision and alters the logic of its operation. In this article, we investigate a technology- and product-oriented security business that is now rapidly transforming into a service business. We use data from a case study to propose a 4C model (conceptualization, calculation, communication, and co-creation of value) that can help security providers to objectify their service offerings and succeed in the servitization of their security businesses. },
	keywords = {co-creation, customer value creation, objectification, products, security, services, servitization, value provision},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/718},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/718},
	author = {Arto Rajala and Mika Westerlund and Mervi Murtonen and Kim Starck}
}
@article {752,
	title = {TIM Lecture Series {\textendash} Technology Adoption by Design: Insights for Entrepreneurs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {12/2013},
	pages = {39-41},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {activity theory, actor-network theory, co-creation, customer creativity, innovation, invention, technology adoption},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/752},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/752},
	author = {Stoyan Tanev}
}
@article {604,
	title = {Designing Viable Business Models for Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {09/2012},
	pages = {19-24},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Over 300 regions have integrated the concept of living labs into their economic development strategy since 2006, when the former Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho launched the living lab innovation policy initiative during his term of European presidency. Despite motivating initial results, however, success cases of turning research into usable new products and services remain few and uncertainty remains on what living labs actually do and contribute. This practitioner-oriented article presents a business excellence model that shows processes of idea creation and team mobilization, new product development, user involvement, and entrepreneurship through which living labs deliver high-potential investment opportunities. Customers of living labs are identified as investors such as venture capitalists or industrial firms because living labs can generate revenue from them to create their own sustainable business model. The article concludes that living labs provide extensive support {\textquotedblleft}lab{\textquotedblright} infrastructure and that it remains a formidable challenge to finance it, which calls for a more intensive debate.},
	keywords = {business excellence model, business models, co-creation, living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/604},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/604},
	author = {Bernhard Katzy}
}
@article {601,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {09/2012},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {co-creation, innovation, living labs, Open innovation, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/601},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/601},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Mika Westerlund and Seppo Leminen}
}
@article {562,
	title = {From Business Administration to Business Creation: The Case of the Kalevala Global Business Creation School},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {06/2012},
	pages = {6-11},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Are there any businesses left to administer? The question is of course rhetorical and aimed at underscoring how several societies are more severely in need of creators of new businesses than managers of established ones. And yet, nearly all universities only produce masters of business administration, at best. Apart from theoretical research about business creation, and the education of masters of such research, universities are generally not equipped to produce knowledge for business creation or to produce masters of business creation.

This conceptual article calls for a new, complementary approach to research and education, around the theme of global business creation. Due to the limitations and restrictions related to the traditions and practices of the science of business administration, where the means justify the ends, a new exploratory field coined as the {\textquotedblleft}Art of Business Creation,{\textquotedblright} where the end justifies the means, is being explored for some inspiration.

For a concrete solution, the concept of a globally distributed, enterprise-centric, entrepreneurial-faculty-driven, open-innovation-based, and social-media-empowered university entity is depicted in this article. It is a new-generation private-public-partnership and {\textquotedblleft}Living Lab 2.0{\textquotedblright} referred to as Kalevala Global Business Creation School. The conceptualization draws from observations and action research during the Global Venture Lab Finland experiment at the University of Jyv{\"a}skyl{\"a} from 2007 to 2011.
},
	keywords = {business creation, business school, co-creation, entrepreneurship, knowledge investing, Open innovation, university},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/562},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/562},
	author = {Marko Sepp{\"a}}
}
@article {607,
	title = {Living Labbing the Rotterdam Way: Co-Creation as an Enabler for Urban Innovation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {09/2012},
	pages = {39-43},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The living lab concept seems appropriate to study the design and evaluation of innovative services that enrich everyday life. This article elaborates on {\textquotedblleft}living methodologies{\textquotedblright}, methods and tools necessary in "living labbing". Living methodologies address the social dynamics of everyday life that are essential for understanding living labs, not only conceptually, but also as mature methodologies for fostering innovation in real-life contexts. We report on three cases from Rotterdam in the Netherlands, where "living labbing" was used to enable citizens to co-develop their city. These cases utilized visual ethnography as a research method and prototyping and co-creating as design tools. The cases not only inspire citizen participation, but also inform social innovation and city{\textquoteright}s policymaking. The user-driven approach, do-it-yourself mindset, and the participatory character perfectly fit with the down-to-earth attitude of Rotterdam residents.},
	keywords = {co-creation, contextual research, design techniques, living methodologies, participatory design},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/607},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/607},
	author = {Ingrid Mulder}
}
@article {602,
	title = {Living Labs as Open-Innovation Networks},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {09/2012},
	pages = {6-11},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living labs bring experimentation out of companies{\textquoteright} R\&D departments to real-life environments with the participation and co-creation of users, partners, and other parties. This study discusses living labs as four different types of networks characterized by open innovation: utilizer-driven, enabler-driven, provider-driven, and user-driven. The typology is based on interviews with the participants of 26 living labs in Finland, Sweden, Spain, and South Africa. Companies can benefit from knowing the characteristics of each type of living lab; this knowledge will help them to identify which actor drives the innovation, to anticipate likely outcomes, and to decide what kind of role they should play while "living labbing". Living labs are networks that can help them create innovations that have a superior match with user needs and can be upscaled promptly to the global market.},
	keywords = {co-creation, innovation, living labs, networks, Open innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/602},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/602},
	author = {Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund and Anna-Greta Nystr{\"o}m}
}
