@article {1224,
	title = {Urban Living Labs: Towards an Integrated Understanding of their Key Components},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {03/2019},
	pages = {50-62},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In today{\textquoteright}s ongoing urbanization and escalating climate change, there is an increasing demand on cities to be innovative and inclusive to handle these emerging issues. As an answer to these challenges, and in order to generate and adopt sustainable innovations and nature-based solutions in the urban areas, the concept of urban living labs has emerged. However, to date, there is confusion concerning the concept of the urban living lab and its key components. Some interpret the urban living lab as an approach, others as a single project, and some as a specific place {\textendash} and some just do not know. In order to unravel this complexity and better understand this concept, we sought to identify the key components of an urban living lab by discussing the perspective of city representatives in the context of an urban living lab project. To achieve this goal, we reviewed previous literature on this topic and carried out two workshops with city representatives, followed by an open-ended questionnaire. In this article, we identify and discuss seven key components of an urban living lab: governance and management structure; financing models; urban context; nature-based solutions; partners and users (including citizens); approach; and ICT and infrastructure. We also offer an empirically derived definition of the urban living lab concept.},
	keywords = {definition, innovation, key components, Living lab, nature-based solutions, NBS, ULL, UNaLab, urban living lab},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1224},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1224},
	author = {Diana Chron{\'e}er and Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st and Abdolrasoul Habibipour}
}
@article {1200,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs (December 2018)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {analysis, constructs, cultural space, definition, ENoLL, framework, innovation, ISPIM, lean startup, library, living labs, methodology, stakeholder},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1200},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1200},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Dimitri Schuurman and Mika Westerlund and Eelko Huizingh}
}
@article {1205,
	title = {Key Constructs and a Definition of Living Labs as Innovation Platforms},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {51-62},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Despite the growing popularity of using living labs as innovation platforms and the increasing scholarly attention toward the topic, still relatively little is known about many of their central characteristics. We use a qualitative research approach to identify key constructs of living labs and to understand how these constructs show up in the operation of living labs. So doing, we used theoretical constructs from the literature on user innovation, co-creation, and living labs to analyze a sample of membership applications to the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). The results from the content analysis of 40 applications revealed nine key constructs that are characteristic to living labs: 1) objective, 2) governance, 3) openness, 4) stakeholders, 5) funding, 6) value, 7) communications, 8) infrastructure, and 9) methods. These key constructs provide new insight that helps us to provide a definition of living labs as innovation platforms.},
	keywords = {constructs, definition, ENoLL, innovation, living labs, platform},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1205},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1205},
	author = {Mika Westerlund and Seppo Leminen and Christ Habib}
}
@article {1184,
	title = {Transnational Entrepreneurship: Distinctive Features and a New Definition},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {09/2018},
	pages = {28-38},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Definitions of transnational entrepreneurship are too general making it difficult to understand what distinguishes transnational entrepreneurship from other forms of entrepreneurship. In addition, these definitions identify the {\textquotedblleft}immigrant{\textquotedblright}, {\textquotedblleft}ethnic{\textquotedblright}, or {\textquotedblleft}migrant{\textquotedblright} entrepreneur as the focal actor rather than the company. This makes it difficult to align transnational entrepreneurship with the theory of the firm and provide practical insights to practitioners. This article examines 11 definitions of transnational entrepreneurship, discovers the groups of words that best represent the information in a corpus comprised of 44 journal articles, identifies the key features that distinguish transnational entrepreneurship from other forms of entrepreneurship, and advances a new definition of transnational entrepreneurship. The results indicate that transnational entrepreneurship has two key distinctive features: cross-border investment logic and institutional distance {\textendash} the difference in institutional context between countries. Accordingly, transnational entrepreneurship may be usefully defined as {\textquotedblleft}a cross-border investment to acquire, combine, and recombine specialized individuals and heterogeneous assets to create and capture value for the company under conditions of institutional distance and uncertainty{\textquotedblright}. This proposed definition builds on the features that make transnational entrepreneurship distinctive, is consistent with the theory of the firm, and carries implications for how to grow companies at an early stage.},
	keywords = {cross-border, definition, entrepreneurship, features, topic modelling, transnational},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1184},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1184},
	author = {Eduardo Bailetti}
}
@article {1088,
	title = {The Defining Characteristics of Urban Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {07/2017},
	pages = {21-33},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The organization of supported and sustainable urban interventions is challenging, with multiple actors involved, fragmented decision-making powers, and multiple values at stake. Globally, urban living labs have become a fashionable phenomenon to tackle this challenge, fostering the development and implementation of innovation, experimentation, and knowledge in urban, real-life settings while emphasizing the important role of participation and co-creation. However, although urban living labs could in this way help cities to speed up the sustainable transition, urban living lab experts agree that, in order to truly succeed in these ambitious tasks, the way urban living labs are being shaped and steered needs further research. Yet, they also confirm the existing variation and opaqueness in the definition of the concept. This article contributes to conceptual clarity by developing an operationalized definition of urban living labs, which has been used to assess 90 sustainable urban innovation projects in the city of Amsterdam. The assessment shows that the majority of the projects that are labelled as living labs do not include one or more of the defining elements of a living lab. In particular, the defining co-creation and development activities were found to be absent in many of the projects. This article makes it possible to categorize alleged living lab projects and distill the {\textquotedblleft}true{\textquotedblright} living labs from the many improperly labelled or unlabelled living labs, allowing more specific analyses and, ultimately, better targeted methodological recommendations for urban living labs.},
	keywords = {characteristics, cities, definition, living labs, TIM Review, urban living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1088},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1088},
	author = {Kris Steen and Ellen van Bueren}
}
@article {928,
	title = {Q\&A. What Are Living Labs?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {09/2015},
	pages = {29-35},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {benefits, definition, innovation systems, living labs, Open innovation, types},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/928},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/928},
	author = {Seppo Leminen}
}
@article {835,
	title = {Defining Cybersecurity},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {10/2014},
	pages = {13-21},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Cybersecurity is a broadly used term, whose definitions are highly variable, often subjective, and at times, uninformative. The absence of a concise, broadly acceptable definition that captures the multidimensionality of cybersecurity impedes technological and scientific advances by reinforcing the predominantly technical view of cybersecurity while separating disciplines that should be acting in concert to resolve complex cybersecurity challenges. In conjunction with an in-depth literature review, we led multiple discussions on cybersecurity with a diverse group of practitioners, academics, and graduate students to examine multiple perspectives of what should be included in a definition of cybersecurity. In this article, we propose a resulting new definition: "Cybersecurity is the organization and collection of resources, processes, and structures used to protect cyberspace and cyberspace-enabled systems from occurrences that misalign de jure from de facto property rights." Articulating a concise, inclusive, meaningful, and unifying definition will enable an enhanced and enriched focus on interdisciplinary cybersecurity dialectics and thereby will influence the approaches of academia, industry, and government and non-governmental organizations to cybersecurity challenges.},
	keywords = {cybersecurity, cyberspace, definition, interdisciplinary, security},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/835},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/835},
	author = {Dan Craigen and Nadia Diakun-Thibault and Randy Purse}
}
