02080nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245009400055210006900149260004200218300001000260490000600270520145000276653000901726653002101735653002201756653002301778653001501801100002101816856003701837       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aFrom Organizations to Organizational Fields: The Evolution of Civic Innovation Ecosystems0 aFrom Organizations to Organizational Fields The Evolution of Civ  aOttawabTalent First Networkc06/2018  a34-470 v83 aContemporary approaches to urban technology emphasize local “innovation ecosystems”. Two organizational models – living labs and innovation integrators – are commonly used as hubs to broker these ecosystems. Curiously, both coexist in some cities, allowing a comparison of their impact and an analysis of their development over time and in context. The case studies presented in this article suggest that our analytical frameworks for technology policy may fall short, in that they contemplate only the organizations themselves – the living labs or innovation integrators. The dynamics observed in each city are well articulated, however, in the sociotechnical systems literature. The hub can be understood as a “niche”, which fosters radical innovations and new processes. As these prototypes are increasingly deployed and accepted, there is a regime shift, ultimately creating an experimentalist culture that fills the role previously held by the hub. This conclusion is neither a challenge to ecosystem theory nor a critique of innovation policy and its implementation. Rather, I suggest that we must extend these theoretical frameworks, drawing on sociotechnical systems literature to better account for institutions and for systems change as we design policy for urban technology. This article therefore makes a contribution by using a sociotechnical systems lens to explain the evolution of local urban innovation ecosystems.10acity10acivic technology10ainnovation policy10ainnovation systems10aLiving lab1 aClaudel, Matthew  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/1163