01524nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245010400055210006900159260004200228300000900270490000600279520074500285653002301030653004801053653002101101653003301122653003201155100002201187700002501209700002201234856003801256       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aStrategy-as-Process in a Technology Venture: A Case Study of Pivots, Pauses, Partners, and Progress0 aStrategyasProcess in a Technology Venture A Case Study of Pivots  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2019  a9-190 v93 aTechnology commercialization is an often nonlinear process that tends to pass through various “stages” or “phases” as a venture attempts to shepherd a technology from the laboratory to marketplace. Between these phases are “junctures” or “transitions” that present particular challenges for entrepreneurs as they often comprise fundamental changes to the venture instead of simply scaled versions of previous challenges. In this study, we use a participant-observer methodology to deeply explore how a technology venture in the renewable energy sector negotiated these transitions. Our findings highlight the development of a “repertoire” of tools entrepreneurs can use to help successfully negotiate these transitions. 10ainnovation systems10amanaging critical junctures and transitions10aprocess research10atechnology commercialization10atechnology entrepreneurship1 aEarle, Andrew, G.1 aMerenda, Michael, J.1 aDavis, J. Matthew  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/120802080nas 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/116301500nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245008500055210006900140260004200209300001000251490000600261520080000267653001501067653001601082653001301098653002301111653001601134653001401150653001401164100002301178700002101201856003601222       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Organization of Living Labs: Coordinating Activities for Regional Innovation0 aOrganization of Living Labs Coordinating Activities for Regional  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2015  a23-280 v53 aThis 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.10aactivities10aco-creation10aideation10ainnovation systems10aliving labs10aprocesses10aventuring1 aKatzy, Bernhard, R1 aBücker, Claudia  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/92700530nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245003100055210002800086260004200114300001000156490000600166653001300172653001500185653002300200653001600223653002000239653001000259100001900269856003600288       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aQ&A. What Are Living Labs?0 aQA What Are Living Labs  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2015  a29-350 v510abenefits10adefinition10ainnovation systems10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10atypes1 aLeminen, Seppo  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/928