02156nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245007800055210006900133260004200202300000900244490000700253520151100260653001601771653001501787653002601802653001501828653002001843100002301863700002201886856003001908       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aExpect the Unexpected: Investigating co-creation projects in a Living Lab0 aExpect the Unexpected Investigating cocreation projects in a Liv  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2021  a6-200 v113 aLiving 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® was chosen as this study'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' involvement in LLs.10aco-creation10ainnovation10aInnovation management10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation1 aDe Vita, Katharina1 aDe Vita, Riccardo  utimreview.ca/article/146102135nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245008200055210006900137260004200206300001000248490000700258520129600265653002301561653001601584653001601600653002001616653002901636100002401665700001901689700002501708700002001733700001601753700002701769700003101796856003001827       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aLiving Labs for Public Sector Innovation: insights from a European case study0 aLiving Labs for Public Sector Innovation insights from a Europea  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2021  a47-580 v113 aLiving 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's final discussion about the potentials and pitfalls of living labs in public sector contexts.10aCitizen engagement10aco-creation10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aPublic sector innovation1 aHansen, Anne, Vorre1 aFuglsang, Lars1 aLiefooghe, Christine1 aRubalcaba, Luis1 aGago, David1 aHaug, Ines, Mergel & N1 aMureddu, Maria, Taivalsaar  utimreview.ca/article/146401596nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245006200055210006200117260004200179300001000221490000700231520084200238653002201080653002501102653003401127653002001161653004401181653002201225653002501247100002101272700002201293856003901315       2020                        eng d  a1927-032100aAgile New Solution Development in Manufacturing Companies0 aAgile New Solution Development in Manufacturing Companies  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2020  a16-240 v103 aThis conceptual paper proposes a new agile solution development model for technology and manufacturing companies. The flexible model consists of five key phases: 1) new idea screening, 2) idea nurturing, 3) conversion of ideas into "good enough" solutions, 4) solution productization, and 5) solution revamping. These phases are iterative by nature and follow partial stage model logic, hence combining elements of both the waterfall and agile methods. For technology and manufacturing companies, the new model presents a new way to consider ideas related to new product, service, process, and business model development. It is framed in contrast with older models that are typically product oriented, which potentially restrict companies in the ability to strategically renew themselves fast enough in turbulent product-service markets.10aagile development10ainnovation practices10anew service development (NSD)10aOpen innovation10aservitization and digital servitization10asolution business10asolution development1 aHuikkola, Tuomas1 aKohtamäki, Marko  uhttp://159.203.47.210/article/133301747nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245006500055210006500120260004200185300000900227490000600236520102200242653001601264653001501280653001201295653001501307653002001322653000801342653001201350100002101362700002101383700002301404700001601427856003801443       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aApplying a Living Lab Approach Within an eHealth Accelerator0 aApplying a Living Lab Approach Within an eHealth Accelerator  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2019  a6-190 v93 aThrough this study, we seek to understand the impact of the use of the living lab approach on product and business development in an eHealth accelerator. In the case accelerator, 20 startups developed innovative products atop the European FIWARE Future Internet technology platform. The novel design element of the case accelerator was the use of the living lab approach that was included for the purpose of engaging end users in the development and testing of new product prototypes. Our main result is that the living lab approach provided added value to participating companies and resulted in changes in their product development and marketing strategies. Overall, the case accelerator and the use of the living lab approach had a significant impact on the development, growth, and market success of the companies. Based on the results of the case accelerator, we propose the generic accelerator model presented by Pauwels and co-authors in 2016 to be extended with a new design element, the living lab approach. 10aaccelerator10acase study10aehealth10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10aSME10astartup1 aHaukipuro, Lotta1 aVäinämö, Satu1 aArhippainen, Leena1 aOjala, Timo  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/122100860nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245004000055210003700095260004200132300000800174490000600182653001700188653002000205653001500225653001500240653001600255653002000271653001700291653001900308653001000327653003700337653002200374100001800396700002300414700002800437700002200465700002100487856003800508       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs (March 2019)0 aEditorial Living Labs March 2019  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2019  a3-50 v910aaccelerators10abusiness models10aframeworks10ainnovation10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10astakeholders10asustainability10atools10aUN Sustainable Development Goals10aurban living labs1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aHabibipour, Abdolrasoul1 aRunardotter, Mari1 aChronéer, Diana  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/122002220nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245008100055210006900136260004200205300001000247490000600257520142300263653003401686653001501720653002001735653001401755653003101769653003101800653003401831100002401865700002001889700001901909856003801928       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe SDG-Check: Guiding Open Innovation towards Sustainable Development Goals0 aSDGCheck Guiding Open Innovation towards Sustainable Development  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2019  a20-370 v93 aThe “fuzzy front end” of innovation is argued to be crucial for the success and sustainability impact of a final product. Indeed, it is a promising area of focus in efforts to achieve the United Nations’ 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which provide a globally accepted framework for sustainability. However, the usability of the 17 goals and the large number of sub-goals represent barriers to innovation practitioners. Moreover, this early innovation stage proves to be a challenge for corporate practitioners and innovators, largely due to the concept’s intangible, qualitative nature and the lack of data. To help overcome these barriers, this article proposes a four-stage approach for structuring the innovation process using an online tool called the “SDG-Check”, which help assess an innovator’s sustainability orientation in the early phases of product and service development. It is a semi-quantitative tool to gather and combine assessments by experts involved in innovation processes with implications for the United Nations’ SDGs. Furthermore, this article presents our first experiences in applying the SDG-Check based on three living lab innovation cases. The results indicate that the tools can support and inspire a dialogue with internal and external stakeholders with regards to sustainability considerations in the early design stages of product and service development. 10afuzzy front end of innovation10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10aSDG-Check10asustainability assessments10asustainability inspiration10asustainable development goals1 avon Geibler, Justus1 aPiwowar, Julius1 aGreven, Annika  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/122200766nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245007500055210006900130260004200199300000800241490000600249653001800255653002600273653001800299653002100317653002500338653001700363653002000380100001800400700002300418700001700441700001700458856003700475       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Inclusive Innovation in Developed Countries (February 2018)0 aEditorial Inclusive Innovation in Developed Countries February 2  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2018  a3-60 v810abiotechnology10aconvergent innovation10afood security10ainclusive growth10ainclusive innovation10amaker spaces10aOpen innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aSchillo, R. Sandra1 aEarl, Louise1 aKinder, Jeff  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/113400783nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245003700055210003400092260004200126300000800168490000600176653001400182653001300196653002000209653002200229653001500251653002300266653001500289653002500304653002300329653002000352653002400372653001900396653002300415100001800438856003700456       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (March 2018)0 aEditorial Insights March 2018  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2018  a3-40 v810aanalytics10abig data10abusiness models10aclosed innovation10aecosystems10aemerging economies10ainnovation10ainternationalization10aInternet of Things10aOpen innovation10atechnology startups10avalue creation10avalue propositions1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/114100710nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245003900055210003600094260004200130300000800172490000600180653002300186653001800209653001600227653002000243653002200263653003800285653002100323653001700344653002000361653001900381100001800400856003800418       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (October 2018)0 aEditorial Insights October 2018  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2018  a3-40 v810acustomer foresight10adata analysis10adata mining10adesign thinking10adigital platforms10aindustry–academia collaboration10amachine learning10amarket entry10aOpen innovation10aservice design1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/118801665nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245009500055210006900150260004200219300001000261490000600271520086800277653002001145653002301165653001601188653001501204653001301219653002001232653002001252653002501272100001801297700002001315700002601335856003801361       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aExploring the Use of Stakeholder Analysis Methodology in the Establishment of a Living Lab0 aExploring the Use of Stakeholder Analysis Methodology in the Est  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2018  a26-390 v83 aThis article explores how to conduct a cost-effective stakeholder analysis to investigate opportunities and interest in establishing a living lab for an autonomous ferry connection. Using an action research approach, we share our experiences with the process and results, and we reflect openly on the strengths and weaknesses of both the stakeholder methodology generally as well as our own implementation specifically. According to the cyclic nature of action research and experiential learning, the research was conducted in two iterations, with the second iteration drawing upon input from the first. We compare and discuss these two approaches in terms of costs and benefits from a practitioner’s perspective. The article provides a contribution to stakeholder analysis methodology for complex, multi-stakeholder innovation initiatives, such as living labs.10aaction research10aautonomous vessels10aliving labs10amanagement10amaritime10aOpen innovation10aquadruple helix10astakeholder analysis1 aImset, Marius1 aHaavardtun, Per1 aTannum, Marius, Stian  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/120302046nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245010400055210006900159260004200228300001000270490000600280520141500286653001801701653002101719653001701740653002001757653000801777100001801785856003701803       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aFrom Closed to Open Innovation in Emerging Economies: Evidence from the Chemical Industry in Brazil0 aFrom Closed to Open Innovation in Emerging Economies Evidence fr  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2018  a26-370 v83 aIn this article, we examine how firms in an emerging economy perform research and development (R&D) activities in regards to the concept of open innovation. Most literature on open innovation shows multinational knowledge-intensive firms with well-established R&D processes mainly in developed countries. Searching for management contributions for firms in emerging economies, we qualitatively analyzed two chemical firms in Southern Brazil that have different profiles and are representative samples of typical firms in the region. Our results show that firms did not fully exploit the potential benefits brought by open innovation, even when complete opening was not the main goal. The firms were similar concerning interactions with partners and stages where relationships occur. The generation of ideas was an open activity performed both by firms and by clients, and interactions with universities were getting stronger. On the other hand, intellectual property has not been used as means of profiting from innovation activities. Our main finding refers to the internal mediation of relationships with partners. R&D teams rarely contact external organizations directly; instead, they leave such interactions to other departments within their firms. Relationships with clients are mediated through technical and commercial departments, and interactions with suppliers are intermediated by the supply staff.10acollaboration10aemerging economy10aintermediary10aOpen innovation10aR&D1 aThomas, Elisa  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/114401516nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245006700055210006600122260004200188300000900230490000600239520092400245653001301169653002001182653002101202653001001223653001701233100002201250856003801272       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aHow to Deal With and Repair Broken Trust in an R&D Partnership0 aHow to Deal With and Repair Broken Trust in an RD Partnership  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2018  a4-150 v83 aThis article offers an actionable framework for dealing with trust violations in R&D partnerships: it explains how to turn around a conflicted R&D partnership, repair trust, and learn from the experience. As innovation becomes more open, firms increasingly find themselves involved in R&D collaborations with suppliers, customers or even competitors. Trust plays a fundamental role in such partnerships to work. Yet, trust cannot be taken for granted. In fact, trust in R&D partnerships is often violated – and without executive intervention, trust violations can soon turn even the most promising partnership into a value-destroying predicament. Although much has been written about trust formation in R&D partnerships, this article focuses instead on what to do when trust has been broken. The analysis is based on a review of academic research and is illustrated with real-life examples of trust repair processes. 10aconflict10aOpen innovation10aR&D partnerships10atrust10atrust repair1 aBrattström, Anna  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/118201903nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245006500055210006400120260004200184300000900226490000600235520118600241653001801427653001101445653002601456653001701482653001501499653002001514653001201534653002001546100002301566700002201589856003801611       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aLiving Labs versus Lean Startups: An Empirical Investigation0 aLiving Labs versus Lean Startups An Empirical Investigation  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2018  a7-160 v83 aAlthough we seem to be living in an era where founding a startup has never been easier, studies point to the high mortality rates of these organizations. This “startup hype” has also induced many practitioner-based innovation management approaches that lack empirical studies and validation. Moreover, a lot of these approaches have rather similar angles, but use different wordings. Therefore, in this article, we look into two of these “hyped” concepts: the lean startup and living labs. We review the academic studies on these topics and explore a sample of 86 entrepreneurial projects based on project characteristics and outcomes. Our main finding is that the two approaches appear to be complementary. Living labs are powerful instruments to implement the principles of the lean startup, as the real-life testing and multi-disciplinary approach of living labs seem to generate more actionable outcomes. However, living labs also require the flexibility of a startup – ideally a lean one – to actually deliver this promise. Thus, rather than picking a winner in this comparison, we argue that combining the concepts’ different strengths can bring clear benefits.10aentrepreneurs10aimpact10aInnovation management10alean startup10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10atesting10auser innovation1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aProtic, Sonja, M.  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/120101859nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245010600055210006900161260004200230300001000272490000600282520111100288653003301399653002201432653001601454653001501470653002001485100002001505700001801525700002201543700001401565856003801579       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aTread Carefully: Managing Identities and Expectations in High-Tech Industry–Academia Collaborations0 aTread Carefully Managing Identities and Expectations in HighTech  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2018  a29-430 v83 aIndustry–academia collaborations are in continual flux. The changing role of academics is reflected in the interaction between industry and academia. In this article, we examine how meetings as a genre are used to establish and alter the roles and identities of participants. First, interactional analysis shows that a meeting set-up revolving around academic presentations confirms an old role division between collaborators where academic contributions are vulnerable to undervaluation. Second, we found that so called “leading individuals” show critical discourse awareness that allows partners to reposition themselves in relation to each other. They use interactional strategies to create a joint purpose, empower participants to jointly realign, and motivate them to openly share progress. This results in a power shift where academics feel free to pursue their agendas. With this article, we try to understand how the choice of linguistic features shapes social and interpersonal relations in industry–academia collaborations by focusing on open innovation as a socially contingent process. 10acritical discourse awareness10aindustry-academia10ainteraction10aleadership10aOpen innovation1 aDe Maeijer, Els1 aVan Hout, Tom1 aWeggeman, Mathieu1 aPost, Ger  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/119101280nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245005400055210005400109260004200163300001000205490000600215520067800221653002000899653001500919653001100934653002000945653002000965100001900985700002101004856003701025       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aCategorization of Innovation Tools in Living Labs0 aCategorization of Innovation Tools in Living Labs  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2017  a15-250 v73 aThis article examines the link between innovation processes and the use of innovation tools in living labs. So doing, it develops a conceptual framework based on the literature to analyze 40 living labs in different countries. The study contributes to the discussion on living labs by introducing a new typology of living labs based on their innovation process characteristics and usage of tools: linearizer, iterator, mass customizer, and tailor. Moreover, it proposes three ways to organize innovation activities in living labs. The article concludes by providing a set of implications to theory and practice, and suggesting directions for future research on living labs.10ainnovation tool10aLiving lab10amethod10aOpen innovation10auser innovation1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/104600798nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245005600055210005300111260004200164300000800206490000600214653001800220653002300238653002000261653002600281653002000307653001600327653002000343653002000363100001800383700002300401700001900424700001900443700002100462856003700483       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Innovation in Living Labs (January 2017)0 aEditorial Innovation in Living Labs January 2017  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2017  a3-60 v710aagile methods10aconceptualizations10ainnovation labs10aInnovation management10ainnovation tool10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10auser innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aBallon, Pieter1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/104400843nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245004000055210003700095260004200132300000800174490000600182653002400188653002000212653001100232653001800243653002100261653003300282653001700315653002300332653000800355653001600363653001600379653001400395653002000409653002200429653002300451100001800474856003700492       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (November 2017)0 aEditorial Insights November 2017  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2017  a3-40 v710aacademic publishing10abusiness models10acities10acollaboration10aentrepreneurship10afourth industrial revolution10aIndustry 4.010aInternet of Things10aIOT10aliving labs10aopen access10aopen data10aOpen innovation10asocial innovation10avalue propositions1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/111502300nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245011600055210006900171260004200240300000900282490000600291520156900297653002901866653002001895653001601915653002001931653001801951653002001969100002301989700002102012856003702033       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aInnovation in the Public Sector: Exploring the Characteristics and Potential of Living Labs and Innovation Labs0 aInnovation in the Public Sector Exploring the Characteristics an  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2017  a7-140 v73 aLiving 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 “raison d’être”. 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 “state of the art” 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.10acollaborative innovation10ainnovation labs10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10apublic sector10auser innovation1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aTõnurist, Piret  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/104500698nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245012600055210006900181260004200250300001000292490000600302653002200308653001700330653001300347653002500360653002000385100002000405700003000425856003700455       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aQ&A. How Do Digital Platforms for Ideas, Technologies, and Knowledge Transfer Act as Enablers for Digital Transformation?0 aQA How Do Digital Platforms for Ideas Technologies and Knowledge  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2017  a55-600 v710adigital platforms10adigitization10aenablers10aknowledge management10aOpen innovation1 aHossain, Mokter1 aLassen, Astrid, Heidemann  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/110601996nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245005900055210005800114260004200172300001000214490000600224520123700230653000901467653001601476653002901492653001501521653001501536653001301551653002001564653001501584653002101599100001901620700002101639700002101660856003701681       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aTowards Third-Generation Living Lab Networks in Cities0 aTowards ThirdGeneration Living Lab Networks in Cities  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2017  a21-350 v73 aMany 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.10acity10aco-creation10acollaborative innovation10ainnovation10aLiving lab10anetworks10aOpen innovation10asmart city10athird-generation1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aRajahonka, Mervi1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/111800703nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245004800055210004500103260004200148300000800190490000600198653001600204653002100220653003400241653001000275653002600285653001800311653002000329653001300349653001300362100001800375700002000393856003600413       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Entrepreneurial India (May 2016)0 aEditorial Entrepreneurial India May 2016  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2016  a3-40 v610aBrand India10aentrepreneurship10ahigher education institutions10aIndia10aintellectual property10aMake in India10aOpen innovation10aresearch10astartups1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aRaval, Dharmesh  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/98400681nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245003600055210003300091260004200124300000800166490000600174653003000180653002100210653001600231653001300247653002600260653002600286653002000312653002800332653002500360100001800385856003600403       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (July 2016)0 aEditorial Insights July 2016  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2016  a3-40 v610abusiness model innovation10acircular economy10acooperation10aindustry10aInnovation management10aintellectual property10aOpen innovation10aresearch infrastructure10avalue network design1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/99900772nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245006200055210005900117260004200176300000800218490000600226653002200232653001700254653002200271653001600293653002000309653002000329653002000349100001800369700001900387700002300406700002100429700002000450856003600470       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs and User Innovation (January 2016)0 aEditorial Living Labs and User Innovation January 2016  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2016  a3-60 v610aclosed innovation10afield trials10aimpact assessment10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10auser engagement10auser innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aHuizingh, Eelko  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/95500694nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245004800055210004500103260004200148300000800190490000600198653001500204653001800219653002100237653002200258653001500280653002400295653002100319653002000340653001300360653001300373100001800386856003600404       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Managing Innovation (April 2016)0 aEditorial Managing Innovation April 2016  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2016  a3-40 v610acreativity10acybersecurity10aentrepreneurship10afrugal innovation10ainnovation10amanaging innovation10anational culture10aOpen innovation10aprojects10astartups1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/97600762nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245005600055210005300111260004200164300000800206490000600214653002900220653001500249653001600264653002100280653002000301653002400321653001700345653001800362100001800380700002100398700001900419700002100438856003700459       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Smart Cities and Regions (December 2016)0 aEditorial Smart Cities and Regions December 2016  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2016  a3-50 v610acollaborative innovation10aecosystems10aliving labs10aonline platforms10aOpen innovation10aregional innovation10asmart cities10asmart regions1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aTukiainen, Taina1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/103701723nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245008100055210006900136260004200205300001000247490000600257520098800263653001401251653001301265653001601278653001501294653002001309653002001329653002101349100002101370700002301391700001901414856003601433       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aFactors Affecting the Attrition of Test Users During Living Lab Field Trials0 aFactors Affecting the Attrition of Test Users During Living Lab   aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2016  a35-440 v63 aNext to active user involvement and a multi-method approach, a third major principle within living lab research consists of capturing the real-life context in which an innovation is used by end users. Field trials are a method to study the interaction of test users with an innovation in the context of use. However, when conducting field trials, there are several reasons why users stop participating in research activities, a phenomenon labelled as attrition. In this article, we elaborate on drop-outs during field trials by analyzing three post-trial surveys of living lab field trials. Our results show that several factors related to the innovation, as well as related to the field trial setup, play a role in attrition, including the lack of added value of the innovation and the extent to which the innovation satisfies the needs and time restrictions of test users. Based on our findings, we provide practical guidelines for managers to reduce attrition during field trials.10aattrition10adrop-out10afield trial10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10auser engagement10auser involvement1 aGeorges, Annabel1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aVervoort, Koen  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/95901818nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245008700055210006900142260004200211300000900253490000600262520097600268653001801244653002701262653001701289653002601306653001601332653002001348653000801368653001201376653002001388653002101408100002301429700002101452700001901473856003601492       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Impact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contributions and Outcomes0 aImpact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contribution  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2016  a7-160 v63 aOpen innovation scholars as well as practitioners are still struggling with the practical implementation of open innovation principles in different contexts. In this article, we explore the value of a living lab approach for open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Using a case study approach, we compared 27 SME projects conducted by iMinds Living Labs from 2011 to 2015. The results suggest that a real-life intervention and a multi-method approach – both of which are methodological characteristics of living lab projects – increase the chance of generating actionable user contributions for the innovation under development. Moreover, the results also suggest that a living lab project yields maximal value when evolving from concept towards prototype. Besides these exploratory findings, this article also demonstrates that living lab projects are a perfect "playground" to test and validate assumptions from the open innovation literature.10acollaboration10adistributed innovation10aentrepreneur10aInnovation management10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aSME10astartup10auser innovation10auser involvement1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aDe Marez, Lieven1 aBallon, Pieter  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/95601822nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245006800055210006700123260004200190300001000232490000600242520119000248653001801438653001001456653001001466653001801476653002001494653000901514653001001523100002301533856003601556       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aOpen Innovation in Indian Organizations: Types of Collaboration0 aOpen Innovation in Indian Organizations Types of Collaboration  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2016  a15-230 v63 aIn order to succeed, it is important for any organization to leverage the power of the known and unknown networks around it. The organization must collaborate with others, and to do so requires it to open up its boundaries  inside-out, outside-in, or both. However, the type of collaboration required to work with other parties and the respective output is different across different organizations on account of need, R&D intensity, capability, and risk-taking ability, as well as the nature of the business and industry. The major problem that comes in the way of open innovation in Indian organizations is their risk taking ability; the more an organization collaborates, the more risk it is taking by sharing internal information with the other parties. Through a sample of 31 manufacturing-based firms in India belonging to 12 different industries, the article explores the types of collaborations that they have with various related or unrelated organizations as they engage in open innovation. The article compares the collaborations each industry has entered into to identify the industries that are more open to take risks by collaborating with other parties in multiple ways. 10acollaboration10aforms10aIndia10amanufacturing10aOpen innovation10arisk10atypes1 aTripathi, Shiv, S.  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/98700658nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245006600055210006300121260004200184300001000226490000600236653001500242653002000257653003400277653002400311653003800335100001900373700002300392856003700415       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aQ&A. How Can a University Drive an Open Innovation Ecosystem?0 aQA How Can a University Drive an Open Innovation Ecosystem  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2016  a48-510 v610aecosystems10aOpen innovation10apublic–private partnerships10atechnology transfer10auniversity–industry cooperation1 aLeón, Gonzalo1 aMartínez, Roberto  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/100401952nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245006200055210006200117260004200179300001000221490000600231520126400237653001301501653002101514653002001535653003401555653001001589653002501599653000901624100002001633700002101653856003601674       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aWeighing the Pros and Cons of Engaging in Open Innovation0 aWeighing the Pros and Cons of Engaging in Open Innovation  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2016  a34-400 v63 aThe positive aspects of open innovation projects are widely discussed in innovation management research and practice by means of case studies and best practices. However, enterprises, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) also face miscellaneous challenges in open innovation practice, leading to uncertainty and even renunciation of open innovation project participation. Thus, it is essential for SMEs to find the right balance between possible positive effects and negative consequences – the latter being the less studied “dark sides” of open innovation. However, appropriate methods of finding this balance are still lacking. In this article, we discuss the assessment of open innovation project participation by presenting a weighing and decision process framework as a conceivable solution approach. The framework includes an internal, external, and integrated analysis as well as a recommendation and decision phase. Piece by piece, we investigate the current situation and the innovation goals of the enterprise as an initial point for a decision for or against engaging in open innovation. Furthermore, we discuss the development of a software tool that automatically applies this framework and allows self-assessment by SMEs.10abenefits10aentrepreneurship10aOpen innovation10aopen innovation participation10arisks10aself-assessment tool10aSMEs1 aUllrich, André1 aVladova, Gergana  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/98001697nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245004900055210004900104260004200153300001000195490000600205520103400211653002901245653002101274653001301295653001501308653002001323653001501343100002101358700001901379700002101398856003601419       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aCities as Collaborative Innovation Platforms0 aCities as Collaborative Innovation Platforms  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2015  a16-230 v53 aIn 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.10acollaborative innovation10acreative citizen10aindustry10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10asmart city1 aTukiainen, Taina1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/93300929nas a2200337   4500008004100000022001400041245004300055210004000098260004200138300000800180490000600188653001600194653002200210653002900232653001600261653001800277653001500295653002000310653001500330653002500345653001800370653001500388653002000403653002200423653001800445653001500463653004400478653001500522100001800537856003600555       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: 100th Issue (November 2015)0 aEditorial 100th Issue November 2015  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2015  a3-40 v510a3D printing10aborn-global firms10acollaborative innovation10acybersafety10acybersecurity10acyberspace10afuture research10ainnovation10alean global startups10alean startups10amanagement10aOpen innovation10asocial innovation10asupply chains10atechnology10atechnology innovation management review10aTIM Review1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/93900818nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245004100055210003800096260004200134300000800176490000600184653002400190653002500214653001500239653002600254653001700280653003000297653002100327653001500348653002600363653001600389653002000405653003100425653001800456100001800474856003600492       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (September 2015)0 aEditorial Insights September 2015  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2015  a3-40 v510acognitive computing10acollaborative design10acompetence10acompetence-based view10acoordination10aentrepreneurial marketing10aentrepreneurship10aIBM Watson10ainnovation activities10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aopportunity identification10auser adoption1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/92400869nas a2200301   4500008004100000022001400041245006300055210006000118260004200178300000800220490000600228653002000234653002200254653001200276653001800288653002400306653001600330653002000346653002200366653002200388653002000410100001800430700001900448700002300467700002100490700002000511856003600531       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs and User Innovation (December 2015)0 aEditorial Living Labs and User Innovation December 2015  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2015  a3-50 v510abusiness models10aclosed innovation10acontext10acrowdsourcing10ainnovation networks10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aspaces and places10aurban living labs10auser innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aHuizingh, Eelko  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/94700928nas a2200325   4500008004100000022001400041245005500055210005200110260004200162300000800204490000600212653001800218653001500236653002500251653002400276653001600300653002000316653002400336653001700360653001800377653002500395653002500420653001900445653002300464100001800487700002100505700001900526700002100545856003600566       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Smart Cities and Regions (October 2015)0 aEditorial Smart Cities and Regions October 2015  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2015  a3-60 v510acollaboration10aecosystems10ainnovation ecosystem10aliving laboratories10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aregional innovation10asmart cities10asmart regions10asmart specialisation10asmart specialization10asustainability10aurban capabilities1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aTukiainen, Taina1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/93101561nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245006600055210006200121260004200183300000900225490000600234520088300240653001501123653001501138653002301153653001501176653002001191653001301211100001901224700001901243700002101262856003601283       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Grey Areas Between Open and Closed in Innovation Networks0 aGrey Areas Between Open and Closed in Innovation Networks  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2015  a6-180 v53 aThis study argues that there are different degrees of openness and closedness in innovation activity, and it highlights the need for more research on the "grey areas" between totally open and totally closed innovation, particularly in innovation networks where multiple stakeholders collaborate for innovation. Here, we focus on four key aspects of innovation networks, as characterized by their degrees of openness or closedness: governance, motivation, interaction, and innovation practices. The categorization is based on a review of theory and an empirical analysis of three distinct innovation networks, two of which represent the open living lab model, and one of which exemplifies the traditional closed innovation model. Our results can help managers improve efficiency in innovation networks by better understanding the grey areas between open and closed in innovation.10aclosedness10ainnovation10ainnovation network10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10aopenness1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aTurunen, Taija1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/94801786nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245011600055210006900171260004200240300001000282490000600292520105900298653001101357653002301368653002201391653002401413653002001437653001701457100002101474700002501495856003601520       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aInnovation on the Open Sea: Examining Competence Transfer and Open Innovation in the Design of Offshore Vessels0 aInnovation on the Open Sea Examining Competence Transfer and Ope  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2015  a17-220 v53 aIn this article, we discuss the role of open innovation in collaborative design processes in mature industries such as the shipping industry. We examine the design of high-tech offshore service vessels in environments characterized by high volatility and complexity. We elaborate on the role that accumulating and sharing core competences plays in speeding up the innovation process and increasing product value. We present a longitudinal case study of a shipping company implementing an open innovation approach that integrates its own core competences in offshore operations with the competences of ship designers and ship builders to develop a new design for challenging environments. In this article, we draw on an open innovation approach and a competence-based view to demonstrate how the firm can "reach out" to gain novel competences related to innovation, which may transform the competitive environment to the firm’s advantage. The article would be useful to innovation scholars and practitioners who work with innovative product development.10aArctic10acooperative design10acore competencies10aoffshore operations10aOpen innovation10ashipbuilding1 aBorch, Odd, Jarl1 aSolesvik, Marina, Z.  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/92600656nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245008100055210006900136260004200205300001000247490000600257653001600263653001800279653001800297653001500315653001500330653002000345653001600365100002100381856003600402       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aQ&A. In the Innovation Game, Why Do So Many Companies Stay on the Sidelines?0 aQA In the Innovation Game Why Do So Many Companies Stay on the S  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2015  a35-390 v510aco-creation10aco-innovation10acollaboration10ainnovation10alead users10aOpen innovation10aopen source1 aValkokari, Katri  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/94400530nas 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/92802078nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245008600055210006900141260004200210300001000252490000600262520133100268653002401599653001101623653001801634653000901652653001401661653002001675653002301695100002701718700002201745700002101767856003601788       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aChallenging the Stage-Gate Model in Crowdsourcing: The Case of Fiat Mio in Brazil0 aChallenging the StageGate Model in Crowdsourcing The Case of Fia  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2014  a28-350 v43 aA large crowdsourcing project managed by Fiat Brazil involved more than 17,000 participants from 160 different nationalities over 15 months. Fiat promoted a dialogue with an enthusiastic community by linking car experts, professionals, and lay people, through which more than 11,000 ideas were selected and developed to create a concept car using a collaborative process. Through an in-depth case study of this crowdsourcing project, we propose a new approach – the accordion model – which uses project management to help maximize the beneficial inputs of the crowd. Whereas the stage-gate process relies on a “funnel” of articulated sequences expressing a progressive reduction from an initial stock of potential ideas and concepts, in this article, we suggest that crowdsourced projects are more akin to a process that articulates a succession of broadening and funnelling periods that represent information requests and deliveries. We use the metaphorical terminology of “the sacred and the profane” to illustrate the interaction of sophisticated and ordinary ideas between the “sacred” experts from Fiat and the “profane” lay people associated with the project. Lessons learned from the Fiat Mio case suggest how both organizations and Internet users may benefit from successful crowdsourcing projects.10aautomobile industry10aBrazil10acrowdsourcing10aFiat10amarketing10aOpen innovation10aproject management1 aSaldanha, Fabio, Prado1 aCohendet, Patrick1 aPozzebon, Marlei  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/82901896nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245006900055210006800124260004200192300001000234490000600244520117800250653001801428653003401446653001801480653001201498653001501510653001501525653002001540653001301560100001701573700001601590856003601606       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aCollaborative Idea Management: A Driver of Continuous Innovation0 aCollaborative Idea Management A Driver of Continuous Innovation  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2014  a11-160 v43 aDespite the critical importance of innovation to most companies' ongoing success, many organizations fail to develop sustainable innovation management processes. The article explores the application of collaborative idea management to drive continuous innovation in large organizations based on our experience at Waabii, an innovation software and consulting service provider. First, we identify the key roadblocks faced by organizations in managing their innovation processes. Next, we describe the innovation model created at Waabii to help implement a sustainable innovation process, and we present a case study of an innovation management software solution, Exago Idea Market, which was implemented to create a collaborative and sustainable innovation environment in a large global telecommunications company. Finally, we offer recommendations for implementing this model of collaborative idea management. This article is particularly relevant to managers in larger organizations and practitioners of organizational change seeking to identify inhibitors of growth and business innovation and how to combat the roadblocks and create a sustainable innovation environment.10acollaboration10acollaborative idea management10acrowdsourcing10aculture10ainnovation10aleadership10aOpen innovation10astrategy1 aBank, Jesper1 aRaza, Adnan  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/76400775nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245004900055210004600104260004200150300000800192490000600200653001800206653003000224653003200254653002100286653001500307653002600322653002000348653002200368653002400390653001900414653002200433100001800455856003600473       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Seeking Solutions (February 2014)0 aEditorial Seeking Solutions February 2014  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2014  a3-40 v410acollaboration10aemployee entrepreneurship10aentrepreneurial orientation10aentrepreneurship10ainnovation10alocal open innovation10aOpen innovation10aSeeking Solutions10atechnology adoption10avalue creation10avirtual proximity1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/76201914nas a2200325   4500008004100000022001400041245005800055210005800113260004200171300000900213490000600222520100800228653001401236653001701250653001901267653002501286653002501311653002401336653001501360653002301375653002001398653002801418653001801446653002001464653001301484653001601497653002001513100001901533856003601552       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aCoordination and Participation in Living Lab Networks0 aCoordination and Participation in Living Lab Networks  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2013  a5-140 v33 aPrevious research on living labs has emphasized the importance of users and a real-life environment. However, the existing scholarly discourse lacks understanding of innovation mechanisms in diverse living lab networks, especially from the perspectives of coordination and participation. This study addresses the research gaps by constructing a framework for analyzing coordination (i.e., top-down versus bottom-up) and participation (i.e., inhalation-dominated versus exhalation-dominated) approaches in living lab networks. The classification is based on a literature review and an analysis of 26 living labs in four countries. Given that inhalation and exhalation dominance have not been discussed previously in the innovation literature, the study provides novel ways for both scholars and managers wishing to exploit or explore innovations in living labs. The framework reveals the opportunities for practitioners of innovation with respect to coordination and participation in living lab networks.10abottom-up10acoordination10aenabler-driven10aexhalation-dominated10ainhalation-dominated10ainnovation approach10aLiving lab10aliving lab network10aOpen innovation10aopen innovation network10aparticipation10aprovider-driver10atop-down10aUser-driven10autilizer-driven1 aLeminen, Seppo  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/74000572nas a2200193   4500008004100000022001400041245006100055210005800116260004200174300000800216490000600224653001800230653001600248653002000264100001800284700002100302700001900323856003600342       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs and Crowdsourcing (December 2013)0 aEditorial Living Labs and Crowdsourcing December 2013  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2013  a3-50 v310acrowdsourcing10aliving labs10aOpen innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aLeminen, Seppo  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/74700616nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245004300055210004000098260004200138300000800180490000600188653001100194653001600205653001300221653002000234653002500254653001300279100001800292700001900310700002100329856003600350       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs (November 2013)0 aEditorial Living Labs November 2013  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2013  a3-40 v310adesign10aliving labs10anetworks10aOpen innovation10aregional development10aservices1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/73900601nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245005000055210004700105260004200152300000800194490000600202653001800208653002500226653002600251653002000277653002000297100001800317700002400335856003600359       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Local Open Innovation (March 2013)0 aEditorial Local Open Innovation March 2013  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2013  a3-50 v310acollaboration10aeconomic development10alocal open innovation10aOpen innovation10aproblem solving1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aDeutsch, Christophe  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/66300777nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245006500055210006200120260004200182300000800224490000600232653002400238653003200262653002100294653001500315653001500330653002000345653001600365653000800381653003100389653001300420100001800433700002400451856003600475       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Open Innovation and Entrepreneurship (April 2013)0 aEditorial Open Innovation and Entrepreneurship April 2013  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2013  a3-50 v310abusiness ecosystems10aentrepreneurial orientation10aentrepreneurship10aincubation10ainnovation10aOpen innovation10apartnership10aR&D10aregional innovation system10astrategy1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aSegers, Jean-Pierre  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/67201561nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245005000055210004800105260004200153300001000195490000600205520094000211653002201151653001501173653002001188653001601208653001401224653002101238100001701259700001901276856003601295       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aGoing Open: Does it Mean Giving Away Control?0 aGoing Open Does it Mean Giving Away Control  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2013  a27-310 v33 aOpen source software has evolved from being an effort driven by a collective of volunteers to become an integral part of commercial software. Constant demands for new features besides maintaining product quality made companies seek open source as an answer for these demands. These growing demands brought with them control of quality, architecture, contribution management, and community management. 

This article explores the governance strategies adopted by open source software projects to manage the quality of complements (such as plug-ins that extend a platform's functionality) developed by community members outside the core team. The outcomes of the research contribute to our understanding of the strategies followed by different open source platform owners (the open source project initiators) to manage external innovation in the case of platform extensions in two areas: i) governance models and ii) regulatory tools. 10aand collaboration10agovernance10aOpen innovation10aopen source10aplatforms10aregulatory tools1 aNoori, Nadia1 aWeiss, Michael  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/64701859nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245009000055210006900145260004200214300000900256490000600265520112900271653001601400653002501416653001501441653002001456653002101476100002101497700002301518700001901541700002101560856003601581       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aLinking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework0 aLinking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes Towards a   aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2013  a6-150 v33 aDespite 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. 10aco-creation10ainnovation ecosystem10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10auser involvement1 aVeeckman, Carina1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/74801788nas a2200193   4500008004100000022001400041245010000055210006900155260004200224300001000266490000600276520116100282653003201443653003101475653002001506653000901526100002301535856003601558       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aOpen Innovation at the Root of Entrepreneurial Strategy: A Case from the Norwegian Oil Industry0 aOpen Innovation at the Root of Entrepreneurial Strategy A Case f  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2013  a17-220 v33 aThis article aims to extend the discussion about entrepreneurial strategies of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by including the concept of open innovation. How can SMEs overcome the challenges of resource scarcity and harsh competition? How they can gain competitive advantage in today’s ever-changing business environment? The answer to both of these questions might be through open innovation: collaborating with researchers, customers, suppliers – even competitors – as well as research institutions and universities. 

A common barrier to open innovation in an SME is the perception that it will be too time consuming to gain access to a knowledge base of external knowledge providers and link to “gatekeepers” of knowledge. However, an entrepreneurial mindset might help SMEs to move toward an open-innovation approach, where more codified and transferrable knowledge are important. This article discusses the implications of an entrepreneurial focus for open-innovation activities. The usefulness of the open-innovation principles are highlighted through a case study of an Norwegian SME operating in the maritime-oil industry. 10aentrepreneurial orientation10aentrepreneurial strategies10aOpen innovation10aSMEs1 aIakovleva, Tatiana  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/67501830nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245008900055210006900144260004200213300001000255490000600265520112200271653002301393653001601416653002001432653002901452653002001481100002301501700002101524700001901545856003601564       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aOpen Innovation Processes in Living Lab Innovation Systems: Insights from the LeYLab0 aOpen Innovation Processes in Living Lab Innovation Systems Insig  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2013  a28-360 v33 aLiving labs have emerged on the crossroads of the open innovation and user innovation frameworks. As open innovation systems, living labs consist of various actors with each playing their specific role. Within this article, we will take an open innovation perspective by analyzing the knowledge spill-overs between living lab actors through three in-depth innovation case studies taking place within the LeYLab living lab in Kortrijk, Belgium. The results illustrate how living labs foster the three open innovation processes of exploration, exploitation, and retention. From our analysis, we conclude that living labs are particularly useful for exploration and, to a lesser extent, exploitation. In terms of retention, living labs seem to hold a large potential; however, the success and the nature of the innovation processes depend on the sustainability of living labs, the number of innovation cases, and the alignment of these cases with the living lab infrastructure. Based on these findings, a concrete set of guidelines is proposed for innovating in living labs and for setting up a living lab constellation.10aknowledge exchange10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aopen innovation networks10auser innovation1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aDe Marez, Lieven1 aBallon, Pieter  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/74301252nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245004200055210004200097260004200139300001000181490000600191520066800197653001400865653001700879653001100896653002000907653002200927100002500949700002400974856003600998       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aPartner Selection for Open Innovation0 aPartner Selection for Open Innovation  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2013  a11-160 v33 aIn this article, we consider open innovation from the perspectives of: i) causation and effectuation, and ii) social networking. Our empirical evidence consists of a case study of a late-stage open-innovation project aimed at creating a hybrid ship that uses liquid natural gas and hydrogen as power sources. The results show that the effectuation approach is preferable to open innovation when the initiator of open innovation aims to keep sensitive information inside the closed group, when the initiator has established an effective team of representatives from other firms from earlier innovation projects, and when the participants are geographically close. 10acausation10aeffectuation10aNorway10aOpen innovation10apartner selection1 aSolesvik, Marina, Z.1 aGulbrandsen, Magnus  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/67402448nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245006500055210006300120260004200183300001000225490000600235520175100241653001801992653002602010653002002036653002002056653000802076100002102084700002202105700002102127700002202148856003602170       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aProblemsourcing: Local Open Innovation for R&D Organizations0 aProblemsourcing Local Open Innovation for RD Organizations  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2013  a14-200 v33 aOpen innovation and crowdsourcing are usually focused on using others external to the organization to solve your problems. How then do R&D organizations, who traditionally solve the problems of others, harness the benefits of open innovation and crowdsourcing yet maintain their mission and capabilities? "Problemsourcing" may provide the answer. In this mode of open innovation, the open call to the "crowd" of businesses is for them to suggest problems that, if solved by the R&D organization, could greatly enhance the business’ competitive advantage and therefore the nation’s economy. 

In this article, we describe a problemsourcing initiative developed by Industrial Research Ltd (IRL), a government-owned R&D organization in New Zealand. The "What’s Your Problem New Zealand?" competition promised NZ$1m worth of R&D services to the winning business. Using this case study, we map a range of benefits of crowdsourcing for R&D problems, including generating a potential pipeline of projects and clients as well as avoiding the challenge to the professional status of the organization’s research capability. A side-effect not initially taken account of was that, by demonstrating openness, accessibility, and helpfulness, the reputation of the research organization was greatly enhanced. 

The problemsourcing model provided by the "What’s Your Problem New Zealand?" competition represents a new strategic possibility for R&D organizations that complements their traditional business model by drawing on the openness that open innovation and crowdsourcing seek to leverage. As such, it can provide insights for other research organizations wishing to make use of the connectivity afforded by open innovation and crowdsourcing.10acrowdsourcing10alocal open innovation10aOpen innovation10aproblemsourcing10aR&D1 aDavenport, Sally1 aCummings, Stephen1 aDaellenbach, Urs1 aCampbell, Charles  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/66501412nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245009100055210006900146260004200215300001000257490000600267520070300273653001800976653002500994653002601019653002001045653003701065653002701102100002901129856003601158       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aQuebec Seeks Solutions: An Economic Development Agency's Role in Local Open Innovation0 aQuebec Seeks Solutions An Economic Development Agencys Role in L  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2013  a27-320 v33 aThis article offers an economic-development perspective on a new method for local companies to find innovative solutions to their most challenging business problems: local open innovation. Quebec International, the economic development agency for the Quebec City area, contributed to the development of the Seeking Solutions approach to local open innovation, which included the hosting of problem-solving conferences with local research centres, economic development actors, and companies. Looking back on our experiences and outcomes since 2010, this article shows how the development and introduction of this new approach to local open innovation has changed the rules of the game in the region.10acollaboration10aeconomic development10alocal open innovation10aOpen innovation10aprivate research and development10aQuebec Seeks Solutions1 aBerger Masson, Alexandra  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/66701294nas a2200193   4500008004100000022001400041245006000055210006000115260004200175300000900217490000600226520072700232653002200959653002800981653002001009653001301029100002201042856003601064       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aRethinking Open Innovation Beyond the Innovation Funnel0 aRethinking Open Innovation Beyond the Innovation Funnel  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2013  a6-100 v33 aIn this article, I first argue that open innovation can be applied in situations where companies do not themselves develop new products or services. As a consequence, open innovation becomes relevant for a much larger group of organizations than previously considered. Second, I argue that open-innovation scholars have insufficiently differentiated open-innovation initiatives in terms of their impact on companies’ growth: some open-innovation initiatives lead to incremental innovations in an existing business while, in other cases, open-innovation initiatives are used to establish completely new businesses. Both arguments illustrate the need to integrate open-innovation initiatives into the strategy of the firm.10ainnovation funnel10anew product development10aOpen innovation10astrategy1 aVanhaverbeke, Wim  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/67301300nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245010100055210006900156260004200225300000900267490000600276520061200282653002400894653001800918653001800936653002600954653002000980653002201000100002401022856003601046       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Seeking Solutions Approach: Solving Challenging Business Problems with Local Open Innovation0 aSeeking Solutions Approach Solving Challenging Business Problems  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2013  a6-130 v33 aHow can small and medium-sized enterprises try open innovation and increase their level of collaboration with local partners? This article describes a possible solution: the Seeking Solutions approach. The Seeking Solutions process consists of four steps: a call for problems, problem selection, problem broadcast, and a collaborative event. This approach has been successfully used for the Quebec Seeks Solutions events in 2010 and 2012 with concrete results and real impacts. By mixing open innovation and collaboration, the Seeking Solutions approach has introduced a new concept: local open innovation. 10abroadcast of search10acollaboration10acrowdsourcing10alocal open innovation10aOpen innovation10aSeeking Solutions1 aDeutsch, Christophe  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/66401258nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245008800055210006900143260004200212300001000254490000600264520060500270653001200875653001800887653002000905653002000925653000800945653002700953100002400980856003601004       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aStrategic Partnerships and Open Innovation in the Biotechnology Industry in Belgium0 aStrategic Partnerships and Open Innovation in the Biotechnology   aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2013  a23-280 v33 aStrategic partnerships in the biotechnology industry allow new technology-based firms to gain a foothold in this high-cost, high-risk industry. In this article, we examine the impact of strategic partnerships and open innovation on the success of new biotechnology firms in Belgium by developing multiple case studies of firms in regional biotechnology clusters. We find that, despite their small size and relative immaturity, new biotechnology firms are able to adopt innovative business models by providing R&D and services to larger firms and openly cooperating with them through open innovation. 10aBelgium10abiotechnology10abusiness models10aOpen innovation10aR&D10astrategic partnerships1 aSegers, Jean-Pierre  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/67600637nas a2200193   4500008004100000022001400041245008400055210006900139260004200208300001000250490000600260653002600266653002000292653002600312653002200338100002400360700002300384856003600407       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aTIM Lecture Series – Local Open Innovation and the Seeking Solutions Approach0 aTIM Lecture Series Local Open Innovation and the Seeking Solutio  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2013  a42-460 v310alocal open innovation10aOpen innovation10aQuebec Seeks Solution10aSeeking Solutions1 aDeutsch, Christophe1 aDancause, Philippe  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/66903136nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245012500055210006900180260004200249300001000291490000600301520228500307653002602592653001902618653001802637653002002655653002402675653004002699653003302739100002402772700002202796700002802818856003602846       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aUniversity-SME Collaboration and Open Innovation: Intellectual-Property Management Tools and the Roles of Intermediaries0 aUniversitySME Collaboration and Open Innovation IntellectualProp  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2013  a33-410 v33 aIn 2009, the Conseil de la science et de la technologie du Québec (CST) made 13 recommendations to the Government of Quebec in order to shift innovative actors towards open-innovation practices adapted to the province's context: diversified economic sectors, a majority of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), public universities, etc. Among these recommendations are: i) to set up flexible mechanisms to promote research collaboration between public-private sectors such as universities and SMEs, and ii) to optimize intermediation bodies’ contribution to establish open-innovation practices. Furthermore, the lack of adequate understanding and tools for the management of intellectual property (IP) was identified as a major inhibitor of open-innovation practices, to which actors should pay specific attention. In this article, we present results and recommendations from a field study focused on two groups of actors: i) companies involved in collaborative innovation and ii) intermediary agents enabling innovation and technology transfer. Our first goal was to shed some light on factors that facilitate open innovation through improved university-enterprise collaborations and, more importantly, that attempt to overcome the irritants related to IP management. Our second goal was to analyze the roles of diverse intermediaries in the fostering of successful collaborations between universities and SMEs. 

Our study yielded three findings: i) SMEs do not care about understanding and improving their capabilities about IP and are not equipped with adequate tools and best practices for managing IP and for managing the overall collaborative mechanisms in general; ii) this gap in preparation for open innovation is persistent, since even the intermediaries, whose role is to guide SMEs in university-enterprise collaborations, suffer themselves from the lack of appropriate IP transfer and sharing tools, and do not perceive the need to offer better support in this regard; and iii) overall, current IP-transfer and collaboration-management tools are not sophisticated enough to provide appropriate support for the implementation of open innovation, by which we mean more open and collaborative innovation in the context of university-enterprise collaborations.10aintellectual property10aintermediaries10aIP management10aOpen innovation10atechnology transfer10auniversity-enterprise collaboration10auniversity-SME collaboration1 aDeschamps, Isabelle1 aMacedo, Maria, G.1 aEve-Levesque, Christian  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/66800561nas a2200217   4500008003900000022001400039245002700053210002600080260004200106300000800148490000600156653001600162653001500178653001600193653002000209653002000229100001800249700002100267700001900288856003600307       2012                          d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs0 aEditorial Living Labs  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2012  a3-50 v210aco-creation10ainnovation10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10auser innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aLeminen, Seppo  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/60102219nas a2200229   4500008003900000022001400039245011200053210006900165260004200234300000900276490000600285520150600291653002201797653002001819653001601839653002101855653002401876653002001900653001501920100001801935856003601953       2012                          d  a1927-032100aFrom Business Administration to Business Creation: The Case of the Kalevala Global Business Creation School0 aFrom Business Administration to Business Creation The Case of th  aOttawabTalent First Networkc06/2012  a6-110 v23 aAre 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 “Art of Business Creation,” 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 “Living Lab 2.0” 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 Jyväskylä from 2007 to 2011.
10abusiness creation10abusiness school10aco-creation10aentrepreneurship10aknowledge investing10aOpen innovation10auniversity1 aSeppä, Marko  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/56201578nas a2200217   4500008003900000022001400039245009900053210006900152260004200221300000900263490000600272520089100278653002101169653002601190653002001216653002501236653002701261100001801288700001801306856003601324       2012                          d  a1927-032100aHow Open Source Has Changed the Software Industry: Perspectives from Open Source Entrepreneurs0 aHow Open Source Has Changed the Software Industry Perspectives f  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2012  a5-110 v23 aThe emergence of F/LOSS (free/libre open source software) has triggered several changes in the software industry. F/LOSS has been cited as an archetypal form of open innovation; it consists of the convergence and collaboration of like-minded parties. An increasing number of software firms have taken upon this approach to link outsiders into their service development and product design. Also, software firms have been increasingly grounded their business models on user-centric and service-oriented operations.

This article describes a study that investigates these changes from the perspective of F/LOSS entrepreneurs. The findings are summarized into four issues that are critical in managing an F/LOSS business: i) dealing with organizational changes in the innovation process; ii) mastering user involvement; iii) successfully using resources; and iv) designing revenue models.10aentrepreneurship10anarrative methodology10aOpen innovation10aopen source software10aservice-dominant logic1 aLindman, Juho1 aRajala, Risto  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/51001498nas a2200229   4500008003900000022001400039245004400053210004300097260004200140300000900182490000600191520089000197653001601087653001501103653001601118653001301134653002001147100001901167700002101186700002501207856003601232       2012                          d  a1927-032100aLiving Labs as Open-Innovation Networks0 aLiving Labs as OpenInnovation Networks  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2012  a6-110 v23 aLiving labs bring experimentation out of companies’ 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.10aco-creation10ainnovation10aliving labs10anetworks10aOpen innovation1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aNyström, Anna-Greta  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/60201264nas a2200229   4500008003900000022001400039245006900053210006900122260004200191300001000233490000600243520058500249653001500834653001600849653003000865653002000895653002300915100002100938700001700959700002200976856003600998       2012                          d  a1927-032100aMapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies0 aMapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2012  a12-180 v23 aA growing interest in living labs as a mechanism for innovation has drawn significant attention to both the different flavours of this methodology and to the organizations that put it into practice. However, little has been done to assess its impact and to compare its contribution to other innovation methodologies. This article aims to cover that gap by summarizing the most common European living labs approaches and positioning them in the landscape of user-contributed innovation methodology. The merits and appropriateness of living labs in these settings are also assessed.10ainnovation10aliving labs10aliving labs methodologies10aOpen innovation10auser-driven design1 aAlmirall, Esteve1 aLee, Melissa1 aWareham, Jonathan  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/60301501nas a2200241   4500008003900000022001400039245006000053210005700113260004200170300001000212490000600222520080600228653002201034653002601056653001501082653002601097653002001123653001601143100002401159700002101183700001901204856003601223       2012                          d  a1927-032100aA Small-Firm Perspective on the Benefits of Living Labs0 aSmallFirm Perspective on the Benefits of Living Labs  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2012  a44-490 v23 aDecreasing energy consumption is a global priority and the energy market is in constant change. The search for energy-saving innovations provides an opportunity to initiate a user-centered approach using the living labs model. This article describes how Process Vision, a small-yet-leading Northern European provider of energy IT systems, applied the livings labs approach to develop novel energy-efficiency management solutions. We discuss the company’s participation in the APOLLON consortium, a cross-border living labs initiative on energy efficiency. More specifically, we describe the Finland-based company’s experiences of a pilot project launched in the living lab and report on the perceived managerial challenges of applying the living labs approach from the perspective of a small firm.10aenergy efficiency10aInnovation management10aLiving lab10amanagerial challenges10aOpen innovation10aUser-driven1 aNiitamo, Veli-Pekka1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aLeminen, Seppo  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/60801497nas a2200217   4500008003900000022001400039245006000053210005900113260004200172300001000214490000600224520086100230653002901091653001601120653002001136653001601156653002701172100002301199700002101222856003601243       2012                          d  a1927-032100aStructuring User Involvement in Panel-Based Living Labs0 aStructuring User Involvement in PanelBased Living Labs  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2012  a31-380 v23 aA shift towards open innovation approaches with systematic user involvement has occurred within media and ICT. One of the emerging frameworks structuring these initiatives is the "living lab" approach. Despite the growing evidence of the beneficial nature of customer involvement in product development, research into specific user characteristics for innovation is still scarce, particularly in living labs, with the notable exception of literature on lead users. Especially within the context of living labs for ICT and media innovation, an application of the lead-user framework looks promising as a way to structure and facilitate user involvement. This article is based on the experiences of three Flemish living lab initiatives with a panel-based approach and provides a customer characteristics framework that guides user involvement in living labs.10acustomer characteristics10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10auser panels10auser-driven innovation1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aDe Marez, Lieven  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/60601477nas a2200241   4500008003900000022001400039245008000053210006900133260004200202300001000244490000600254520075100260653001501011653002001026653001101046653002701057653002201084100001801106700002601124700002001150700002901170856003601199       2011                          d  a1927-032100aInnovation Policy Development and the Emergence of New Innovation Paradigms0 aInnovation Policy Development and the Emergence of New Innovatio  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2011  a14-190 v13 aThe objective of the present article is to discuss innovation policy issues related to three emerging innovation paradigms: user-driven innovation, open innovation, and value co-creation. It provides a summary of insights based on innovation policy practices and challenges in Denmark. The choice of Danish innovation policy practices is not accidental. In 2008 Denmark implemented 40 different national innovation programs by allocating about 400 million euros. Since the three emerging paradigms have become globally relevant, the discussion of Danish policy development challenges and practices is expected to be insightful for innovation experts from other developed countries that are currently dealing with the adoption of these paradigms. 10ainnovation10aOpen innovation10apolicy10auser-driven innovation10avalue co-creation1 aTanev, Stoyan1 aKnudsen, Mette Præst1 aBisgaard, Tanja1 aThomsen, Merethe Stjerne  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/49601626nas a2200205   4500008003900000022001400039245009700053210006900150260004200219300001000261490000600271520099000277653002601267653001501293653002001308653001601328100002101344700001901365856003601384       2011                          d  a1927-032100aManaging the Challenges of Becoming an Open Innovation Company: Experiences from Living Labs0 aManaging the Challenges of Becoming an Open Innovation Company E  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2011  a19-250 v13 aHigh-technology firms have paved the way for user-driven innovations, but now even traditional industries are becoming increasingly open. This shift is a great challenge for companies with instituted practices, policies, and customer relationships. In this article, we identify four distinct steps in becoming an open innovation company based on our recent research into firms’ experiences with living lab experiments in the information and communication technology (ICT) sector. We describe these phases and illustrate the divergent roles that users play in each one. We conclude with a discussion on the differences between the management challenges of conventional development projects versus the open innovation model. For all firms that wish to become open innovators, we recommend that their managers promote an open organizational mindset and apply groupware that supports increased openness, because traditional project management tools are insufficient for open innovation. 10aInnovation management10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10aUser-driven1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aLeminen, Seppo  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/48901596nas a2200217   4500008003900000022001400039245012300053210006900176260004200245300001000287490000600297520088900303653002801192653002701220653002001247653001201267653002201279100002201301700001901323856003601342       2011                          d  a1927-032100aPatents to Exclude vs. Include: Rethinking the Management of Intellectual Property Rights in a Knowledge-Based Economy0 aPatents to Exclude vs Include Rethinking the Management of Intel  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2011  a12-170 v13 aTraditional patent theory emphasizes the importance of patents for excluding imitators. This view is far too restrictive and is at odds with many empirical and theoretical works. Therefore, we propose an analysis of patent management that considers the properties of knowledge-based economies explicitly. Patents are thus shown to be critical instruments for coordinating innovative activities between firms. They not only exclude potential infringers, but also “include” all the heterogeneous stakeholders of the innovation process. Patents facilitate coordination via two mechanisms: they encourage the emergence of markets for technology (market coordination) and they play an important role in formal and informal inter-firm collaboration (non-market coordination). We also link firms’ patenting strategy with the characteristics of the technological regime of their sector.10aknowledge-based economy10amarkets for technology10aOpen innovation10apatents10aR&D collaboration1 aCohendet, Patrick1 aPénin, Julien  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/502