01640nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245007500055210006900130260004200199300001000241490000600251520096100257653001501218653001501233653001001248653001501258653001601273653001301289100002101302700001901323700001801342856003801360       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aKey Constructs and a Definition of Living Labs as Innovation Platforms0 aKey Constructs and a Definition of Living Labs as Innovation Pla  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2018  a51-620 v83 aDespite the growing popularity of using living labs as innovation platforms and the increasing scholarly attention toward the topic, still relatively little is known about many of their central characteristics. We use a qualitative research approach to identify key constructs of living labs and to understand how these constructs show up in the operation of living labs. So doing, we used theoretical constructs from the literature on user innovation, co-creation, and living labs to analyze a sample of membership applications to the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). The results from the content analysis of 40 applications revealed nine key constructs that are characteristic to living labs: 1) objective, 2) governance, 3) openness, 4) stakeholders, 5) funding, 6) value, 7) communications, 8) infrastructure, and 9) methods. These key constructs provide new insight that helps us to provide a definition of living labs as innovation platforms.10aconstructs10adefinition10aENoLL10ainnovation10aliving labs10aplatform1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aHabib, Christ  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/120501754nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245005400055210005400109260004200163300001000205490000600215520108500221653001801306653001501324653002501339653002901364653001701393653001301410100003201423700003201455856003701487       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aPlatforms for Innovation and Internationalization0 aPlatforms for Innovation and Internationalization  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2017  a23-310 v73 aThe high-tech global startup has many challenges related to both innovation and internationalization. From a Danish cluster of Welfare Tech firms, eight innovative and international firms were selected and interviewed. Such firms typically have to be agile and operate in virtual networks in almost all parts of their value chains. This article contributes to the understanding of how innovation and internationalization to a great extent are interlinked. The firms have developed a core product or service offering, which the firms often describe as “a platform”. Around the platform, they develop their products and services for new customers and users in new countries. The firms have to sustain a strong focus on the platform while at the same time developing their platform solution for new products, new customers, and new markets. This pivoting makes it possible to use the platform in a new context but is highly demanding for the firms. They need to be extremely agile and fast-moving but at the same time still to have a focus on the core of the firm: the platform. 10aglobalization10ainnovation10ainternationalization10alean and global startups10alean startup10aplatform1 aRasmussen, Erik, Stavnsager1 aPetersen, Nicolaj, Hannesbo  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/107402058nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245013000055210006900185260004200254300000900296490000600305520137000311653003401681653002301715653001401738653001301752653003201765100001901797856003601816       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aPlatforms, Communities, and Business Ecosystems: Lessons Learned about Technology Entrepreneurship in an Interconnected World0 aPlatforms Communities and Business Ecosystems Lessons Learned ab  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2013  a5-150 v33 aTechnology entrepreneurs are increasingly building businesses that are deliberately anchored in platforms, communities, and business ecosystems. Nonetheless, actionable, evidence-based advice for technology entrepreneurs is scarce. Platforms, communities, and ecosystems are active areas of management research, but until recently, each has been studied in separate research programs, with results published in different venues, and often examined from the perspectives of incumbent managers or policy makers rather than entrepreneurs and new entrants.

This article re-examines these phenomena from the perspective of technology entrepreneurs facing strategic choices about interconnected systems of platforms, communities, and business ecosystems, and decisions about the nature and extent of participation. It brings together insights from a wide range of published sources. For entrepreneurs, it provides an accessible introduction to what can be a complex topic, identifies a set of practical considerations to be accounted for in decision-making, and offers a guide for further reading. For researchers and graduate students seeking practical and high-impact research problems, it provides an entry point to the research literature and identifies gaps in the current body of knowledge, especially regarding the system-level interactions between subsystems. 10aarchitecture of participation10abusiness ecosystem10acommunity10aplatform10atechnology entrepreneurship1 aMuegge, Steven  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/655