@article {1208,
	title = {Strategy-as-Process in a Technology Venture: A Case Study of Pivots, Pauses, Partners, and Progress},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {01/2019},
	pages = {9-19},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Technology commercialization is an often nonlinear process that tends to pass through various {\textquotedblleft}stages{\textquotedblright} or {\textquotedblleft}phases{\textquotedblright} as a venture attempts to shepherd a technology from the laboratory to marketplace. Between these phases are {\textquotedblleft}junctures{\textquotedblright} or {\textquotedblleft}transitions{\textquotedblright} that present particular challenges for entrepreneurs as they often comprise fundamental changes to the venture instead of simply scaled versions of previous challenges. In this study, we use a participant-observer methodology to deeply explore how a technology venture in the renewable energy sector negotiated these transitions. Our findings highlight the development of a {\textquotedblleft}repertoire{\textquotedblright} of tools entrepreneurs can use to help successfully negotiate these transitions. },
	keywords = {innovation systems, managing critical junctures and transitions, process research, technology commercialization, technology entrepreneurship},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = { http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1208},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1208},
	author = {Andrew G. Earle and Michael J. Merenda and J. Matthew Davis}
}
@article {1163,
	title = {From Organizations to Organizational Fields: The Evolution of Civic Innovation Ecosystems},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {06/2018},
	pages = {34-47},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Contemporary approaches to urban technology emphasize local {\textquotedblleft}innovation ecosystems{\textquotedblright}. Two organizational models {\textendash} living labs and innovation integrators {\textendash} are commonly used as hubs to broker these ecosystems. Curiously, both coexist in some cities, allowing a comparison of their impact and an analysis of their development over time and in context. The case studies presented in this article suggest that our analytical frameworks for technology policy may fall short, in that they contemplate only the organizations themselves {\textendash} the living labs or innovation integrators. The dynamics observed in each city are well articulated, however, in the sociotechnical systems literature. The hub can be understood as a {\textquotedblleft}niche{\textquotedblright}, which fosters radical innovations and new processes. As these prototypes are increasingly deployed and accepted, there is a regime shift, ultimately creating an experimentalist culture that fills the role previously held by the hub. This conclusion is neither a challenge to ecosystem theory nor a critique of innovation policy and its implementation. Rather, I suggest that we must extend these theoretical frameworks, drawing on sociotechnical systems literature to better account for institutions and for systems change as we design policy for urban technology. This article therefore makes a contribution by using a sociotechnical systems lens to explain the evolution of local urban innovation ecosystems.},
	keywords = {city, civic technology, innovation policy, innovation systems, Living lab},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = { http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1163},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1163},
	author = {Matthew Claudel}
}
@article {927,
	title = {The Organization of Living Labs: Coordinating Activities for Regional Innovation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {09/2015},
	pages = {23-28},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article contributes to the ongoing knowledge from the first decade of operating living labs with a study on the coordination of novel innovation activities in living labs. The article provides an organizational model for living labs to order the activities that eventually will allow the conceptualization of living labs as innovation systems, thus giving user involvement a more central role in innovation process theories. This article shows how innovation networks systematically align their activities to reliably achieve their objectives. Next to this interpretivist theoretical contribution, the article contributes relevant practical insights to technology innovation management practitioners based on in-depth living lab cases that exhibit interesting, relevant, and new activities.},
	keywords = {activities, co-creation, ideation, innovation systems, living labs, processes, venturing},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/927},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/927},
	author = {Bernhard R. Katzy and Claudia B{\"u}cker}
}
@article {928,
	title = {Q\&A. What Are Living Labs?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {09/2015},
	pages = {29-35},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {benefits, definition, innovation systems, living labs, Open innovation, types},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/928},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/928},
	author = {Seppo Leminen}
}
