@article {1232, title = {Increasing the Impact of Industry{\textendash}Academia Collaboration through Co-Production}, journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review}, volume = {9}, year = {2019}, month = {04/2019}, pages = {37-47}, publisher = {Talent First Network}, address = {Ottawa}, abstract = {Increased competition and globalization motivate us to join forces to enhance the impact of the research conducted. Collaboration between organizations with different views can, however, be difficult to manage and needs awareness and skills to meet different expectations. This article will consider both a mutual industrial and academic perspective into the development of action research and, in six research project cases, empirically explore how the impact can be enhanced by considering certain key factors in the research process. How the phases of problem formulation, methodology, and results are managed is critical for the success of a collaboration and, thereby, its impact. Counter-productive forces that could dilute the progress over time need to be considered given that combining practical relevance and scientific rigour comes with challenges.}, keywords = {action research, co-production, collaboration, impact, industry{\textendash}academia collaboration, key factors, relevance, rigour}, issn = {1927-0321}, doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1232}, url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1232}, author = {Anna Sann{\"o} and Anna Ericson {\"O}berg and Erik Flores-Garcia and Mats Jackson} } @article {1201, title = {Living Labs versus Lean Startups: An Empirical Investigation}, journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review}, volume = {8}, year = {2018}, month = {12/2018}, pages = {7-16}, publisher = {Talent First Network}, address = {Ottawa}, abstract = {Although 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 {\textquotedblleft}startup hype{\textquotedblright} 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 {\textquotedblleft}hyped{\textquotedblright} 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 {\textendash} ideally a lean one {\textendash} to actually deliver this promise. Thus, rather than picking a winner in this comparison, we argue that combining the concepts{\textquoteright} different strengths can bring clear benefits.}, keywords = {entrepreneurs, impact, Innovation management, lean startup, Living lab, Open innovation, testing, user innovation}, issn = {1927-0321}, doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1201}, url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1201}, author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Sonja M. Protic} }