01357nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245009700055210006900152260004200221300000900263490000600272520057600278653001700854653003200871653002200903653003300925653001300958653001900971100001900990700001801009700002201027700001801049856003601067       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aCorporate and Grassroot Frugal Innovation: A Comparison of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies0 aCorporate and Grassroot Frugal Innovation A Comparison of TopDow  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2016  a5-170 v63 aFrugal innovations aim at the development of basic solutions that are affordable for price-sensitive customer groups. This article looks at the similarities and differences between two major approaches, corporate and grassroot frugal innovation, and identifies initial ideas on how the two streams can learn from each other. The three pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental, and social) provide one of the guidelines for the comparison. The research is based on an analysis of case studies from various industries, six of which are presented in this article. 10acase studies10acorporate frugal innovation10afrugal innovation10agrassroots frugal innovation10astartups10asustainability1 aWohlfart, Liza1 aBünger, Mark1 aLang-Koetz, Claus1 aWagner, Frank  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/97702132nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245008500055210006900140260004200209300001000251490000600261520130500267653001701572653005201589653002901641653002301670653001501693653002401708653002701732653001501759100001801774700001901792700001901811856003601830       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Promoting Force of Technology for Service Innovation in High-Tech Industries0 aPromoting Force of Technology for Service Innovation in HighTech  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2014  a40-490 v43 aThis article focuses on the interaction between the development of technology and service innovation. It goes “back to the basics” by analyzing the first theoretical contributions to the service innovation literature from the late 1980s. These contributions were heavily technologically oriented: they aimed at bringing the results of technological innovation to the realm of services. More specifically, we focus on the model of “reverse innovation cycle” on one hand, and on the first innovation-specific categorization of services on the other. The latter introduced the division into supplier-dominated, production-intensive/scale-intensive, and science-based services. Our purpose is to examine in which ways these theoretical approaches could promote our understanding about the new phenomena of technology-service interaction in innovation. In the second part of the article, we apply these approaches in five case studies that originate from different service industries and that differ in size and technologies. The findings of the analysis demonstrate that the applicability of the approaches to the case studies depends on several factors including the kind of technology involved in the innovation activities, the stage of development of this technology, and the type of service. 10acase studies10adynamic model of process and product innovation10areverse innovation cycle10aservice innovation10atechnology10atechnology adoption10atechnology development10atypologies1 aGliem, Silvia1 aKlabuhn, Janny1 aLitwin, Nadine  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/792