@article {1385,
	title = {Human-Centered Design for Collaborative Innovation in Knowledge-based Economies},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {09/2020},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {5},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This research explores a university-industry collaboration based on the case study of an innovation project based on Stanford University{\textquoteright}s ME310 Design Innovation program. The Porto Design Factory and IKEA Industry joined forces to tackle a problem using what has come to be called a human-centered design approach. The case study provides an understanding of outcomes that reveal the potential of using a human-centered design approach to solve technical problems while enhancing customer experience. It also identifies the benefits that each institution gained by collaborating. The outcomes show that companies benefit from building interfaces with external partners, and that universities are relevant players in the innovation ecosystem, satisfying their third mission of being entrepreneurial institutions.},
	keywords = {co-creation, design thinking, Human-Centered Design, innovation, ME310, new product development, Project-based Learning, University-Industry Collaboration},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1385},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1385},
	author = {Tiago Filipe Pereira da Silva and Jo{\~a}o Paulo Coelho Marques}
}
@article {1060,
	title = {Opening the Black Box of Ambidexterity: Three Product Development Stories},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {03/2017},
	pages = {4-11},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Organizational ambidexterity, which can be roughly defined as the ability for organizations to combine old and new ways of doing things to meet organizational objectives, has drawn considerable attention in the management literature in recent years. Authors distinguish clearly between structural ambidexterity, which implies that ambidextrous organizations are firms in which groups of people concentrate on traditional business or ways of doing things while others explore new avenues, and contextual ambidexterity, which characterizes companies where any individual can be ambidextrous. Our research is positioned in the contextual ambidexterity perspective. In this article, we apply the typology of four ambidextrous behaviours developed by Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004) to increase our understanding of the process whereby organizational actors are able to build on existing capabilities or business processes while developing new ones. Our results indicate that at least three of the ambidextrous behaviours proposed by Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004) (initiator, broker, and multitasker) are helpful to understand how new product development team members rely on proven approaches while simultaneously introducing new ones to successfully overcome daily challenges. Practitioners should be encouraged to become familiar with the concept of ambidexterity, to recognize when and how the successful combination of old and new ways of doing happens, and to promote these occurrences.},
	keywords = {adaptability, alignment, ambidextrous behaviour, contextual ambidexterity, exploitation, exploration, new product development},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1060},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1060},
	author = {John Fiset and Isabelle Dostaler}
}
@article {673,
	title = {Rethinking Open Innovation Beyond the Innovation Funnel},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {04/2013},
	pages = {6-10},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In 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{\textquoteright} 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.},
	keywords = {innovation funnel, new product development, Open innovation, strategy},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/673},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/673},
	author = {Wim Vanhaverbeke}
}
