02376nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245007500055210006900130260004200199300001000241490000700251520155400258653001501812653002701827653001501854653002101869653002001890653002001910100002801930700002201958700002201980700002202002700002302024700002102047856003002068       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aRural Living Labs: Inclusive Digital Transformation in the Countryside0 aRural Living Labs Inclusive Digital Transformation in the Countr  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2021  a59-720 v113 aDigital transformation (DT) has received increasing attention in recent years. Up until now, most of the current studies focus on digital transformation in advanced and dense societies, especially urban areas and technologies. Hence, the phenomenon of DT is under-researched in the context of rural and sparsely populated contexts. This study aims at exploring how a rural living lab (RLL) can be shaped and how this approach can be designed to support digital transformation processes in rural contexts. In so doing, following a design science research methodology (DSRM) approach, we have made an artefact (that is, RLL framework) that is an "instantiation" that supports user centric digitalization of rural areas. The designed framework is developed based on the key components of "traditional" and "urban" living labs, as well as empirical data which was collected within the context of the DigiBy project. The DigiBy project aims at conducting DT pilots in rural areas to elevate peoples' understanding of digitalization and the application of digitalization opportunities for service development in rural areas in the north of Sweden. As a result of these studies, five key components that guide the design of digital transformation pilots in rural areas emerged, namely: 1) rural context, 2) digitalization, 3) governance, control, and business mode, 4) methods facilitating DT processes, and 5) quintuple helix actors. We also offer an empirically derived definition of the rural living lab concept, followed by avenues for future research.10aComponents10adigital transformation10aLiving lab10aRural living lab10aRural residents10auser engagement1 aHabibipour, Abdolrasoul1 aLindberg, Johanna1 aRunardotter, Mari1 aElmistikawy, Yomn1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aChronéer, Diana  utimreview.ca/article/146500860nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245004000055210003700095260004200132300000800174490000600182653001700188653002000205653001500225653001500240653001600255653002000271653001700291653001900308653001000327653003700337653002200374100001800396700002300414700002800437700002200465700002100487856003800508       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs (March 2019)0 aEditorial Living Labs March 2019  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2019  a3-50 v910aaccelerators10abusiness models10aframeworks10ainnovation10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10astakeholders10asustainability10atools10aUN Sustainable Development Goals10aurban living labs1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aHabibipour, Abdolrasoul1 aRunardotter, Mari1 aChronéer, Diana  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/122002142nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245008300055210006900138260004200207300001000249490000600259520135000265653001501615653001501630653001901645653001501664653002701679653000801706653000801714653001101722653002101733100002101754700002301775700002801798856003801826       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aUrban Living Labs: Towards an Integrated Understanding of their Key Components0 aUrban Living Labs Towards an Integrated Understanding of their K  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2019  a50-620 v93 aIn today’s ongoing urbanization and escalating climate change, there is an increasing demand on cities to be innovative and inclusive to handle these emerging issues. As an answer to these challenges, and in order to generate and adopt sustainable innovations and nature-based solutions in the urban areas, the concept of urban living labs has emerged. However, to date, there is confusion concerning the concept of the urban living lab and its key components. Some interpret the urban living lab as an approach, others as a single project, and some as a specific place – and some just do not know. In order to unravel this complexity and better understand this concept, we sought to identify the key components of an urban living lab by discussing the perspective of city representatives in the context of an urban living lab project. To achieve this goal, we reviewed previous literature on this topic and carried out two workshops with city representatives, followed by an open-ended questionnaire. In this article, we identify and discuss seven key components of an urban living lab: governance and management structure; financing models; urban context; nature-based solutions; partners and users (including citizens); approach; and ICT and infrastructure. We also offer an empirically derived definition of the urban living lab concept.10adefinition10ainnovation10akey components10aLiving lab10anature-based solutions10aNBS10aULL10aUNaLab10aurban living lab1 aChronéer, Diana1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aHabibipour, Abdolrasoul  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/122402305nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245008300055210006900138260004200207300000900249490000600258520151400264653001301778653001501791653001501806653001301821653002001834653002001854100002801874700002101902700002301923700002301946700003301969856003702002       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aA Taxonomy of Factors Influencing Drop-Out Behaviour in Living Lab Field Tests0 aTaxonomy of Factors Influencing DropOut Behaviour in Living Lab   aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2018  a5-210 v83 aThe concept of a “living lab” is a relatively new research area and phenomenon that facilitates user engagement in open innovation activities. Studies on living labs show that the users’ motivation to participate in a field test is higher at the beginning of the project than during the rest of the test, and that participants have a tendency to drop out before completing the assigned tasks. However, the literature still lacks theories describing the phenomenon of drop-out within the area of field tests in general and living lab field tests in particular. As the first step in constructing a theoretical discourse, the aims of this study are to present an empirically derived taxonomy for the various factors that influence drop-out behaviour; to provide a definition of “drop-out” in living lab field tests; and to understand the extent to which each of the identified items influence participant drop-out behaviour. To achieve these aims, we first extracted factors influencing drop-out behaviour in the field test from our previous studies on the topic, and then we validated the extracted results across 14 semi-structured interviews with experts in living lab field tests. Our findings show that identified reasons for dropping out can be grouped into three themes: innovation-related, process-related, and participant-related. Each theme consists of three categories with a total of 44 items. In this study, we also propose a unified definition of “drop-out” in living lab field tests.10adrop-out10afield test10aLiving lab10ataxonomy10auser engagement10auser motivation1 aHabibipour, Abdolrasoul1 aGeorges, Annabel1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aBergvall-Kåreborn, Birgitta  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/1155