02194nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245006200055210006000117260004200177300001000219490000700229520143500236653002001671653001601691653002601707653002101733653001401754653002501768653001601793653001701809100002001826700002501846700002701871856003001898       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aCharting a Course of Action: An Insider-Outsider Approach0 aCharting a Course of Action An InsiderOutsider Approach  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2021  a48-660 v113 aWe explore an alternative approach to action research that can be implemented throughout the lifespan of a science and technology research programme. We do this by examining the emergence and development of a participant-observer research approach where a researcher is also part of the same community of practice as those being observed in the technology and innovation management context. Our motivation stems from the need to understand innovation processes and management over a long period. Typically, consultants are employed for a given period to carry out action research. We present a case where social scientists, as opposed to action research consultants, carried out action research after a history of relationship building and becoming embedded within a longitudinal science and technology research programme. This allowed the social science researchers to build trust and rigor with those being observed before engaging an action research approach. We present our case as a narrative of experiences, events and turning points, reporting on what was observed and experienced by these social scientists. Our study extends current knowledge by mapping the research journey toward action research through three phases: navigation, iteration, and reflection phases. We argue that richer insights are generated when participant-observers engage early, and that their insights lead to action research that is more informed.10aaction research10aEthnography10aInnovation management10aInsider-Outsider10anarrative10aParticipant-Observer10aReflexivity10aSense-Making1 aWoodfield, Paul1 aRuckstuhl, Katharina1 aRabello, Rafaela, C.C.  utimreview.ca/article/145601891nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245009100055210006900146260004200215300001000257490000600267520118500273653002001458653001601478653001501494653002701509653002201536100002001558700002501578700002001603856003801623       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aBridging Participatory Policy Trends and Research Traditions through Social Innovation0 aBridging Participatory Policy Trends and Research Traditions thr  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2019  a27-360 v93 aThis study explores whether social innovation may serve as a bridge between participatory policy trends and research traditions when striving for improved societal relevance and impact of research and innovation (R&I). Despite their shared aim of relevance and impact through civic involvement, European R&I policies and participatory action research approaches seldom refer to each other or harness each other’s resources. The study advances the knowledge regarding how the participatory elements in the policies and research approaches relate through a participatory case study of a joint R&I process to develop a model for social innovation support in Sweden. The case study helps distinguish potential synergies between various degrees of involvement advocated in the policies and research approaches, as well as between the reliance on trending policy concepts vs. scientific notions of validity. Social innovation is perceived as a potential bridge between these elements, as it draws upon participatory academic traditions, while simultaneously tapping into current policy trends of co-creation, in the development of new approaches and solutions to societal challenges. 10aaction research10aco-creation10ainnovation10aparticipatory research10asocial innovation1 aLindberg, Malin1 aHallencreutz, Daniel1 aTengqvist, Anna  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/123102039nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245008800055210006900143260004200212300001000254490000600264520135100270653002001621653001701641653001501658653001501673653001301688653001801701653003401719100001801753856003801771       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aChoosing an Outlet for Action Research: Publication Patterns in Innovation Journals0 aChoosing an Outlet for Action Research Publication Patterns in I  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2019  a66-770 v93 aWith the aim to help innovation researchers choose outlets for articles based on participatory and action research methods, this article describes and discusses publication patterns of action research. A bibliographic study of 33 innovation journals ranked 4, 3, 2, and 1 in the 2018 Academic Journal Guide is complemented by a case study of this journal, the Technology Innovation Management Review, as an example of an established open access journal in the field with a wider scope and target group. From these two studies, we learn that the overall trend is towards more publications of action research articles in a diversity of outlets. Indirectly, the study supports the general view that articles striving towards adding practical relevance to research are becoming more frequent. There is no support for the notion that more renowned and higher-ranked journals would be more hesitant to accept articles with action research methods. The study also notes that there are interesting outlets beside those highly ranked and indexed in more conventional ways. The conclusion reached is that we lack a clear answer to the question of what are the best outlets for those of us who are interested in both innovation and action research. Instead, the study invites us to reflect upon what kind of impact we want to have and then act accordingly. 10aaction research10abibliography10acase study10ainnovation10ajournals10aparticipative10aparticipatory action research1 aHoppe, Magnus  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/123402525nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245011600055210006900171260004200240300001000282490000600292520176700298653002002065653001802085653003302103653002202136653004102158100002302199700001902222700001602241856003802257       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aA Discipline-Spanning Overview of Action Research and Its Implications for Technology and Innovation Management0 aDisciplineSpanning Overview of Action Research and Its Implicati  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2019  a48-650 v93 aThe iterative and learning character of action research is particularly beneficial for exploring complex socio-technical problems in technology and innovation management (TIM). In this respect, action research allows both rigorous and relevant research due to parallel solving of real-world problems, capability building, and gaining scientific insights. However, the use of action research within TIM research is surprisingly limited. Action research also is not a homogeneous research methodology since each research discipline, such as education and organizational science, has its own action research streams, which are often only loosely linked. A systematic overview of those action research traditions and specific best practices is still missing, which complicates a systematic transfer and use of action research in TIM. This article addresses this essential gap by building a cross-disciplinary overview of action research streams based on a bibliometric analysis using Scopus. The analysis includes relevant disciplines with action research traditions, their development over time, and the most influential journals, authors, institutions, and countries. Along with this discipline-spanning analysis, the article investigates particular TIM benefits and challenges of action research. The two key contributions of this article are: 1) a discipline-spanning overview of action research and its evolution and 2) an analysis of its implications for TIM research. These contributions build the basis for strengthening the use of action research in TIM. In the medium-term, action research has the capacity to link academia and industry more closely and, in doing so, assists important endeavours of translating more of our research outcomes into practice.10aaction research10abibliometrics10adiscipline-spanning analysis10aliterature review10atechnology and innovation management1 aGuertler, Matthias1 aSick, Nathalie1 aKriz, Anton  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/123300575nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245004400055210004100099260004200140300000800182490000600190653002000196653001500216653001800231653002700249100001800276700001800294700001900312856003800331       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Action Research (April 2019)0 aEditorial Action Research April 2019  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2019  a3-60 v910aaction research10ainnovation10aparticipative10aparticipatory research1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aHoppe, Magnus1 aLindhult, Erik  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/122800571nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245004200055210003900097260004200136300000800178490000600186653002000192653001500212653001800227653002700245100001800272700001800290700001900308856003800327       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Action Research (May 2019)0 aEditorial Action Research May 2019  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2019  a3-50 v910aaction research10ainnovation10aparticipative10aparticipatory research1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aHoppe, Magnus1 aLindhult, Erik  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/123600600nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245003600055210003300091260004200124300000800166490000600174653002000180653002500200653001700225653001500242653002600257653002400283653001900307100001800326856003800344       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (June 2019)0 aEditorial Insights June 2019  aOttawabTalent First Networkc06/2019  a3-30 v910aaction research10adevelopment projects10adigitization10ainnovation10amanagement innovation10awomen entrepreneurs10awomen managers1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/124402147nas a2200325   4500008004100000022001400041245010100055210006900156260004200225300001000267490000600277520115600283653002001439653001101459653002601470653002501496653002701521653001601548653002301564653002001587653001901607653002401626653002701650653002201677653002401699653002301723100001801746700001901764856003801783       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aEmbedded Master’s Students Conduct Highly Relevant Research Using Industry as Their Laboratory0 aEmbedded Master s Students Conduct Highly Relevant Research Usin  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2019  a54-730 v93 aThis article analyzes participatory action research conducted by Systems Engineering master’s students embedded fifty percent in industrial companies for three years. The resulting papers authored by these students identify challenges and effective practices suitable for knowledge transfer between industry and academia. The analysis covers 181 completed master’s projects, with a detailed analysis of 40 papers that have been published in international conferences and journals. The publication rate of about 23% shows that these students contribute actively to the body of Systems Engineering knowledge. This study analyzes master’s projects at three levels – industrial problem and drivers; Systems Engineering methods; and research method feasibility – and provides valuable lessons learned by applying the industry-as-laboratory approach. Embedding students in industry has resulted in publications that do not suffer from the main challenges of participatory research such as delays, repeatability, and only action and not research. These insights are valuable both for industry and for academia in future work to enhance innovations.10aaction research10aenergy10aexperimental learning10aindustrial knowledge10aindustry as laboratory10ainnovations10aknowledge transfer10alessons learned10amaster project10amaster’s students10aparticipatory research10asituated learning10asystems engineering10asystems of systems1 aFalk, Kristin1 aMuller, Gerrit  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/124101735nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245009600055210006900151260004200220300001000262490000600272520104100278653002001319653002301339653002601362653002601388653002001414100002101434700002401455856003801479       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aHow to Develop an Impactful Action Research Program: Insights and Lessons from a Case Study0 aHow to Develop an Impactful Action Research Program Insights and  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2019  a34-430 v93 aAction research holds great potential for helping bridge the gap between research and practice. By working closely together, researchers and practitioners can develop tangible customized solutions based on research findings. It becomes possible to go beyond generic best practices that might need adaptation for successful implementation and use, or that may not apply at all in some contexts. In this article, the mechanisms through which action research can create the desired change and impact in both industry and academia are illustrated by describing the relevance and contribution of the main steps of a longitudinal action research program in a Canadian manufacturing company. The authors share four guiding principles and six success factors that were revealed intuitively in the course of this multi-year research program. Their hope is to contribute to a better understanding of how it is possible to develop an adaptive action research methodology to increase the potential for research relevance and organizational change. 10aaction research10aguiding principles10aInnovation management10aresearch practice gap10asuccess factors1 aLakiza, Victoria1 aDeschamps, Isabelle  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/123901681nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245008500055210007100140260004200211300001000253490000600263520086500269653002001134653001801154653001801172653001101190653003801201653001601239653001401255653001101269100001701280700002601297700002401323700001801347856003801365       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aIncreasing the Impact of Industry–Academia Collaboration through Co-Production0 aIncreasing the Impact of Industry–Academia Collaboration through  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2019  a37-470 v93 aIncreased 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.10aaction research10aco-production10acollaboration10aimpact10aindustry–academia collaboration10akey factors10arelevance10arigour1 aSannö, Anna1 aÖberg, Anna, Ericson1 aFlores-Garcia, Erik1 aJackson, Mats  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/123202136nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245007600055210006900131260004200200300000900242490000600251520141800257653002001675653002501695653001501720653001201735653000901747653002601756100002501782700002801807700002101835856003801856       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aNavigating Boundaries in Additive Manufacturing through Action Research0 aNavigating Boundaries in Additive Manufacturing through Action R  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2019  a7-160 v93 aAction research – both as praxis but also from a critical orientation – can elaborate modes of action, identifying the borders and margins that act as both the productive spaces for collaboration as well as the fuzzy areas that require reflection and clarification. In this exploratory case study, action research is used to follow an additive manufacturing project team in real time as it navigates fuzzy areas to integrate knowledge to produce commercializable science innovation in one of New Zealand’s National Science Challenges (NSC): Science for Technological Innovation – Kia Kotahi Mai: Te Ao Pūtaiao me Te Ao Hangarau (SfTI). Through action research as praxis and as critical orientation, we have identified key mechanisms in interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research for commercialization, particularly in the context of New Zealand’s indigenous Māori people. Our preliminary analysis indicates that an explicit understanding of the fuzzy spaces can help teams find creative and collaborative means to navigate the productive but challenging “interstices of disciplines” (Mengis et al., 2018) to produce science innovation and discoveries and to galvanize relationships with industry and Māori participants. The findings also indicate that action research can promote structural, relational, and knowledge changes within teams, helping them solve complex problems in real time. 10aaction research10acritical orientation10ainnovation10ascience10aSfTI10atransformative praxis1 aRuckstuhl, Katharina1 aRabello, Rafaela, C. C.1 aDavenport, Sally  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/122900616nas a2200193   4500008004100000022001400041245007600055210006900131260004200200300001000242490000600252653002000258653003400278653001600312653001600328653001800344100002200362856003800384       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aQ&A. What Can Action Research Learn from Business Environment Analysis?0 aQA What Can Action Research Learn from Business Environment Anal  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2019  a74-800 v910aaction research10abusiness environment analysis10aconsultancy10aconsultants10aorganizations1 aWahlström, Bengt  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/124203136nas a2200181   4500008004100000022001400041245010000055210006900155260004200224300000900266490000600275520255700281653002002838653002702858653001202885100001902897856003802916       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aScientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part I. Rethinking Research Quality0 aScientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research Part   aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2019  a6-210 v93 aA core impetus of participatory and action research is making science relevant and useful for solving pressing problems and improving social conditions, and enabling stakeholders to participate in research and development processes. There are claims in the community of participatory and action research of the potential for heightened scientific excellence, but at the same time, there are critiques in the mainstream community that more engaged, even activist, stances threaten scientific norms or that position these type of research approaches outside the field of science, for example, as issues of application. In the search of clarification of the scientific identity and the specific qualities of participatory and action research, scholars have been moving away from and sometimes have rejected traditional conceptions of quality. This leads to confusion about how to relate to the discourse on research quality and scientific excellence in mainstream science. Integration in this discourse is important in order to attain academic legitimation in prevailing institutions of science, for example, in applications for funding, in seeking to publish research, and in the acceptance of dissertations based on participatory and action research. The purpose of this article is to contribute to this integration by reconstructing the way traditional quality concepts – validity, reliability, and objectivity – can be fruitfully used in expanded frameworks for quality where scientific excellence of participatory and action approaches are visible and where mainstream science approaches also can be harboured. In this conceptual article, reconstruction of understanding of scientific inquiry is first made based on a praxis-oriented epistemology inspired by pragmatism. Through rethinking truth as trustworthiness, new proposals for the conceptualization and frames for research quality and scientific excellence are introduced. Second, a framework for understanding purpose in science and its basis in validity, reliability, and the core characteristics of participatory and action research is developed. Third, the turn to action, practice, and participation enables plural ways of knowing and ways that knowledge claims can be validated and made trustworthy. The article concludes that participatory and action research offers a broader landscape of purpose and validation than more traditional approaches to science. In a subsequent article, reliability and objectivity, and their use in participatory and action research, will be clarified.10aaction research10aparticipatory research10aquality1 aLindhult, Erik  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/123702206nas a2200193   4500008004100000022001400041245011200055210006900167260004200236300001000278490000600288520158200294653002001876653001601896653002701912653001601939100001901955856003801974       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aScientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research: Part II. Rethinking Objectivity and Reliability0 aScientific Excellence in Participatory and Action Research Part   aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2019  a22-330 v93 aThe purpose of this article is to deal with the following question: Can the concepts of reliability and objectivity be reconceptualized and reappropriated to enable understanding of scientific excellence in participatory and action research? The article shows that it is fruitful to consider the “subjective” and active role of researchers as vital in enabling scientific objectivity and reliability. As an expansion from a replication logic, reliability can be conceptualized as adaptive, goal-seeking, dynamically regulated processes enabled by effective organization of interactive and participatory learning processes where all participants can contribute to learning and correction in inquiry. Instead of erasing subjectivity, objectivity can be enabled by critical subjectivity, intersubjectivity, practical wisdom, impartial norms of inquiry, and open democratic dialogue. Reliability and objectivity in this understanding can be enabled by participatory and action research through skilful performance of research practices such as reflective conversations between parties, dialogue conferences, experimentation, and experiential learning as part of action-research cycles, etc., which are common in participatory and action research initiatives and projects. By rethinking validity, reliability, and objectivity, recognizing the substantially more active and participatory stances enables scientific excellence, it can expand the repertoire of strategies for promoting research quality, and it helps to mainstream this type of approach in the scientific community.10aaction research10aobjectivity10aparticipatory research10areliability1 aLindhult, Erik  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/123800675nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245008800055210006900143260004200212300001000254490000600264653002000270653001800290653002800308653001600336653001400352653001500366100001900381700001900400856003800419       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Status and Future of Action Research: An Interview with Professor David Coghlan0 aStatus and Future of Action Research An Interview with Professor  aOttawabTalent First Networkc06/2019  a42-490 v910aaction research10aDavid Coghlan10ainsider action research10ainteriority10ainterview10areflection1 aCoghlan, David1 aLindhult, Erik  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/124801814nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245008900055210006900144260004200213300001000255490000600265520111900271653002001390653002801410653001501438653003201453653002401485100003101509700001801540856003801558       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aUsing Action Research to Organize Technology Transfer in Complex Innovation Contexts0 aUsing Action Research to Organize Technology Transfer in Complex  aOttawabTalent First Networkc04/2019  a17-260 v93 aTechnology transfer projects increasingly consist of multiple, diverse organizations, with each pursuing their own agenda as well as that of the overarching programme. In this article, we adopt a participatory action research methodology in order to explain and improve the coordination of the autonomous innovation activities within an organizationally complex project. The context of the research involved the transfer of rice production technology from China to Mozambique. The action research identified four categories of boundary within the project that were hindering performance: Intellectual/Land property rights; Public/Private sector logics; Inside/Outside programme; and Collaboration/Competition between programme actors. The process of co-inquiry with stakeholders enabled by the action research allowed programme actors to reach an understanding of others, and it created a new thinking space for mutual problem solving. By these means, the action research process makes a resource of the differences between stakeholders rather than it being seen as a barrier to be compromised through negotiation.10aaction research10aagricultural innovation10aboundaries10ainternational collaboration10atechnology transfer1 aUssivane, Armando, Machevo1 aEllwood, Paul  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/123001665nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245009500055210006900150260004200219300001000261490000600271520086800277653002001145653002301165653001601188653001501204653001301219653002001232653002001252653002501272100001801297700002001315700002601335856003801361       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aExploring the Use of Stakeholder Analysis Methodology in the Establishment of a Living Lab0 aExploring the Use of Stakeholder Analysis Methodology in the Est  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2018  a26-390 v83 aThis article explores how to conduct a cost-effective stakeholder analysis to investigate opportunities and interest in establishing a living lab for an autonomous ferry connection. Using an action research approach, we share our experiences with the process and results, and we reflect openly on the strengths and weaknesses of both the stakeholder methodology generally as well as our own implementation specifically. According to the cyclic nature of action research and experiential learning, the research was conducted in two iterations, with the second iteration drawing upon input from the first. We compare and discuss these two approaches in terms of costs and benefits from a practitioner’s perspective. The article provides a contribution to stakeholder analysis methodology for complex, multi-stakeholder innovation initiatives, such as living labs.10aaction research10aautonomous vessels10aliving labs10amanagement10amaritime10aOpen innovation10aquadruple helix10astakeholder analysis1 aImset, Marius1 aHaavardtun, Per1 aTannum, Marius, Stian  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/120302071nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245008600055210006900141260004200210300000900252490000600261520120700267653002001474653001901494653002701513653002301540653002301563653002101586653001601607653002101623653002401644100002001668700002001688700001901708700001601727856003801743       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aStrategic Foresight of Future B2B Customer Opportunities through Machine Learning0 aStrategic Foresight of Future B2B Customer Opportunities through  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2018  a5-170 v83 aWithin the strategic foresight literature, customer foresight still shows a low capability level. In practice, especially in business-to-business (B2B) industries, analyzing an entire customer base in terms of future customer potential is often done manually. Therefore, we present a single case study based on a quantitative customer-foresight project conducted by a manufacturing company. Along with a common data mining process, we highlight the application of machine learning algorithms on an entire customer database that consists of customer and product-related data. The overall benefit of our research is threefold. The major result is a prioritization of 2,300 worldwide customers according to their predicted technical affinity and suitability for a new machine control sensor. Thus, the company gains market knowledge, which addresses management functions such as product management. Furthermore, we describe the necessary requirements and steps for practitioners who realize a customer-foresight project. Finally, we provide a detailed catalogue of measures suitable for sales in order to approach the identified high-potential customers according to their individual needs and behaviour. 10aaction research10aB2B industries10acustomer base analysis10acustomer foresight10acustomer knowledge10acustomer profile10adata mining10amachine learning10astrategic foresight1 aGentner, Daniel1 aStelzer, Birgit1 aRamosaj, Bujar1 aBrecht, Leo  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/118901569nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245007800055210006900133260004200202300001000244490000600254520090600260653002001166653001501186653002101201653003401222653001801256100001701274700002301291856003701314       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aAction Research as a Framework to Evaluate the Operations of a Living Lab0 aAction Research as a Framework to Evaluate the Operations of a L  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2017  a35-410 v73 aIn this article, we propose an action research approach to capture and act upon the delights and frustrations of panel members who participate in living lab research in order to optimize the operations of the living lab itself. We used this approach to test the effectiveness of action research in providing guidelines to practitioners to evaluate and design effective and sustainable user involvement processes in living labs. We conducted a focused literature review and an in-depth case study of both the integration of a researcher within the community and the implementation of an action research project within an existing living lab. This living lab is regarded as both a forerunner and a best-practice example in Europe. Based on our findings, we recommend co-creating the “operations” of a living lab with the users themselves following a combined action research and living lab approach.10aaction research10aLiving lab10apanel management10aparticipatory action research10auser research1 aLogghe, Sara1 aSchuurman, Dimitri  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/105600773nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245005700055210005400112260004200166300000800208490000600216653002000222653002500242653001300267653001500280653001600295653001700311653001500328653001500343100001800358700001900376700002100395700002300416700001900439856003700458       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Innovation in Living Labs (February 2017)0 aEditorial Innovation in Living Labs February 2017  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2017  a3-60 v710aaction research10abusiness-to-business10aemotions10ainnovation10aliving labs10aneedsfinding10aoperations10areflection1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aBallon, Pieter  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/105201898nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245004900055210004900104260004200153300001000195490000600205520121400211653002001425653001201445653001201457653002401469653001401493653002301507653001501530653002101545100002301566700001801589856003701607       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aReflecting on Actions in Living Lab Research0 aReflecting on Actions in Living Lab Research  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2017  a27-340 v73 aLiving labs deploy contemporary open and user-centred engagement processes in real-world contexts where all relevant stakeholders are involved and engaged with the endeavour to create and experiment with different innovations. The approach is evidently successful and builds on the perspective that people have a democratic right to have influence over changes that might affect them, such as those brought about by an innovation. In this article, we will reflect on and discuss a case in which end users took part in the development of a method that stimulates learning and adoption of digital innovations in their own homes while testing and interacting with it. The results show that, when end users were stimulated to use the implemented innovation through different explicit assignments, they both increased their understanding of the situation as well as changed their behaviour. Living lab processes are complex and dynamic, and we find that it is essential that a living lab have the capability to adjust its roles and actions. We argue that being reflective is beneficial for innovation process managers in living labs because it allows them to adjust processes in response to dynamic circumstances. 10aaction research10aApollon10acontext10adigital innovations10aend users10ainnovation process10aLiving lab10aresearch process1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aHolst, Marita  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/105501912nas a2200301   4500008004100000022001400041245010400055210006900159260004200228300001000270490000600280520100100286653002001287653002601307653001401333653001001347653002001357653004301377653000901420653002501429653002501454653001701479100001601496700002101512700002001533700002101553856003601574       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aAll Australian Regions Are Not Born Equal: Understanding the Regional Innovation Management Sandpit0 aAll Australian Regions Are Not Born Equal Understanding the Regi  aOttawabTalent First Networkc06/2016  a11-230 v63 aIn this article, we highlight and challenge an overly simplistic assessment of regions and regional innovation systems in Australia. Treating each region and place as equal and prescribing blanket policy is anathema to the reality. Having argued that places are not equivalent, we then move on to highlight that commonalities at a deeper institutional level are possible. We draw on fieldwork and ongoing action research from the Australian regions of Hunter and Central Coast (New South Wales) and Northern Tasmania. Results of the theory and case work have been instrumental in the development of 11 structural attributes of a regional innovation management (RIM) sandpit framework. The framework provides attributes but also important process insights related to regional programs, enterprise development, and project innovations. Although developing from the Australian context, we expect that the RIM Sandpit and its place-based insights can be generalized to other regions around the world.10aaction research10aconstructed advantage10aphronesis10apivot10aquadruple helix10aregional innovation management sandpit10aRIS310asmart specialization10astrategic management10atriple helix1 aKriz, Anton1 aMolloy, Courtney1 aKriz, Alexandra1 aSonntag, Sabrina  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/99300761nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245005300055210005000108260004200158300000800200490000600208653002000214653002100234653001600255653001800271653001500289653001600304653001700320653002300337653001500360653001200375100001800387700001900405700002200424856003700446       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Innovation in Tourism (November 2016)0 aEditorial Innovation in Tourism November 2016  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2016  a3-50 v610aaction research10aboundary objects10aco-creation10acrowdsourcing10ainnovation10aliving labs10asmart cities10asmart destinations10atechnology10atourism1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aGuimont, David1 aLapointe, Dominic  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/102902027nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245010000055210006900155260004200224300001000266490000600276520124300282653002001525653002701545653001501572653001001587653001601597653001001613653002901623653001901652653001201671100001901683700002201702856003701724       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aEmpowering Local Tourism Providers to Innovate through a Living Lab Process: Does Scale Matter?0 aEmpowering Local Tourism Providers to Innovate through a Living   aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2016  a18-250 v63 aA destination management organization looking to integrate technology into its tourism offering tasked a living lab with engaging tourists and tourism providers in the process. At the end of the two-year initial funding period for an action research project, the process is a success and stakeholders are engaged in the innovation ecosystem. But what is next? By observing participants and gathering feedback from stakeholders through a Policy Delphi panel, the outcomes of the project and the intentions and actions of the tourism providers and other parties were identified. Innovation capacity has increased: spin-offs were created and stakeholders have embraced open and collaborative innovation. Now, stakeholders are determined to make the process sustainable by finding other funding sources. But what should be the level of cooperation and intervention? What level can best foster innovation and knowledge retention? A case study combining a grid of characteristics and levels of analysis for living labs was used to identify one key question: for a living lab in tourism, does scale matter? This article will explore that question and will contribute to the understanding of the living lab as a model of socio-territorial action.10aaction research10adestination management10ainnovation10alevel10aliving labs10ascale10asocio-territorial action10aterritoriality10atourism1 aGuimont, David1 aLapointe, Dominic  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/1031