01681nas 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/123201903nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245006500055210006400120260004200184300000900226490000600235520118600241653001801427653001101445653002601456653001701482653001501499653002001514653001201534653002001546100002301566700002201589856003801611       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aLiving Labs versus Lean Startups: An Empirical Investigation0 aLiving Labs versus Lean Startups An Empirical Investigation  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2018  a7-160 v83 aAlthough 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 “startup hype” 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 “hyped” 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 – ideally a lean one – to actually deliver this promise. Thus, rather than picking a winner in this comparison, we argue that combining the concepts’ different strengths can bring clear benefits.10aentrepreneurs10aimpact10aInnovation management10alean startup10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10atesting10auser innovation1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aProtic, Sonja, M.  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/1201