RESPONSIBLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP VISION DEVELOPMENT AND ETHICS

310 RESPONSIBLE ENTREPRENEURSHIP
ing them involved in the development life cycle (Cockurn, 2007; Ståhlbröst et al., 2015). The
open collaboration networks are driven by the innovation processes enabling stakeholders to
share risks, resources by strategic pooling and leveraging the competitive positions of the product
in the market. Industry partners contribute to the process of internationalising entre -
preneurship through the involvement of enterprises and entrepreneurs (Foray, 2009). Previously
project development through living labs has tended to neglect to manage, designing and steering
processes for cross-culture needs and shown less focus on understanding cross-cultural
project needs of internationalising entrepreneurship (Haites et al., 2006). Modern living labs
have defined detailed processes for collaborating in the networks for co-innovation in the form
of intellectual property management, agreement definition, negotiation on product features
and partner selection (Xie & Zhang, 2015). There is growing evidence of a need for a framework
for living labs to identify the tools, methods and processes when orchestrating the role
of living labs in cross-culture product developments.
Innovation networks and systemic change
Project initiation and catalysing change should be considered as a backbone when systematic
innovation is considered within open innovation networks. Living lab methodologies
are supported by transition management, which helps resolve complex issues through
catalysing change and focusing on sustainable solutions for societal problems (Comin, 2008;
Xie & Zhang, 2015). The concept of transition management is based on the pillars of transition
arena, regime and niche notions. The idea of “niche” is very similar to the concept of
disruptive innovation where new innovations incubate and learning takes place (Manuelli &
Ananth, 2003). The emergence of dominant policies, rules and business structures through
the continuous growth “of niche” could be classified as a regime. The third factor of transition
management is the “transition arena” which constitutes the identification of large-scale
system change strategies and conditions. As a comparative analysis of living labs and transition
management, the methodologies and processes involved in living labs are more usercentric
with settings of the most open-innovative mode of play (Athreye & Cantwell, 2007).
Consequently, a valuable framework is provided that is suitable for action research paradigms
through living labs.
Transition management helps create a dialogue between end-users, developers and stakeholders
to shape the practical implementation of the project (Correa, 2007). Within this context,
partnerships and innovation communities are created in the living labs development life
cycle enabling practice and strategic dialogues between the involved stakeholders which are
called “transition arenas” (Wielemaker & Gedajlovic, 2011; Lewis, 2013; Ståhlbröst et al.,
2015). The dialogues effectively catalyse the systematic innovation and form the basis of institutional
change. Different conceptual frameworks and numerous theoretical approaches regarding
service innovation have been studied and not only been failed to adapt the product change
adequately in the ecosystem but also in recognising the importance of existing organisational
environments (Yiu, 2007). The neutrality and impartialness of the existing living lab environment
are focused on this research along with the change and dynamism of the demands
and needs of cross-cultural users. There should be appropriate adjustments in arrangements
of processes, user-centric product logics, values within the regimes of socio-technical systematic
innovations (Watts & Peter, 2007). The interdependencies and characteristics of ecosys-