Lexical Change of Southern Dialect of Li Niha

This qualitative research addresses the lexical changes, which is aimed at (1)investigating the lexical change types, (2) describing the lexical change patterns,and (3) explaining the lexical change reasons of Southern dialect of Li Niha. The empirical materials were thoroughly and well-gathered from the document and interview. The highly critical and systematic analysis with 'Miles and Huberman Model' reveals that Southern dialect of Li Niha changes. This research has drawn the following conclusions. Firstly, the lexical changes of Southern dialect of Li Niha comprised lexical loss, semantic change, and lexical creation. Secondly, the patterns of lexical change of Li Niha has been manifested on three types: (1)lexical loss: (a) potential and (b) total lexical loss; (2) semantic change: (a) Noun to Noun, (b) Noun to Adjective, (c) Noun to Verb, (d) Adjective to Adjective, (e)Adverb to Verb, (t) Verb to Noun, (g) Verb to Verb, and (h) Verb to Adjective;(3) lexical creation: (a) internal lexical creation and (b) external lexical creation. Thirdly, the reasons of lexical changes of Southern dialect of Li Niha were: (I)lexical loss: cultural, linguistic and prestige factors; (2) semantic change: analogy,metaphor, mutual concept, implication, and euphemism factors; (3) lexical creation: naturalization, technological development, foreign influence, mutual linguistic feature, translation and adoption of the conceptual feature. In educational setting, the various changes of Southern dialect lexicon of Li Niha implicitly implicate that language standardization, i.e. selection, codification,elaboration and acceptance, is not totally employed, consequently it bears an enormously complicated problem impeding the success of teaching and learning Li Niha to the next generation

Paradox of openness: knowledge sharing-protection tension in ecosystems

The paper describes findings about knowledge management in innovation constellations that are calling themselves as innovation ecosystems. The focus is in tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection, i.e. in the paradox of openness. The research asked whether an ecosystemic and open way of innovation differs to innovation in networks in respect to how the paradox appears. The study applied the methodology of qualitative research. Experiences and practices were collected from 13 innovation ecosystems. According to the findings, the paradox seems to be very true in ecosystems and even more pronounced than in innovation networks, because in ecosystems one may not know all actors of innovation. That makes the promotion of knowledge sharing in ecosystems as a multifaceted issue. In addition, the findings suggest that firms in different ecosystem roles have role specific approaches towards sharing vs. protection.©2020 International Society for Professional Innovation Managementfi=vertaisarvioimaton|en=nonPeerReviewed

Advancing Circular Business

In this world of scarce resources, circular economy (CE) has been identified as an important means for increasing resource efficiency and reducing the use of natural resources. What, however, does implementing circular business and operational models mean for companies’ business execution, mindsets, and competitive edges? This publication presents the practical case studies of several different CE business implementations. The focus on this exploration was to identify the role of information management in successful CE business implementation. The outcomes offer a chance for different representatives of different firms to learn from practical cases of CE implementation in operational and business models. This publication aims to show the pathway toward CE by providing 1. a description of CE 2. an explanation of its impact on business execution 3. stories about the role of information in the creation of CE business 4. practical tools for the creation of CE business The structure of the publication tracks similar logic to, and presents practical case examples from, the field of CE business. Tools and methods were applied and further developed within the case companies: BMH Technology, Fortum, Solita, and UPM. The publication presents the major results of research and development work performed within the “From Data to Wisdom—Approaches Enabling Circular Economy” project (D2W). The project was initiated in August 2016 and continued until January 2019. The research work was conducted by VTT, LUT University, and Tampere University as part of the BioNets program of Business Finland. The project provided a good overview of the demands of CE business in a multidisciplinary multi-company setting. It focused on three approaches for examining circular business: innovation and business models, relationships and networks, and data and wisdom. Since D2W had a broad scope, some of these approaches should be developed further to provide practical tools for business developers (companies and organizations). The work of D2W will therefore continue. Case-specific projects are being considered to develop practical results for the needs of practitioners interested in improving their capabilities for CE business creation. Examples of new topics for the subsequent steps of research include, for example: • Key performance indicators of CE and sustainable development • Governance of CE business ecosystems • New artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, opportunities and requirements in CE business implementationpublishedVersio

Paradox of openness : knowledge sharing-protection tension in ecosystems

The paper describes findings about knowledge management in innovation constellations that are calling themselves as innovation ecosystems. The focus is in tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection, i.e. in the paradox of openness. The research asked whether an ecosystemic and open way of innovation differs to innovation in networks in respect to how the paradox appears. The study applied the methodology of qualitative research. Experiences and practices were collected from 13 innovation ecosystems. According to the findings, the paradox seems to be very true in ecosystems and even more pronounced than in innovation networks, because in ecosystems one may not know all actors of innovation. That makes the promotion of knowledge sharing in ecosystems as a multifaceted issue. In addition, the findings suggest that firms in different ecosystem roles have role specific approaches towards sharing vs. protection.©2020 International Society for Professional Innovation Management, Lappeenranta University of Technologyfi=vertaisarvioimaton|en=nonPeerReviewed

Innovation Ecosystems as Structures for Value Co-Creation

Despite the many recent discussions on “innovation ecosystems” as well as on open innovation or other co-innovation models, a more in-depth understanding of the multi-actor processes of value co-creation remains rather scarce. Hence, in this case study, we provide significant novel insight about innovation ecosystems as structures enabling multi-actor value co-creation in real-life innovation ecosystems. Based on our empirical findings, we identified two key principles: 1) in order to encourage the active participation of ecosystem actors in the value co-creation process, efforts must be made to ensure a clear vision and a shared value base on which the ecosystem activities can be built and 2) facilitation is needed to support the ecosystem actors to make new connections and to share their knowledge and resources in concrete ways. Most importantly, the more diversity there is among the ecosystem actors, the greater the support for innovativeness within the value co-creation process