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

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

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

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

Kansainvälisesti merkittävät kehitys- ja kokeiluympäristöt : Menestystekijät ja vaikuttavuuden kriteerit

VTT:n toteuttaman hankkeen neljä päätavoitetta olivat: 1) tunnistaa kehitys- ja kokeilu­ympäristöjen pullonkauloja ja menestystekijöitä kansainvälisten esimerkkien pohjalta, 2) tuottaa uutta tietoa kehitys- ja kokeiluympäristöjen menestystekijöistä, 3) tunnistaa konkreettiset vaikuttavuuden kriteerit arvioinnin ja johtamisen tueksi ja 4) tiivistää linjaukset ja keskeiset viestit kehitys- ja kokeiluympäristöjen vaikuttavien toimenpiteiden ja investointien sekä Kasvuportfolio-toimintamallin toimenpanon tueksi. Selvityksessä tunnistettiin kahdeksan kriittistä menestystekijää kehitys- ja kokeiluympäristöille. Ne ovat huippuosaaminen, infrastruktuuri, veturiorganisaatio, yritysten tarpeet, arvonluonti ja vaikuttavuus, rahoitus- ja liiketoimintamalli, ekosysteemit ja kaupunkien rooli. Raportin suositukset koskevat 1) yhtenäisen kansallisen kokonaiskuvan muodostamista tärkeimmistä kehitys- ja kokeiluympäristöistä sekä niitä tukevaa säädös- ja rahoituskokonaisuutta 2) nykyistä systemaattisemman ymmärryksen muodostamista alueellisten innovaatioympäristöjen merkityksestä, menetystekijöistä ja arvosta 3) käytännönläheisen työkalupakin valmistelua tukemaan kehitys- ja kokeiluympäristöjen rakentamista 4) pilottien käynnistämistä vahvasti sitoutuneiden veturiyritysten ja alueellisten ekosysteemitoimijoiden johdolla

In search of Finnish creative economy ecosystems and their development needs:study based on international benchmarking

This report reviews the status of domestic creative economy ecosystem development, benchmarks creative economy focused policies and models in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea (South Korea), and gives recommendations on how to support cross-sectoral use of creative competencies in ecosystem development in Finland. In the review of creative economy in Finland, creative activities are grouped into four categories (creative and cultural products, creative content, creative services, creative environments and platforms) that differ from each other in terms of value creation logic, easiness of scalability and recycling of intangible value, and the role of interaction and communities in the value creation process. This categorisation has been applied in updating the creative sector fact sheets. International benchmarking shows that official recognition, champions and organisations are needed to establish a common voice for creative sector actors. These have had an important enabling role for proactive policies supporting the creative sectors’ development. Strengthening of creative activities and connecting them firmly to wider regional and national networks across the economy are on policy agenda in all the three benchmarking countries. Supporting cross-sectoral collaboration and wider use of creative competencies calls for a clear national policy recognising pivotal role of regional hubs, attention to fostering practise oriented business skills in initial education, and flexible arrangements for accessing complementary expertise and facilities. To improve the availability and relevance of data on creative activity, we propose to study and pilot the use of textual data and text mining techniques to complement official statistics on economic activities, and systemise data collection on publicly funded projects. For ecosystem development, the public-private partnership model based growth engine initiatives of Business Finland could offer a platform for cross-sectoral collaboration and for connecting regional hubs with national and global ecosystems