@article {749,
	title = {How Do We Keep the Living Laboratory Alive? Learning and Conflicts in Living Lab Collaboration},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {12/2013},
	pages = {16-22},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living lab environments are often promoted as a way to engage private companies, citizens, researchers, and public organizations in mutually beneficial learning. Based on an in-depth case study of a four-year living lab collaboration in gerontechnology, we agree that successful living lab development hinges on learning between the parties, yet its emergence cannot be presumed or taken for granted. Diverse competences and interests of participating actors often make technology development projects complicated and volatile. The study describes two specific challenges faced in a living lab project: i) power issues between the actors and ii) end-user reluctance to participate in the development of new technology. Despite the hardships, we suggest that the living lab environment worked as a catalyst for learning between users and developers. Nevertheless, realizing the benefits of this learning may be more challenging than is usually expected. Learning for interaction is needed before effective learning in interaction is possible.},
	keywords = {collaboration, conflicts, gerontechnology, health care, learning, living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/749},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/749},
	author = {Louna Hakkarainen and Sampsa Hyysalo}
}
