@article {1225,
	title = {Innovation Management in Living Lab Projects: The Innovatrix Framework},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {03/2019},
	pages = {63-73},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Despite living labs being described as {\textquotedblleft}orchestrators{\textquotedblright} and innovation intermediaries, there is scant literature providing concrete guidelines and tools for living lab practitioners on the topic of project-related innovation management. To address this need, we propose Innovatrix, an innovation management framework built upon existing business model and innovation management tools and frameworks and iterated based on practical experience in living lab projects. In this article, we illustrate the added value of the proposed framework through three practical case studies that lead to three propositions regarding innovation management in living lab projects. First, Innovatrix helps to scope the user involvement activities, which leads to greater efficiency and faster decision making. Second, Innovatrix forces the project owner to focus on a limited number of customer segments, which increases the speed of learning as the scarce entrepreneurial resources are dedicated to a limited number of segments. Third, Innovatrix allows practitioners to capture the iterations and pivots that were made during an innovation project, which helps to link specific outcomes with certain living lab activities.},
	keywords = {assumption, business modelling, Innovation management, living labs, testing, user research, validation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1225},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1225},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Aron-Levi Herregodts and Annabel Georges and Olivier Rits}
}
@article {1201,
	title = {Living Labs versus Lean Startups: An Empirical Investigation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {7-16},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Although 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 {\textquotedblleft}startup hype{\textquotedblright} 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 {\textquotedblleft}hyped{\textquotedblright} 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 {\textendash} ideally a lean one {\textendash} to actually deliver this promise. Thus, rather than picking a winner in this comparison, we argue that combining the concepts{\textquoteright} different strengths can bring clear benefits.},
	keywords = {entrepreneurs, impact, Innovation management, lean startup, Living lab, Open innovation, testing, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1201},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1201},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Sonja M. Protic}
}
@article {1044,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation in Living Labs (January 2017)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {01/2017},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {agile methods, conceptualizations, innovation labs, Innovation management, innovation tool, living labs, Open innovation, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1044},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1044},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Dimitri Schuurman and Pieter Ballon and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {956,
	title = {The Impact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contributions and Outcomes},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {01/2016},
	pages = {7-16},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Open innovation scholars as well as practitioners are still struggling with the practical implementation of open innovation principles in different contexts. In this article, we explore the value of a living lab approach for open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Using a case study approach, we compared 27 SME projects conducted by iMinds Living Labs from 2011 to 2015. The results suggest that a real-life intervention and a multi-method approach {\textendash} both of which are methodological characteristics of living lab projects {\textendash} increase the chance of generating actionable user contributions for the innovation under development. Moreover, the results also suggest that a living lab project yields maximal value when evolving from concept towards prototype. Besides these exploratory findings, this article also demonstrates that living lab projects are a perfect "playground" to test and validate assumptions from the open innovation literature.},
	keywords = {collaboration, distributed innovation, entrepreneur, Innovation management, living labs, Open innovation, SME, startup, user innovation, user involvement},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/956},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/956},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Lieven De Marez and Pieter Ballon}
}
