@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 {1200,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs (December 2018)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {analysis, constructs, cultural space, definition, ENoLL, framework, innovation, ISPIM, lean startup, library, living labs, methodology, stakeholder},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1200},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1200},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Dimitri Schuurman and Mika Westerlund and Eelko Huizingh}
}
@article {1204,
	title = {A Framework for Field Testing in Living Lab Innovation Projects},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {40-50},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Within innovation research and, more specifically, living lab projects, a crucial component is to test an innovation in a real-life context with potential end users. Such a field test can validate assumptions by combining insights on behaviour and attitudes towards the innovation. This allows for iterative tailoring of the innovation to the needs and wants of the potential end users. Moreover, relevant insights can be gathered to stop or rescope the innovation project before big investments are made. Although studies indicate that testing innovations (or prototypes) in real-life contexts improves the innovation process, there is no specific framework on how to conduct a field test for an innovation. This is important because, in living lab field tests, users are actively involved in co-creating the solutions, which impacts the operational side of setting up living lab projects. Therefore, within this article, we propose a framework for field testing based on the degree to which it reflects reality and the stage within the living lab process. We distinguish four types of field tests: concept, mock-up, pilot, and go2market field test. Based on this framework, we propose some practical guidelines for setting up living lab field tests.},
	keywords = {context research, field test, living labs, testing, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1204},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1204},
	author = {Lynn Coorevits and Annabel Georges and Dimitri Schuurman}
}
@article {1052,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation in Living Labs (February 2017)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {02/2017},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {action research, business-to-business, emotions, innovation, living labs, needsfinding, operations, reflection},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1052},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1052},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund and Dimitri Schuurman and Pieter Ballon}
}
@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 {1045,
	title = {Innovation in the Public Sector: Exploring the Characteristics and Potential of Living Labs and Innovation Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {01/2017},
	pages = {7-14},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living labs and innovation labs share many common traits and characteristics. Both concepts are linked to the public sector, and both concepts can be regarded as coping mechanisms to deal with contemporary changes in the innovation landscape and within society as a whole. Both build on past initiatives and practices, but are also struggling to find their own clear identity and {\textquotedblleft}raison d{\textquoteright}{\^e}tre{\textquotedblright}. Because both concepts are largely practice-driven, their theoretical underpinnings and foundations are mostly established after the fact: making sense of current practice rather than carefully researching and planning the further development. However, despite their similarities and common ground, most researchers treat living labs and innovation labs as separate literature streams. Here, starting from a review of the current issues and challenges with innovation in the public sector, we look for links between both concepts by analyzing the current definitions, the predecessors, and the {\textquotedblleft}state of the art{\textquotedblright} in terms of empirical research. Based on these findings, we summarize a set of similarities and differences between both concepts and propose a model towards more collaboration, mutual exchange, and integration of practices between innovation labs, which can be regarded as initiators of innovation, and living labs, which can be regarded as executors of innovation. Thus, we add to the conceptual development of both concepts and propose a roadmap for the further integration of both the theory and practice of living labs and innovation labs.},
	keywords = {collaborative innovation, innovation labs, living labs, Open innovation, public sector, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1045},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1045},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Piret T{\~o}nurist}
}
@article {1054,
	title = {Overcoming Barriers to Experimentation in Business-to-Business Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {02/2017},
	pages = {20-26},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Business-to-business (B2B) living lab projects have been mentioned in different areas of academic research, but the innovation management literature requires deeper analysis of their potential opportunities and challenges. Real-life experimentation is a key requirement for living labs as it enables deeper insights in the potential success of innovations. However, the literature has not provided insights on how living lab projects can implement real-life experimentation in B2B innovation projects and does not describe appropriate conditions for experimentation in these settings. In this study, we identified three main barriers preventing real-life experimentation in B2B living lab projects: the technological complexity, the need for integration, and the difficulty in identifying testers. The barriers are discussed in detailed and potential solutions are provided to help overcome these barriers and stimulate the adoption of real-life experimentation in B2B innovation projects.},
	keywords = {B2B, experimentation, living labs, testing, user research},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1054},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1054},
	author = {Ruben D{\textquoteright}Hauwers and Aron-Levi Herregodts and Annabel Georges and Lynn Coorevits and Dimitri Schuurman and Olivier Rits and Pieter Ballon}
}
@article {955,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs and User Innovation (January 2016)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {01/2016},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {closed innovation, field trials, impact assessment, living labs, Open innovation, user engagement, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/955},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/955},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Dimitri Schuurman and Mika Westerlund and Eelko Huizingh}
}
@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}
}
@article {947,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs and User Innovation (December 2015)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {12/2015},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {business models, closed innovation, context, crowdsourcing, innovation networks, living labs, Open innovation, spaces and places, urban living labs, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/947},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/947},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Dimitri Schuurman and Mika Westerlund and Eelko Huizingh}
}
@article {949,
	title = {Exploring the Benefits of Integrating Business Model Research within Living Lab Projects},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {12/2015},
	pages = {19-27},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Business model and living lab research both have similar objectives {\textendash} to maximize the probability of successful market introduction of innovative solutions {\textendash} be it through different means. Yet, there are still only few studies or reports discussing both, with those studies that do touch the subject staying at a high level. iMinds Living Labs has gained a lot of experience in combined living lab and business model innovation projects and, rather than being competing approaches, our results have shown that these two research methodologies can be complementary, where the combined approach turns out to be more powerful than each individual approach used alone. The goal of this article is to promote the inclusion of business model research in a model of "a living lab as a service" (and vice versa) by explaining the benefits and by introducing a practical framework to implement such combined research tracks based on the experience at iMinds Living Labs over the past few years.},
	keywords = {business model, collaboration, innovation, living labs, user research, value network, value proposition},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/949},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/949},
	author = {Olivier Rits and Dimitri Schuurman and Pieter Ballon}
}
@article {743,
	title = {Open Innovation Processes in Living Lab Innovation Systems: Insights from the LeYLab},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {11/2013},
	pages = {28-36},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living labs have emerged on the crossroads of the open innovation and user innovation frameworks. As open innovation systems, living labs consist of various actors with each playing their specific role. Within this article, we will take an open innovation perspective by analyzing the knowledge spill-overs between living lab actors through three in-depth innovation case studies taking place within the LeYLab living lab in Kortrijk, Belgium. The results illustrate how living labs foster the three open innovation processes of exploration, exploitation, and retention. From our analysis, we conclude that living labs are particularly useful for exploration and, to a lesser extent, exploitation. In terms of retention, living labs seem to hold a large potential; however, the success and the nature of the innovation processes depend on the sustainability of living labs, the number of innovation cases, and the alignment of these cases with the living lab infrastructure. Based on these findings, a concrete set of guidelines is proposed for innovating in living labs and for setting up a living lab constellation.},
	keywords = {knowledge exchange, living labs, Open innovation, open innovation networks, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/743},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/743},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Lieven De Marez and Pieter Ballon}
}
@article {606,
	title = {Structuring User Involvement in Panel-Based Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {09/2012},
	pages = {31-38},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {A shift towards open innovation approaches with systematic user involvement has occurred within media and ICT. One of the emerging frameworks structuring these initiatives is the "living lab" approach. Despite the growing evidence of the beneficial nature of customer involvement in product development, research into specific user characteristics for innovation is still scarce, particularly in living labs, with the notable exception of literature on lead users. Especially within the context of living labs for ICT and media innovation, an application of the lead-user framework looks promising as a way to structure and facilitate user involvement. This article is based on the experiences of three Flemish living lab initiatives with a panel-based approach and provides a customer characteristics framework that guides user involvement in living labs.},
	keywords = {customer characteristics, living labs, Open innovation, user panels, user-driven innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/606},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/606},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Lieven De Marez}
}
