@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 {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 {1046,
	title = {Categorization of Innovation Tools in Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {01/2017},
	pages = {15-25},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article examines the link between innovation processes and the use of innovation tools in living labs. So doing, it develops a conceptual framework based on the literature to analyze 40 living labs in different countries. The study contributes to the discussion on living labs by introducing a new typology of living labs based on their innovation process characteristics and usage of tools: linearizer, iterator, mass customizer, and tailor. Moreover, it proposes three ways to organize innovation activities in living labs. The article concludes by providing a set of implications to theory and practice, and suggesting directions for future research on living labs.},
	keywords = {innovation tool, Living lab, method, Open innovation, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1046},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1046},
	author = {Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@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 {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 {750,
	title = {From Idea Crowdsourcing to Managing User Knowledge},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {12/2013},
	pages = {23-31},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article explores how technology companies can benefit from user knowledge in product and service innovation beyond mere idea generation through crowdsourcing. We investigate a case from the telecommunications sector to discover the ways a company can overcome the challenges of motivating users to participate in innovation activity and gaining from their knowledge in the innovation process. In particular, we seek to learn how the company has created understanding about the future uses of technology and the developments of the market with the lead users. In addition, we analyze the key means of capturing value from the knowledge gathered from the users, including the essential organizational practices that support user innovation and the ways the company makes sense of the vast volume and variety of user knowledge. Our empirical inquiry increases the understanding of how technology companies can complement and use crowdsourcing to effectively utilize knowledge resident in user communities. },
	keywords = {crowdsourcing, knowledge management, lead users, online communities, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/750},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/750},
	author = {Risto Rajala and Mika Westerlund and Mervi Vuori and Jukka-Pekka Hares}
}
@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 {601,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {09/2012},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {co-creation, innovation, living labs, Open innovation, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/601},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/601},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Mika Westerlund and Seppo Leminen}
}
