02376nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245007500055210006900130260004200199300001000241490000700251520155400258653001501812653002701827653001501854653002101869653002001890653002001910100002801930700002201958700002201980700002202002700002302024700002102047856003002068       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aRural Living Labs: Inclusive Digital Transformation in the Countryside0 aRural Living Labs Inclusive Digital Transformation in the Countr  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2021  a59-720 v113 aDigital transformation (DT) has received increasing attention in recent years. Up until now, most of the current studies focus on digital transformation in advanced and dense societies, especially urban areas and technologies. Hence, the phenomenon of DT is under-researched in the context of rural and sparsely populated contexts. This study aims at exploring how a rural living lab (RLL) can be shaped and how this approach can be designed to support digital transformation processes in rural contexts. In so doing, following a design science research methodology (DSRM) approach, we have made an artefact (that is, RLL framework) that is an "instantiation" that supports user centric digitalization of rural areas. The designed framework is developed based on the key components of "traditional" and "urban" living labs, as well as empirical data which was collected within the context of the DigiBy project. The DigiBy project aims at conducting DT pilots in rural areas to elevate peoples' understanding of digitalization and the application of digitalization opportunities for service development in rural areas in the north of Sweden. As a result of these studies, five key components that guide the design of digital transformation pilots in rural areas emerged, namely: 1) rural context, 2) digitalization, 3) governance, control, and business mode, 4) methods facilitating DT processes, and 5) quintuple helix actors. We also offer an empirically derived definition of the rural living lab concept, followed by avenues for future research.10aComponents10adigital transformation10aLiving lab10aRural living lab10aRural residents10auser engagement1 aHabibipour, Abdolrasoul1 aLindberg, Johanna1 aRunardotter, Mari1 aElmistikawy, Yomn1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aChronéer, Diana  utimreview.ca/article/146502142nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245008300055210006900138260004200207300001000249490000600259520135000265653001501615653001501630653001901645653001501664653002701679653000801706653000801714653001101722653002101733100002101754700002301775700002801798856003801826       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aUrban Living Labs: Towards an Integrated Understanding of their Key Components0 aUrban Living Labs Towards an Integrated Understanding of their K  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2019  a50-620 v93 aIn today’s ongoing urbanization and escalating climate change, there is an increasing demand on cities to be innovative and inclusive to handle these emerging issues. As an answer to these challenges, and in order to generate and adopt sustainable innovations and nature-based solutions in the urban areas, the concept of urban living labs has emerged. However, to date, there is confusion concerning the concept of the urban living lab and its key components. Some interpret the urban living lab as an approach, others as a single project, and some as a specific place – and some just do not know. In order to unravel this complexity and better understand this concept, we sought to identify the key components of an urban living lab by discussing the perspective of city representatives in the context of an urban living lab project. To achieve this goal, we reviewed previous literature on this topic and carried out two workshops with city representatives, followed by an open-ended questionnaire. In this article, we identify and discuss seven key components of an urban living lab: governance and management structure; financing models; urban context; nature-based solutions; partners and users (including citizens); approach; and ICT and infrastructure. We also offer an empirically derived definition of the urban living lab concept.10adefinition10ainnovation10akey components10aLiving lab10anature-based solutions10aNBS10aULL10aUNaLab10aurban living lab1 aChronéer, Diana1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aHabibipour, Abdolrasoul  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/122402305nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245008300055210006900138260004200207300000900249490000600258520151400264653001301778653001501791653001501806653001301821653002001834653002001854100002801874700002101902700002301923700002301946700003301969856003702002       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aA Taxonomy of Factors Influencing Drop-Out Behaviour in Living Lab Field Tests0 aTaxonomy of Factors Influencing DropOut Behaviour in Living Lab   aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2018  a5-210 v83 aThe concept of a “living lab” is a relatively new research area and phenomenon that facilitates user engagement in open innovation activities. Studies on living labs show that the users’ motivation to participate in a field test is higher at the beginning of the project than during the rest of the test, and that participants have a tendency to drop out before completing the assigned tasks. However, the literature still lacks theories describing the phenomenon of drop-out within the area of field tests in general and living lab field tests in particular. As the first step in constructing a theoretical discourse, the aims of this study are to present an empirically derived taxonomy for the various factors that influence drop-out behaviour; to provide a definition of “drop-out” in living lab field tests; and to understand the extent to which each of the identified items influence participant drop-out behaviour. To achieve these aims, we first extracted factors influencing drop-out behaviour in the field test from our previous studies on the topic, and then we validated the extracted results across 14 semi-structured interviews with experts in living lab field tests. Our findings show that identified reasons for dropping out can be grouped into three themes: innovation-related, process-related, and participant-related. Each theme consists of three categories with a total of 44 items. In this study, we also propose a unified definition of “drop-out” in living lab field tests.10adrop-out10afield test10aLiving lab10ataxonomy10auser engagement10auser motivation1 aHabibipour, Abdolrasoul1 aGeorges, Annabel1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aBergvall-Kåreborn, Birgitta  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/115501898nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245004900055210004900104260004200153300001000195490000600205520121400211653002001425653001201445653001201457653002401469653001401493653002301507653001501530653002101545100002301566700001801589856003701607       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aReflecting on Actions in Living Lab Research0 aReflecting on Actions in Living Lab Research  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2017  a27-340 v73 aLiving labs deploy contemporary open and user-centred engagement processes in real-world contexts where all relevant stakeholders are involved and engaged with the endeavour to create and experiment with different innovations. The approach is evidently successful and builds on the perspective that people have a democratic right to have influence over changes that might affect them, such as those brought about by an innovation. In this article, we will reflect on and discuss a case in which end users took part in the development of a method that stimulates learning and adoption of digital innovations in their own homes while testing and interacting with it. The results show that, when end users were stimulated to use the implemented innovation through different explicit assignments, they both increased their understanding of the situation as well as changed their behaviour. Living lab processes are complex and dynamic, and we find that it is essential that a living lab have the capability to adjust its roles and actions. We argue that being reflective is beneficial for innovation process managers in living labs because it allows them to adjust processes in response to dynamic circumstances. 10aaction research10aApollon10acontext10adigital innovations10aend users10ainnovation process10aLiving lab10aresearch process1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aHolst, Marita  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/105501490nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245006900055210006900124260004200193300001000235490000600245520084000251653001201091653001801103653000801121653002301129653001501152653000901167100002301176700002501199856003601224       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aLeveraging Living Lab Innovation Processes through Crowdsourcing0 aLeveraging Living Lab Innovation Processes through Crowdsourcing  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2015  a28-360 v53 aAround the globe, crowdsourcing initiatives are emerging and contributing in a diversity of areas, such as in crisis management and product development and to carry out micro-tasks such as translations and transcriptions. The essence of crowdsourcing is to acknowledge that not all the talented people work for you; hence, crowdsourcing brings more perspectives, insights, and visions to, for instance, an innovation process. In this article, we analyze how crowdsourcing can contribute to the different stages of innovation processes carried out in living labs and thus contribute to living labs by strengthening their core role as innovation process facilitators. We have also identified benefits and challenges that need to be grappled with for managers of living labs to make it possible for the crowd to fully support their cause.10acitizen10acrowdsourcing10aICT10ainnovation process10aLiving lab10auser1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aLassinantti, Josefin  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/95001389nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245004100055210004100096260004200137300001000179490000600189520075500195653001400950653001500964653001300979653001000992653001201002653001001014100003301024700003101057700002301088856003601111       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aPlaces and Spaces within Living Labs0 aPlaces and Spaces within Living Labs  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2015  a37-470 v53 aIn this article, we propose the concepts of places and spaces as conceptual tools to facilitate the organization of innovation activities within living labs. We have taken a pragmatic perspective on these concepts regarding how they are integrated in design situations, and how different types of places and spaces can facilitate or hinder innovation. We have found that, by applying openness, realism, and influence in the different spaces of our living lab milieus, they have transformed into many different places depending on the stakeholders involved, the methods chosen, and the facilitation of activities. Hence, by understanding this line of reasoning, living lab managers can make more informed decisions and plans for innovation activities.10ainfluence10aLiving lab10aopenness10aplace10arealism10aspace1 aBergvall-Kåreborn, Birgitta1 aIhlström Eriksson, Carina1 aStåhlbröst, Anna  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/95101885nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245010500055210006900160260004200229300001000271490000600281520123100287653002801518653002801546653001501574653002101589653001001610100002301620856003601643       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aA Living Lab as a Service: Creating Value for Micro-enterprises through Collaboration and Innovation0 aLiving Lab as a Service Creating Value for Microenterprises thro  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2013  a37-420 v33 aThe need to innovate is increasingly important for all types and sizes of organizations, but the opportunities for innovation differ substantially between them. For micro-, small,- and medium-sized enterprises, innovation activities are both crucial and demanding because of limited resources, competencies, or vision to innovate their offerings. To support these organizations, the concept of living labs as a service has started to emerge. This concept refers to living labs offering services such as designing the idea-generation processes, planning or carrying out real-world tests of innovations, and pre-market launch assessments. In this article, we will present the findings from a study of micro-enterprises operating in the information technology development sector, including the experienced value of services provided to the companies by a research-based living lab. We share experiences from Botnia, our own living lab in northern Sweden. In this living lab, our aim of creating value for customers is of key importance. Our study shows that using a living lab as a service can generate three different types of value: improved innovations, the role the living lab can play, and the support the living lab offers.10aexperience-based values10ainnovation intermediary10aLiving lab10amicro-enterprise10avalue1 aStåhlbröst, Anna  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/744