01903nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245006500055210006400120260004200184300000900226490000600235520118600241653001801427653001101445653002601456653001701482653001501499653002001514653001201534653002001546100002301566700002201589856003801611       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aLiving Labs versus Lean Startups: An Empirical Investigation0 aLiving Labs versus Lean Startups An Empirical Investigation  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2018  a7-160 v83 aAlthough 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 “startup hype” 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 “hyped” 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 – ideally a lean one – to actually deliver this promise. Thus, rather than picking a winner in this comparison, we argue that combining the concepts’ different strengths can bring clear benefits.10aentrepreneurs10aimpact10aInnovation management10alean startup10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10atesting10auser innovation1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aProtic, Sonja, M.  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/120100798nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245005600055210005300111260004200164300000800206490000600214653001800220653002300238653002000261653002600281653002000307653001600327653002000343653002000363100001800383700002300401700001900424700001900443700002100462856003700483       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Innovation in Living Labs (January 2017)0 aEditorial Innovation in Living Labs January 2017  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2017  a3-60 v710aagile methods10aconceptualizations10ainnovation labs10aInnovation management10ainnovation tool10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10auser innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aBallon, Pieter1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/104402300nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245011600055210006900171260004200240300000900282490000600291520156900297653002901866653002001895653001601915653002001931653001801951653002001969100002301989700002102012856003702033       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aInnovation in the Public Sector: Exploring the Characteristics and Potential of Living Labs and Innovation Labs0 aInnovation in the Public Sector Exploring the Characteristics an  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2017  a7-140 v73 aLiving 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 “raison d’être”. 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 “state of the art” 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.10acollaborative innovation10ainnovation labs10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10apublic sector10auser innovation1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aTõnurist, Piret  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/104500772nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245006200055210005900117260004200176300000800218490000600226653002200232653001700254653002200271653001600293653002000309653002000329653002000349100001800369700001900387700002300406700002100429700002000450856003600470       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs and User Innovation (January 2016)0 aEditorial Living Labs and User Innovation January 2016  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2016  a3-60 v610aclosed innovation10afield trials10aimpact assessment10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10auser engagement10auser innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aHuizingh, Eelko  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/95501723nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245008100055210006900136260004200205300001000247490000600257520098800263653001401251653001301265653001601278653001501294653002001309653002001329653002101349100002101370700002301391700001901414856003601433       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aFactors Affecting the Attrition of Test Users During Living Lab Field Trials0 aFactors Affecting the Attrition of Test Users During Living Lab   aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2016  a35-440 v63 aNext to active user involvement and a multi-method approach, a third major principle within living lab research consists of capturing the real-life context in which an innovation is used by end users. Field trials are a method to study the interaction of test users with an innovation in the context of use. However, when conducting field trials, there are several reasons why users stop participating in research activities, a phenomenon labelled as attrition. In this article, we elaborate on drop-outs during field trials by analyzing three post-trial surveys of living lab field trials. Our results show that several factors related to the innovation, as well as related to the field trial setup, play a role in attrition, including the lack of added value of the innovation and the extent to which the innovation satisfies the needs and time restrictions of test users. Based on our findings, we provide practical guidelines for managers to reduce attrition during field trials.10aattrition10adrop-out10afield trial10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10auser engagement10auser involvement1 aGeorges, Annabel1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aVervoort, Koen  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/95901818nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245008700055210006900142260004200211300000900253490000600262520097600268653001801244653002701262653001701289653002601306653001601332653002001348653000801368653001201376653002001388653002101408100002301429700002101452700001901473856003601492       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Impact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contributions and Outcomes0 aImpact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contribution  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2016  a7-160 v63 aOpen 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 – both of which are methodological characteristics of living lab projects – 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.10acollaboration10adistributed innovation10aentrepreneur10aInnovation management10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aSME10astartup10auser innovation10auser involvement1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aDe Marez, Lieven1 aBallon, Pieter  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/95600869nas a2200301   4500008004100000022001400041245006300055210006000118260004200178300000800220490000600228653002000234653002200254653001200276653001800288653002400306653001600330653002000346653002200366653002200388653002000410100001800430700001900448700002300467700002100490700002000511856003600531       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs and User Innovation (December 2015)0 aEditorial Living Labs and User Innovation December 2015  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2015  a3-50 v510abusiness models10aclosed innovation10acontext10acrowdsourcing10ainnovation networks10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aspaces and places10aurban living labs10auser innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aHuizingh, Eelko  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/94701859nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245009000055210006900145260004200214300000900256490000600265520112900271653001601400653002501416653001501441653002001456653002101476100002101497700002301518700001901541700002101560856003601581       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aLinking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework0 aLinking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes Towards a   aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2013  a6-150 v33 aDespite almost a decade of living lab activity all over Europe, there still is a lack of empirical research into the practical implementation and the related outcomes of living labs. Therefore, this article proposes a framework to create a better understanding of the characteristics and outcomes of living labs. We investigate three living labs in Belgium and one in Finland to learn how the different building blocks of living lab environments contribute to the outputs of innovation projects launched within the lab. The findings imply that managers and researchers contemplating innovation in living labs need to consider the intended inputs and outcomes, and reframe their innovation activities accordingly. We formulate practical guidelines on how living labs should be managed on the levels of community interaction, stakeholder engagement, and methodological setup to succeed in implementing living lab projects and to create user-centred innovations. That way, living lab practitioners can work towards a more sustainable way of setting up living labs that can run innovation projects over a longer period of time. 10aco-creation10ainnovation ecosystem10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10auser involvement1 aVeeckman, Carina1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/74801830nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245008900055210006900144260004200213300001000255490000600265520112200271653002301393653001601416653002001432653002901452653002001481100002301501700002101524700001901545856003601564       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aOpen Innovation Processes in Living Lab Innovation Systems: Insights from the LeYLab0 aOpen Innovation Processes in Living Lab Innovation Systems Insig  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2013  a28-360 v33 aLiving 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.10aknowledge exchange10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aopen innovation networks10auser innovation1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aDe Marez, Lieven1 aBallon, Pieter  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/74301497nas a2200217   4500008003900000022001400039245006000053210005900113260004200172300001000214490000600224520086100230653002901091653001601120653002001136653001601156653002701172100002301199700002101222856003601243       2012                          d  a1927-032100aStructuring User Involvement in Panel-Based Living Labs0 aStructuring User Involvement in PanelBased Living Labs  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2012  a31-380 v23 aA 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.10acustomer characteristics10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10auser panels10auser-driven innovation1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aDe Marez, Lieven  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/606