01988nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245007500055210006900130260004200199300001000241490000600251520121400257653001501471653002301486653002601509653001601535653001201551653001801563653001501581100002301596700002601619700002101645700001801666856003801684       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aInnovation Management in Living Lab Projects: The Innovatrix Framework0 aInnovation Management in Living Lab Projects The Innovatrix Fram  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2019  a63-730 v93 aDespite living labs being described as “orchestrators” 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.10aassumption10abusiness modelling10aInnovation management10aliving labs10atesting10auser research10avalidation1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aHerregodts, Aron-Levi1 aGeorges, Annabel1 aRits, Olivier  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/122500859nas a2200337   4500008004100000022001400041245004300055210004000098260004200138300000800180490000600188653001300194653001500207653001900222653001500241653001000256653001400266653001500280653001000295653001700305653001200322653001600334653001600350653001600366100001800382700001900400700002300419700002100442700002000463856003800483       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs (December 2018)0 aEditorial Living Labs December 2018  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2018  a3-60 v810aanalysis10aconstructs10acultural space10adefinition10aENoLL10aframework10ainnovation10aISPIM10alean startup10alibrary10aliving labs10amethodology10astakeholder1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aHuizingh, Eelko  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/120001919nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245006800055210006600123260004200189300001000231490000600241520125600247653002101503653001501524653001601539653001201555653002001567100002001587700002101607700002301628856003801651       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aA Framework for Field Testing in Living Lab Innovation Projects0 aFramework for Field Testing in Living Lab Innovation Projects  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2018  a40-500 v83 aWithin 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.10acontext research10afield test10aliving labs10atesting10auser innovation1 aCoorevits, Lynn1 aGeorges, Annabel1 aSchuurman, Dimitri  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/120400773nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245005700055210005400112260004200166300000800208490000600216653002000222653002500242653001300267653001500280653001600295653001700311653001500328653001500343100001800358700001900376700002100395700002300416700001900439856003700458       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Innovation in Living Labs (February 2017)0 aEditorial Innovation in Living Labs February 2017  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2017  a3-60 v710aaction research10abusiness-to-business10aemotions10ainnovation10aliving labs10aneedsfinding10aoperations10areflection1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aBallon, Pieter  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/105200798nas 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/104501794nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245007900055210006900134260004200203300001000245490000600255520099400261653000801255653002001263653001601283653001201299653001801311100002301329700002601352700002101378700002001399700002301419700001801442700001901460856003701479       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aOvercoming Barriers to Experimentation in Business-to-Business Living Labs0 aOvercoming Barriers to Experimentation in BusinesstoBusiness Liv  aOttawabTalent First Networkc02/2017  a20-260 v73 aBusiness-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.10aB2B10aexperimentation10aliving labs10atesting10auser research1 aD’Hauwers, Ruben1 aHerregodts, Aron-Levi1 aGeorges, Annabel1 aCoorevits, Lynn1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aRits, Olivier1 aBallon, Pieter  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/105400772nas 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/95501818nas 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/94701745nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245009300055210006900148260004200217300001000259490000600269520099400275653001901269653001801288653001501306653001601321653001801337653001801355653002201373100001801395700002301413700001901436856003601455       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aExploring the Benefits of Integrating Business Model Research within Living Lab Projects0 aExploring the Benefits of Integrating Business Model Research wi  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2015  a19-270 v53 aBusiness model and living lab research both have similar objectives – to maximize the probability of successful market introduction of innovative solutions – 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.10abusiness model10acollaboration10ainnovation10aliving labs10auser research10avalue network10avalue proposition1 aRits, Olivier1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aBallon, Pieter  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/94901830nas 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