02135nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245008200055210006900137260004200206300001000248490000700258520129600265653002301561653001601584653001601600653002001616653002901636100002401665700001901689700002501708700002001733700001601753700002701769700003101796856003001827       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aLiving Labs for Public Sector Innovation: insights from a European case study0 aLiving Labs for Public Sector Innovation insights from a Europea  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2021  a47-580 v113 aLiving labs have gained increased attention in research and practice as both a practical and theoretical innovation phenomenon that emphasizes co-creation, real-life settings, and user/customer involvement. More recently, living labs have also emerged as a specific approach to open innovation processes in the context of publics across the EU. Nevertheless, it is still not clear how the understanding of living labs can be translated and organized into new sectorial settings, what type of public sector innovation challenges it addresses, and what role citizens and users have. The aim of this article is therefore to explore and analyze how living labs are applied as processes for public sector innovation. Based on a mixed method approach of 21 European living lab cases, the analysis reveals a pattern of three different processes for living lab organizational and actor roles: living labs organized as cross-sectorial collaboration, living labs emerging within the public sector as main initiator and beneficiary, and living labs developed by civil society actors. The findings are presented as three scenarios for implementing living labs, which also acts as a background for the article's final discussion about the potentials and pitfalls of living labs in public sector contexts.10aCitizen engagement10aco-creation10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aPublic sector innovation1 aHansen, Anne, Vorre1 aFuglsang, Lars1 aLiefooghe, Christine1 aRubalcaba, Luis1 aGago, David1 aHaug, Ines, Mergel & N1 aMureddu, Maria, Taivalsaar  utimreview.ca/article/146401123nas a2200385   4500008004100000022001400041245004000055210003700095260004200132300000800174490000700182653003100189653003200220653002800252653002900280653001700309653003200326653002300358653002100381653002200402653001500424653002600439653001600465653001400481653002400495653002200519653003900541653003000580653001900610653001800629653001900647100001800666700002300684856003000707       2020                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (November 2020)0 aEditorial Insights November 2020  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2020  a3-40 v1010aAI innovation and maturity10aand diaspora entrepreneurs.10aartificial intelligence10aconfidential information10acriminal law10adigitally enhanced teamwork10aeconomic espionage10aentrepreneurship10ahealth technology10aimmigrants10aInnovation management10aliving labs10amigration10aMultidisciplinarity10asituated practice10asmall and medium-sized enterprises10astakeholder participation10asustainability10atrade secrets10atransnationals1 aTanev, Stoyan1 aSandstrom, Gregory  utimreview.ca/article/140402123nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245009900055210006900154260004200223300001000265490000700275520135100282653001301633653002201646653001601668653001701684653002501701653002201726653003001748100002101778700002001799700002001819856003001839       2020                        eng d  a1927-032100a“I Stood By and Watched”:  An Autoethnography of Stakeholder Participation in a Living Lab0 aI Stood By and Watched An Autoethnography of Stakeholder Partici  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2020  a19-300 v103 aAn emerging and innovative way of organizing projects in health technology and innovation is the so-called "living lab" Because of their characteristics, living labs may provide a solution to a very old problem: how to facilitate the meaningful participation of stakeholders in science and technology? In this article, I (we use a first-person perspective in the paper) aim to contribute to the literature by providing an account of my experiences as a participation researcher with stakeholder participation in a living lab in the Netherlands. I participated in a yearlong project on ensuring freedom for residents in a closed psychogeriatric ward. Using three key moments from that experience, I illustrate why participation was the intention, but was harder to achieve in practice. Participation processes and living labs are situated in specific social and physical contexts. I discuss the "situatedness" of living labs and propose to reconceptualize them as "situated practices" the value of a living lab lies in the processes of work it conducts on specific innovations situated in its local context. A key conclusion is that providing narrative descriptions of living lab projects, with attention to situatedness and stakeholder participation, can provide invaluable examples, insights, and inspirations for other researchers in the field.10adementia10ahealth technology10aliving labs10anursing home10apsychogeriatric care10asituated practice10astakeholder participation1 aSchrevel, Samuel1 aSlager, Meralda1 ade Vlugt, Erwin  utimreview.ca/article/140000860nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245004000055210003700095260004200132300000800174490000600182653001700188653002000205653001500225653001500240653001600255653002000271653001700291653001900308653001000327653003700337653002200374100001800396700002300414700002800437700002200465700002100487856003800508       2019                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs (March 2019)0 aEditorial Living Labs March 2019  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2019  a3-50 v910aaccelerators10abusiness models10aframeworks10ainnovation10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10astakeholders10asustainability10atools10aUN Sustainable Development Goals10aurban living labs1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aHabibipour, Abdolrasoul1 aRunardotter, Mari1 aChronéer, Diana  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/122001988nas 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/122500722nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245004900055210004600104260004200150300000800192490000600200653002500206653003100231653002400262653002600286653002600312653001000338653000900348653001600357653002000373653002000393100001800413856003700431       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Innovation Management (July 2018)0 aEditorial Innovation Management July 2018  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2018  a3-40 v810acorporate incubators10aentrepreneurial ecosystems10ainnovation capacity10ainnovation ecosystems10aInnovation management10aISPIM10aKPIs10aliving labs10amiddle managers10atopic modelling1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/116600832nas a2200301   4500008004100000022001400041245003600055210003300091260004200124300000800166490000600174653001600180653002700196653001100223653002200234653002000256653002100276653001200297653002100309653002700330653002300357653001600380653002700396653001200423653004000435100001800475856003700493       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (June 2018)0 aEditorial Insights June 2018  aOttawabTalent First Networkc06/2018  a3-40 v810a3D printing10aadditive manufacturing10aAmazon10aboundary spanning10abusiness models10acivic innovation10aculture10aentrepreneurship10ainnovation integrators10aknowledge transfer10aliving labs10asociotechnical systems10astartup10auniversity–industry collaboration1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/116000813nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245003500055210003200090260004200122300000800164490000600172653002000178653001600198653001300214653002100227653001700248653001500265653002500280653002500305653001600330653001300346653001800359653001700377653001000394653002300404653001700427100001800444856003700462       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (May 2018)0 aEditorial Insights May 2018  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2018  a3-40 v810abusiness models10aco-creation10adrop out10aentrepreneurship10afacilitation10ainnovation10ainternationalization10alean global startups10aliving labs10aservices10aservitization10astakeholders10ausers10avalue propositions10avalue-in-use1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/115400859nas 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/120001665nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245009500055210006900150260004200219300001000261490000600271520086800277653002001145653002301165653001601188653001501204653001301219653002001232653002001252653002501272100001801297700002001315700002601335856003801361       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aExploring the Use of Stakeholder Analysis Methodology in the Establishment of a Living Lab0 aExploring the Use of Stakeholder Analysis Methodology in the Est  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2018  a26-390 v83 aThis article explores how to conduct a cost-effective stakeholder analysis to investigate opportunities and interest in establishing a living lab for an autonomous ferry connection. Using an action research approach, we share our experiences with the process and results, and we reflect openly on the strengths and weaknesses of both the stakeholder methodology generally as well as our own implementation specifically. According to the cyclic nature of action research and experiential learning, the research was conducted in two iterations, with the second iteration drawing upon input from the first. We compare and discuss these two approaches in terms of costs and benefits from a practitioner’s perspective. The article provides a contribution to stakeholder analysis methodology for complex, multi-stakeholder innovation initiatives, such as living labs.10aaction research10aautonomous vessels10aliving labs10amanagement10amaritime10aOpen innovation10aquadruple helix10astakeholder analysis1 aImset, Marius1 aHaavardtun, Per1 aTannum, Marius, Stian  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/120301919nas 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/120401640nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245007500055210006900130260004200199300001000241490000600251520096100257653001501218653001501233653001001248653001501258653001601273653001301289100002101302700001901323700001801342856003801360       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aKey Constructs and a Definition of Living Labs as Innovation Platforms0 aKey Constructs and a Definition of Living Labs as Innovation Pla  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2018  a51-620 v83 aDespite the growing popularity of using living labs as innovation platforms and the increasing scholarly attention toward the topic, still relatively little is known about many of their central characteristics. We use a qualitative research approach to identify key constructs of living labs and to understand how these constructs show up in the operation of living labs. So doing, we used theoretical constructs from the literature on user innovation, co-creation, and living labs to analyze a sample of membership applications to the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). The results from the content analysis of 40 applications revealed nine key constructs that are characteristic to living labs: 1) objective, 2) governance, 3) openness, 4) stakeholders, 5) funding, 6) value, 7) communications, 8) infrastructure, and 9) methods. These key constructs provide new insight that helps us to provide a definition of living labs as innovation platforms.10aconstructs10adefinition10aENoLL10ainnovation10aliving labs10aplatform1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aHabib, Christ  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/120502229nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245005400055210005000109260004200159300001000201490000600211520160800217653002001825653001101845653001501856653001601871653001501887653002201902100001601924700002201940856003701962       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Defining Characteristics of Urban Living Labs0 aDefining Characteristics of Urban Living Labs  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2017  a21-330 v73 aThe organization of supported and sustainable urban interventions is challenging, with multiple actors involved, fragmented decision-making powers, and multiple values at stake. Globally, urban living labs have become a fashionable phenomenon to tackle this challenge, fostering the development and implementation of innovation, experimentation, and knowledge in urban, real-life settings while emphasizing the important role of participation and co-creation. However, although urban living labs could in this way help cities to speed up the sustainable transition, urban living lab experts agree that, in order to truly succeed in these ambitious tasks, the way urban living labs are being shaped and steered needs further research. Yet, they also confirm the existing variation and opaqueness in the definition of the concept. This article contributes to conceptual clarity by developing an operationalized definition of urban living labs, which has been used to assess 90 sustainable urban innovation projects in the city of Amsterdam. The assessment shows that the majority of the projects that are labelled as living labs do not include one or more of the defining elements of a living lab. In particular, the defining co-creation and development activities were found to be absent in many of the projects. This article makes it possible to categorize alleged living lab projects and distill the “true” living labs from the many improperly labelled or unlabelled living labs, allowing more specific analyses and, ultimately, better targeted methodological recommendations for urban living labs.10acharacteristics10acities10adefinition10aliving labs10aTIM Review10aurban living labs1 aSteen, Kris1 avan Bueren, Ellen  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/108800719nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245005000055210004700105260004200152300000800194490000600202653001500208653002100223653002500244653001000269653003200279653001600311653000900327653001500336653002000351653001700371653001000388100001800398856003700416       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: 10th Anniversary Issue (July 2017)0 aEditorial 10th Anniversary Issue July 2017  aOttawabTalent First Networkc07/2017  a3-40 v710aecosystems10aentrepreneurship10ainclusive innovation10aIndia10aknowledge commercialization10aliving labs10aOSBR10aTIM Review10atopic modelling10auniversities10aurban1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/108600773nas 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/104400843nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245004000055210003700095260004200132300000800174490000600182653002400188653002000212653001100232653001800243653002100261653003300282653001700315653002300332653000800355653001600363653001600379653001400395653002000409653002200429653002300451100001800474856003700492       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (November 2017)0 aEditorial Insights November 2017  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2017  a3-40 v710aacademic publishing10abusiness models10acities10acollaboration10aentrepreneurship10afourth industrial revolution10aIndustry 4.010aInternet of Things10aIOT10aliving labs10aopen access10aopen data10aOpen innovation10asocial innovation10avalue propositions1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/111501273nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245006600055210006500121260004200186300001000228490000600238520063300244653001000877653002800887653001200915653001600927653001600943653001000959100001900969700001800988856003701006       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aHeading for a FALL: A Framework for Agile Living Lab Projects0 aHeading for a FALL A Framework for Agile Living Lab Projects  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2017  a37-430 v73 aLiving lab methodologies need to enhance reactivity to changing requirements as these appear in a project. Agile methods allow for quick reactivity, but have been critiqued for not sufficiently taking into account the end-user perspective. In this article, we describe how to blend living lab methodologies with agile methods and, to this end, we present a Framework for Agile Living Lab projects (FALL). To make the framework actionable, we propose a number of actor roles. With concrete examples from living lab practice and a discussion of the theoretical basis, this article is relevant to both academics and practitioners. 10aagile10adesign science research10alean UX10aliving labs10amethodology10aSCRUM1 aCoenen, Tanguy1 aRobijt, Sarie  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/104802300nas 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/105400761nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245005300055210005000108260004200158300000800200490000600208653002000214653002100234653001600255653001800271653001500289653001600304653001700320653002300337653001500360653001200375100001800387700001900405700002200424856003700446       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Innovation in Tourism (November 2016)0 aEditorial Innovation in Tourism November 2016  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2016  a3-50 v610aaction research10aboundary objects10aco-creation10acrowdsourcing10ainnovation10aliving labs10asmart cities10asmart destinations10atechnology10atourism1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aGuimont, David1 aLapointe, Dominic  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/102900772nas 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/95500762nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245005600055210005300111260004200164300000800206490000600214653002900220653001500249653001600264653002100280653002000301653002400321653001700345653001800362100001800380700002100398700001900419700002100438856003700459       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Smart Cities and Regions (December 2016)0 aEditorial Smart Cities and Regions December 2016  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2016  a3-50 v610acollaborative innovation10aecosystems10aliving labs10aonline platforms10aOpen innovation10aregional innovation10asmart cities10asmart regions1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aTukiainen, Taina1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/103702027nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245010000055210006900155260004200224300001000266490000600276520124300282653002001525653002701545653001501572653001001587653001601597653001001613653002901623653001901652653001201671100001901683700002201702856003701724       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aEmpowering Local Tourism Providers to Innovate through a Living Lab Process: Does Scale Matter?0 aEmpowering Local Tourism Providers to Innovate through a Living   aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2016  a18-250 v63 aA destination management organization looking to integrate technology into its tourism offering tasked a living lab with engaging tourists and tourism providers in the process. At the end of the two-year initial funding period for an action research project, the process is a success and stakeholders are engaged in the innovation ecosystem. But what is next? By observing participants and gathering feedback from stakeholders through a Policy Delphi panel, the outcomes of the project and the intentions and actions of the tourism providers and other parties were identified. Innovation capacity has increased: spin-offs were created and stakeholders have embraced open and collaborative innovation. Now, stakeholders are determined to make the process sustainable by finding other funding sources. But what should be the level of cooperation and intervention? What level can best foster innovation and knowledge retention? A case study combining a grid of characteristics and levels of analysis for living labs was used to identify one key question: for a living lab in tourism, does scale matter? This article will explore that question and will contribute to the understanding of the living lab as a model of socio-territorial action.10aaction research10adestination management10ainnovation10alevel10aliving labs10ascale10asocio-territorial action10aterritoriality10atourism1 aGuimont, David1 aLapointe, Dominic  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/103101818nas 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/95600850nas a2200313   4500008004100000022001400041245006000055210005700115260004200172300000800214490000600222653001500228653000900243653001600252653001500268653001400283653002300297653000900320653001500329653001700344653002400361653001500385653003200400653001000432100001800442700002300460700001700483856003600500       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Innovation Tools and Techniques (March 2015)0 aEditorial Innovation Tools and Techniques March 2015  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2015  a3-50 v510ainnovation10alean10aliving labs10amanagement10aprocesses10aproject management10arisk10asignalling10asmart cities10asystems engineering10atechniques10atechnology entrepreneurship10atools1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aGalbraith, Brendan1 aNoori, Nadia  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/87600818nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245004100055210003800096260004200134300000800176490000600184653002400190653002500214653001500239653002600254653001700280653003000297653002100327653001500348653002600363653001600389653002000405653003100425653001800456100001800474856003600492       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Insights (September 2015)0 aEditorial Insights September 2015  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2015  a3-40 v510acognitive computing10acollaborative design10acompetence10acompetence-based view10acoordination10aentrepreneurial marketing10aentrepreneurship10aIBM Watson10ainnovation activities10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aopportunity identification10auser adoption1 aMcPhee, Chris  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/92400869nas 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/94700928nas a2200325   4500008004100000022001400041245005500055210005200110260004200162300000800204490000600212653001800218653001500236653002500251653002400276653001600300653002000316653002400336653001700360653001800377653002500395653002500420653001900445653002300464100001800487700002100505700001900526700002100545856003600566       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Smart Cities and Regions (October 2015)0 aEditorial Smart Cities and Regions October 2015  aOttawabTalent First Networkc10/2015  a3-60 v510acollaboration10aecosystems10ainnovation ecosystem10aliving laboratories10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aregional innovation10asmart cities10asmart regions10asmart specialisation10asmart specialization10asustainability10aurban capabilities1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aTukiainen, Taina1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/93101745nas 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/94901500nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245008500055210006900140260004200209300001000251490000600261520080000267653001501067653001601082653001301098653002301111653001601134653001401150653001401164100002301178700002101201856003601222       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Organization of Living Labs: Coordinating Activities for Regional Innovation0 aOrganization of Living Labs Coordinating Activities for Regional  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2015  a23-280 v53 aThis article contributes to the ongoing knowledge from the first decade of operating living labs with a study on the coordination of novel innovation activities in living labs. The article provides an organizational model for living labs to order the activities that eventually will allow the conceptualization of living labs as innovation systems, thus giving user involvement a more central role in innovation process theories. This article shows how innovation networks systematically align their activities to reliably achieve their objectives. Next to this interpretivist theoretical contribution, the article contributes relevant practical insights to technology innovation management practitioners based on in-depth living lab cases that exhibit interesting, relevant, and new activities.10aactivities10aco-creation10aideation10ainnovation systems10aliving labs10aprocesses10aventuring1 aKatzy, Bernhard, R1 aBücker, Claudia  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/92700530nas a2200205   4500008004100000022001400041245003100055210002800086260004200114300001000156490000600166653001300172653001500185653002300200653001600223653002000239653001000259100001900269856003600288       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aQ&A. What Are Living Labs?0 aQA What Are Living Labs  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2015  a29-350 v510abenefits10adefinition10ainnovation systems10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10atypes1 aLeminen, Seppo  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/92800981nas a2200337   4500008004100000022001400041245004900055210004600104260004200150300000800192490000600200653001800206653002600224653002500250653002600275653004200301653001600343653001800359653003300377653001900410653002300429653002700452653001500479653001700494653001900511100001800530700001800548700002000566700002100586856003600607       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Service and Innovation (May 2014)0 aEditorial Service and Innovation May 2014  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2014  a3-50 v410acollaboration10ainnovation indicators10ainnovation practices10aintellectual property10aknowledge-intensive business services10aliving labs10aonline gaming10aservice business development10aservice design10aservice innovation10aservice-dominant logic10atrademarks10avalue chains10avalue creation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aRajala, Risto1 aToivonen, Marja1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/78801938nas a2200385   4500008004100000022001400041245004600055210004600101260004200147300001000189490000600199520097100205653000701176653001601183653001101199653001901210653001101229653001201240653000801252653001501260653001601275653000901291653001801300653002401318653001301342653001601355653001701371653002801388100002001416700002201436700001701458700001901475700002201494856003601516       2014                        eng d  a1927-032100aIntegrating Design for All in Living Labs0 aIntegrating Design for All in Living Labs  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2014  a50-590 v43 aThe European Union has identified innovation as a key driver behind business competitiveness and responsive governance. However, innovation in and of itself may not be sufficient to help businesses bring new products to market and to help governments shape public services that meet the real needs of citizens. The Integrating Design for All in Living Labs (IDeALL) project sought to identify and test methodologies for designing with users in real-life settings. The results of the experiments showed how different methodologies can be applied in different contexts, helping to provide solutions to societal issues and to create products and services that genuinely meet user requirements. In this article, we describe the methodologies used in the IDeALL project and provide examples of the project's experiments and case studies across four main areas: i) services; ii) health and social care; iii) information and communication technology; and iv) urban design. 10a3H10aco-creation10adesign10adesign for all10ahealth10aHUMBLES10aICT10ainnovation10aliving labs10aLUPI10amethodologies10aservice prototyping10aservices10asocial care10aurban design10auser-centred approaches1 aGray, Madeleine1 aMangyoku, Mikaël1 aSerra, Artur1 aSánchez, Laia1 aAragall, Francesc  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/79300572nas a2200193   4500008004100000022001400041245006100055210005800116260004200174300000800216490000600224653001800230653001600248653002000264100001800284700002100302700001900323856003600342       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs and Crowdsourcing (December 2013)0 aEditorial Living Labs and Crowdsourcing December 2013  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2013  a3-50 v310acrowdsourcing10aliving labs10aOpen innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aLeminen, Seppo  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/74700616nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245004300055210004000098260004200138300000800180490000600188653001100194653001600205653001300221653002000234653002500254653001300279100001800292700001900310700002100329856003600350       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs (November 2013)0 aEditorial Living Labs November 2013  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2013  a3-40 v310adesign10aliving labs10anetworks10aOpen innovation10aregional development10aservices1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/73902495nas a2200241   4500008004100000022001400041245009200055210006900147260004200216300001000258490000600268520177700274653002002051653001902071653002402090653001502114653001602129653001302145653001602158100002102174700002202195856003602217       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Habitation Lab: Using a Design Approach to Foster Innovation for Sustainable Living0 aHabitation Lab Using a Design Approach to Foster Innovation for   aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2013  a15-210 v33 aThis article describes a first step towards a strategy for using living labs as a means to foster innovation and develop new concepts of sustainable living from an architectural point of view. The overall aim is to enable truly sustainable living through radically reduced energy and resource use thus addressing both environmental and social aspects of sustainability. Earlier research has shown that contemporary housing developments, including those with a sustainable profile, do not profoundly question modern lifestyles and consumption, which is a necessity to overcome limitations of a technological focus on environmental efficiency in construction. Thus, we see an opportunity for the discipline of architecture to engage in current investments in living lab facilities in order to push innovation in the field of sustainable housing.
We introduce the concept of a "Habitation Lab", which will provide an arena for radical and high-risk design experimentation between users, building-sector actors, and academia, and we describe a case study of a planned Habitation Lab within a living lab facility where traditional solutions for daily living and habitation are questioned and new architectural innovations are explored and evaluated. The idea of using experimental activities in the field of housing is not new, and we argue that new investments should build on earlier experiences to avoid perpetuating misconceptions and repeating past failures. Furthermore, to ensure the dissemination and uptake of results, the design of the Habitation Lab should consider the innovation and learning trajectories of the building sector. We propose a transdisciplinary setting to provide a neutral arena for value creation and to increase the distribution of experiences. 10aexperimentation10aHabitation Lab10ahousing development10ainnovation10aliving labs10aresiding10asustainable1 aFemenías, Paula1 aHagbert, Pernilla  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/74101733nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245009900055210006900154260004200223300001000265490000600275520104600281653001801327653001401345653002001359653001601379653001301395653001601408100002301424700002001447856003601467       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aHow Do We Keep the Living Laboratory Alive? Learning and Conflicts in Living Lab Collaboration0 aHow Do We Keep the Living Laboratory Alive Learning and Conflict  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2013  a16-220 v33 aLiving lab environments are often promoted as a way to engage private companies, citizens, researchers, and public organizations in mutually beneficial learning. Based on an in-depth case study of a four-year living lab collaboration in gerontechnology, we agree that successful living lab development hinges on learning between the parties, yet its emergence cannot be presumed or taken for granted. Diverse competences and interests of participating actors often make technology development projects complicated and volatile. The study describes two specific challenges faced in a living lab project: i) power issues between the actors and ii) end-user reluctance to participate in the development of new technology. Despite the hardships, we suggest that the living lab environment worked as a catalyst for learning between users and developers. Nevertheless, realizing the benefits of this learning may be more challenging than is usually expected. Learning for interaction is needed before effective learning in interaction is possible.10acollaboration10aconflicts10agerontechnology10ahealth care10alearning10aliving labs1 aHakkarainen, Louna1 aHyysalo, Sampsa  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/74901830nas 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/74301668nas a2200193   4500008003900000022001400039245005300053210005300106260004200159300001000201490000600211520111900217653003001336653002001366653001601386653001601402100002001418856003601438       2012                          d  a1927-032100aDesigning Viable Business Models for Living Labs0 aDesigning Viable Business Models for Living Labs  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2012  a19-240 v23 aOver 300 regions have integrated the concept of living labs into their economic development strategy since 2006, when the former Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho launched the living lab innovation policy initiative during his term of European presidency. Despite motivating initial results, however, success cases of turning research into usable new products and services remain few and uncertainty remains on what living labs actually do and contribute. This practitioner-oriented article presents a business excellence model that shows processes of idea creation and team mobilization, new product development, user involvement, and entrepreneurship through which living labs deliver high-potential investment opportunities. Customers of living labs are identified as investors such as venture capitalists or industrial firms because living labs can generate revenue from them to create their own sustainable business model. The article concludes that living labs provide extensive support “lab” infrastructure and that it remains a formidable challenge to finance it, which calls for a more intensive debate.10abusiness excellence model10abusiness models10aco-creation10aliving labs1 aKatzy, Bernhard  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/60400561nas a2200217   4500008003900000022001400039245002700053210002600080260004200106300000800148490000600156653001600162653001500178653001600193653002000209653002000229100001800249700002100267700001900288856003600307       2012                          d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs0 aEditorial Living Labs  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2012  a3-50 v210aco-creation10ainnovation10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10auser innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aLeminen, Seppo  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/60101498nas a2200229   4500008003900000022001400039245004400053210004300097260004200140300000900182490000600191520089000197653001601087653001501103653001601118653001301134653002001147100001901167700002101186700002501207856003601232       2012                          d  a1927-032100aLiving Labs as Open-Innovation Networks0 aLiving Labs as OpenInnovation Networks  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2012  a6-110 v23 aLiving labs bring experimentation out of companies’ R&D departments to real-life environments with the participation and co-creation of users, partners, and other parties. This study discusses living labs as four different types of networks characterized by open innovation: utilizer-driven, enabler-driven, provider-driven, and user-driven. The typology is based on interviews with the participants of 26 living labs in Finland, Sweden, Spain, and South Africa. Companies can benefit from knowing the characteristics of each type of living lab; this knowledge will help them to identify which actor drives the innovation, to anticipate likely outcomes, and to decide what kind of role they should play while "living labbing". Living labs are networks that can help them create innovations that have a superior match with user needs and can be upscaled promptly to the global market.10aco-creation10ainnovation10aliving labs10anetworks10aOpen innovation1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aNyström, Anna-Greta  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/60201691nas a2200217   4500008003900000022001400039245005300053210005200106260004200158300001000200490000600210520110700216653001801323653001501341653001601356653001301372653001301385100002001398700001901418856003601437       2012                          d  a1927-032100aLiving Labs for Cross-Border Systemic Innovation0 aLiving Labs for CrossBorder Systemic Innovation  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2012  a25-300 v23 aInnovation is increasingly taking place in cross-border collaborative networks, which are shaped by the characteristics of systemic innovation, the strategies and objectives of main actors, and the dynamics of the innovation process. Participation in such networks is of high importance for small firms, but requires long-term investments and a diverse range of collaboration and innovation capabilities. This article explores how living labs, understood as innovation projects based on open and user-centric innovation methodologies, can form collaboration networks to support small firms and other actors to engage in cross-border collaboration and to accelerate the development and acceptance of innovations. Based on the lessons learned from a major living lab project, APOLLON, we conclude that adopting the living labs networking approach requires thorough understanding of each party’s objectives and drivers, the alignment of operational processes, establishment of open and collaborative culture, as well as competences, methods, and tools for supporting cooperation and community building. 10acollaboration10ainnovation10aliving labs10anetworks10asystemic1 aSchaffers, Hans1 aTurkama, Petra  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/60501264nas a2200229   4500008003900000022001400039245006900053210006900122260004200191300001000233490000600243520058500249653001500834653001600849653003000865653002000895653002300915100002100938700001700959700002200976856003600998       2012                          d  a1927-032100aMapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies0 aMapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies  aOttawabTalent First Networkc09/2012  a12-180 v23 aA growing interest in living labs as a mechanism for innovation has drawn significant attention to both the different flavours of this methodology and to the organizations that put it into practice. However, little has been done to assess its impact and to compare its contribution to other innovation methodologies. This article aims to cover that gap by summarizing the most common European living labs approaches and positioning them in the landscape of user-contributed innovation methodology. The merits and appropriateness of living labs in these settings are also assessed.10ainnovation10aliving labs10aliving labs methodologies10aOpen innovation10auser-driven design1 aAlmirall, Esteve1 aLee, Melissa1 aWareham, Jonathan  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/60301497nas 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