01840nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245006900055210006700124260004200191300001100233490000700244520120100251653002601452653001601478653002201494653001501516653002101531100002201552700001801574856003001592       2021                        eng d  a1927-032100aA Review of Living Lab Research and Methods for User Involvement0 aReview of Living Lab Research and Methods for User Involvement  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2021  a88-1070 v113 aLiving lab initiatives attempt to solve challenges by stimulating innovative collaboration and outcomes, which unfold in multifarious activities. This study investigates the progress of Living lab research over time. It explores its current trends, along with methods and tools used by Living labs for user involvement. By employing a two-step approach, the study first presents a bibliometric analysis of 535 publications, including detection of convergence towards areas like the aging problem of societies, smart cities, Urban Living labs, and overall sustainability. Urban Living lab clusters have been growing rapidly and forming their own research domain. Subsequently, a review of 42 empirical papers explores the methods and tools adopted by Living labs for user involvement during the innovation process. We categorize the methods into the following eight groups: 1) Structured interaction, 2) Flexible interaction, 3) Extended network, 4) Special actors, 5) Learning and engaging, 6) Design approaches; 7) Techniques, 8) Operational guidelines. The study contributes both to theoretical and practice-oriented Living lab research and offers potential support especially to practitioners.10abibliometric analysis10aco-creation10aliterature review10aLiving lab10auser involvement1 aHuang, Judy, Hong1 aThomas, Elisa  utimreview.ca/article/146702228nas a2200217   4500008004100000022001400041245008200055210006900137260004200206300001000248490000700258520154600265653002201811653002501833653002801858653003801886653002101924100001801945700001701963856003001980       2020                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Role of Academics, Users, and Customers in Industrial Product Development0 aRole of Academics Users and Customers in Industrial Product Deve  aOttawabTalent First Networkc03/2020  a60-690 v103 aIndustrial research and development (R&D) is often adopted as a leading strategy for innovation in high-technology firms. It has been recognized that collaboration with external actors has become increasingly crucial for R&D practices in a world where product and service innovation are increasingly challenging for companies involved in knowledge-intensive technology areas. Thus, high-technology firms are increasingly engaging in collaborative relationships with external stakeholders to transfer valuable new knowledge for industrial purposes, or to create new knowledge through a joint learning process. These external stakeholders may include research institutes such as universities, customer firms, or end users of the firm's products or services. Academic involvement in industrial innovation projects has traditionally focussed on the early stages of a product's development process, when new ideas and innovations are being developed. On the other hand, the interaction between a firm and its customers takes place during the final stages of the R&D process, when innovations are brought to market. In this paper, we explore how users and customers can be involved in university-industry collaboration projects from the beginning of the product development process. Based on a case study comprising five long-term university-industry collaborations in Finland, this paper presents collaborative practices through which academic actors, users, and industrial customers may actively take part in the industrial innovation processes.10acommercialization10acustomer involvement10astakeholder involvement10aUniversity-Industry Collaboration10auser involvement1 aKunttu, Leena1 aNeuvo, Yrjö  utimreview.ca/article/133701599nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245007800055210006900133260004200202300001000244490000600254520086300260653001601123653002601139653002301165653001501188653000801203653001201211653002101223100002101244700002101265700002201286856003701308       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aInnovation Instruments to Co-Create Needs-Based Solutions in a Living Lab0 aInnovation Instruments to CoCreate NeedsBased Solutions in a Liv  aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2018  a22-350 v83 aThis multiple case study focuses on co-creation facilitated with innovation instruments in three different environments – a school, a hospital, and an airport – in which 12 SMEs and startups developed solutions based on predefined needs of customer organizations, and where stakeholders actively participated through user involvement methods facilitated by a living lab. The article provides new knowledge regarding the benefits of the co-creation, user involvement, and use of the living lab approach within different contexts. Our findings show concrete benefits of co-creation for stakeholders such as companies, customer organizations, and end users. Based on our results, we propose a new, generic model for using innovation instruments to facilitate co-creation for the development of needs-based products and services in different service domains.10aco-creation10ainnovation instrument10ainnovation process10aLiving lab10aSME10astartup10auser involvement1 aHaukipuro, Lotta1 aVäinämö, Satu1 aHyrkäs, Pauliina  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/115601723nas 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/95601859nas 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/748