September 2015 Download this article as a PDF

Q. What are living labs?

A. The term "living lab" is at risk of becoming a buzzword in the innovation domain because it lacks a consistent or commonly accepted definition. Indeed, a wide variety of activities are carried out under the umbrella of living labs, and they feature many different methodologies and research perspectives. However, even if a common definition is beyond our reach, insights can be gained by understanding the common characteristics and types of living labs. Here we examine typical usages of the term "living lab" and how such labs may be categorized and studied; we also outline the practical benefits of this form of innovation.

In the literature, Westerlund and Leminen (2014) have found that a living lab has been variously perceived as:

  • A regional system (cf. Oliveira et al., 2006)
  • An innovation system (cf. Ballon et al., 2005; Eriksson et al., 2005)
  • An ecosystem (cf. Lievens et al., 2011;  Schaffers & Turkama, 2012; Tang et al., 2012)
  • A network (cf. Leminen, 2013, 2015; Leminen & Westerlund, 2012; Leminen et al., 2014a, forthcoming; Nyström et al., 2014)
  • A combined approach (cf. Dutilleul et al., 2010)
  • An environment with embedded technologies and users (cf. Bajgier et al., 1991; Intille et al., 2005; Intille et al., 2006)
  • A context or a methodology (cf. Almirall et al., 2012; Bergvall-Kåreborn et al., 2009; Dell’Era & Landoni 2014; Mulder & Stapper, 2009;)
  • An enhancement or implementation of public and user involvement, such as for rural innovations (cf. Schaffers & Kulkki, 2007), regional innovations (cf. Juujärvi & Pesso, 2013), smart cities (Ballon et al., 2011), enabler-driven or user driven innovations ( cf. Leminen, 2013; Leminen et al., 2012a; Leminen et al., 2014a; Leminen & Westerlund, 2012), public–private partnerships (PPPs) (cf. Lepik et al., 2010; Niitamo et al., 2006), and a public–private–people partnership (4Ps or quadruple helix) (cf. Arnkil et al., 2010; Ferrari et al., 2011; Molinari, 2011)
  • A development project for products, services, and systems (cf. Bajgier et al., 1991; Bengtson, 1994; Lasher et al., 1991)
  • A business activity and operational mode (cf. Schuurman et al., 2012, Schuurman et al., 2013; Veeckman et al., 2013)
  • An innovation management tool (cf. Edvardsson et al., 2012; Leminen et al., 2012b)

Westerlund and Leminen define living labs as: "physical regions or virtual realities, or interaction spaces, in which stakeholders form public-private-people partnerships (4Ps) of companies, public agencies, universities, users, and other stakeholders, all collaborating for creation, prototyping, validating, and testing of new technologies, services, products, and systems in real-life contexts" (Leminen, 2013; Westerlund & Leminen, 2011). As such, living labs are used by communities and for innovation.

Characterizing Living Labs

The definition above highlights seven key characteristics of living labs:

  1. The innovation activities take place in real-life environments (cf. Ballon et al., 2005; Intille et al., 2005, 2006).
  2. Public-private-people partnerships (4Ps) are formed by the participants, which include companies, researchers, authorities, and users (cf. Westerlund & Leminen, 2011).
  3. The importance of users, including citizens and customers, is emphasized (cf. Ballon et al., 2005; Følstad 2008; Leminen, 2011).
  4. They are different from testbeds, field trials, and other forms of innovation (cf. Almirall et al., 2012; Ballon et al., 2005; Bergvall-Kåreborn et al., 2009;). They feature innovations that are more mature than in-house R&D, where prototyping and field trials are more appropriate, but the innovations are less mature than would be found in pilot projects (Ballon et al., 2005). 
  5. Multiple stakeholders are employed in living labs (cf. Ballon et al., 2005; Leminen et al., 2014b; Leminen & Westerlund, 2012; Westerlund & Leminen, 2011).
  6. Multiple roles are pursued by stakeholders in living labs (Leminen et al., 2014a; Nyström et al, 2014).
  7. Collaboration between stakeholders is an essential feature of living labs, which are grounded in the principles of open innovation (cf. Leminen & Westerlund, 2012; Niitamo et al., 2006).

Categorizing Living Labs

The term "living lab" has been applied to many different types of innovation activities; however, even within the definition proposed above, there can be different types of living labs. In particular, the type of participant that is driving the innovation activities can be used to categorize living labs into utilizer-driven, enabler-driven, provider-driven, and user-driven (or user-community-driven) living labs (Leminen et al., 2012). The characteristics of each type are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of different types of living labs (Reproduced from Leminen et al., 2012)

   Characteristic

Type of Living Labs

 

Utilizer-driven

Enabler-driven

Provider-driven

User-driven

Purpose

Strategic R&D activity with preset objectives

Strategy development through action

Operations development through increased knowledge

Problem solving by collaborative accomplishments

Organization

Network forms around an utilizer, who organizes action for rapid knowledge results

Network forms around a region (regional development) or a funded project (e.g., public funding)

Network forms around a provider organization(s)

Network initiated by users lacks formal coordination mechanisms

Action

Utilizer guides information collection from the users and promotes knowledge creation that supports the achievement of preset goals

Information is collected and used together and knowledge is co-created in the network

Information is collected for immediate or postponed use; new knowledge is based on the information that provider gets from the others

Information is not collected formally and builds upon users’ interests; knowledge is utilized in the network to help the user community

Outcomes

New knowledge for product and business development

Guided strategy change into a preferred direction

New knowledge supporting operations development

Solutions to users’ everyday-life problems

Lifespan

Short

Short/medium/long

Short/medium/long

Long

 

Benefits of Living Labs

The living labs approach offers benefits to companies, users, developers, and public financiers. Companies benefit through cost-efficient access to end-user data and user experiences. They also save money by being able to make changes to a product much earlier in the development process based on user feedback. Over the long-term, living lab activities also tie customers to a company and its activities.

Users gain opportunities to influence the development of products. They also benefit from the solutions that are developed, which in many cases are solving problems that affect their everyday lives and which may have been otherwise unsolvable. Users also may perceive the new, user-driven products to be more functional because of the co-creative development process.

Living labs also contribute to the core activities of developers; the living labs brings opportunities and resources, and the developers bring their capabilities to develop real-world solutions to the users' problems. And, finally, public financiers benefit from activities and outcomes that support their objectives.

In addition to the benefits to participants, living labs also provide advantages over other types of innovation activities. Table 2 lists the advantages of a living labs approach.

Table 2. Advantages of living labs (Modified from Leminen, 2015)

Area

Advantage

Innovation

  • Enhance learning (Abowd, 1999; Bajgier et al., 1991)
  • Tackle complex real-life problems (Bajgier et al., 1991; Mulder et al., 2008)
  • Foster vertical integration (Eriksson et al., 2005)
  • Enhance dialogue between different stakeholders (Schaffers & Kulkki, 2007)
  • Share experiences (Schaffers & Kulkki, 2007)
  • Enhance SME incubation (Van Rensburg et al., 2007)
  • Filter problems (Schuurman & Marez, 2009)
  • Enable open collaboration between actors (Bergvall-Kåreborn et al., 2009)
  • Enhance multi-organizational collaboration (Kviselius et al., 2009)
  • Act as a focal point for multi-organizational collaboration (Kviselius et al., 2009)
  • Engage all key actors for innovation (Mulder & Stappers, 2009)
  • Understand innovation (Mulder & Stappers, 2009)
  • Enable unique knowledge (Dutilleul et al., 2010)
  • Access real interaction data and real application contexts (Azzopardi & Balog, 2011)
  • Motivate users (Ståhlbröst & Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2011)
  • Enhance sustainable solution development (Liedtke et al., 2012)

Context

  • Can be used in different contexts (Eriksson et al., 2005)
  • Provide an environment to study richness of complex user behaviour and use of technology in home (Intille et al., 2005, 2006)
  • Integrate multi-contextual sphere, i.e. regional and cultural diversity (Feurstein et al., 2008)
  • Catalyze rural and regional systems of innovation (Schaffers & Kulkki, 2007)
  • Integrate fundamental and applied research (Mulder & Stappers, 2009)
  • Empower rural communities in developing countries (Mutanga et al., 2011)
  • Advance smart city operations (Ballon et al., 2011)
  • Upscale urban development (Ballon et al., 2011)
  • Provide assets for the innovation environment (Schaffers et al., 2011)

Business Opportunities

  • Create new business opportunities (Kviselius et al., 2009; Niitamo et al., 2012)
  • Localize products (Feurstein et al., 2008)
  • Lead to unexpected market opportunities (Mavridis et al., 2009)

 

Living Labs vs Traditional Projects

Although there are many advantages of living labs, as listed in Table 2, they do bring certain management challenges in relation to traditional projects. To achieve the benefits of the living labs approach, participants should be aware of these differences and adjust their actions and roles accordingly (Table 3).

Table 3. Differences between the traditional project model and the living lab model (Westerlund & Leminen, 2011)

 

Traditional Project

Living Lab

Objective

Targeted to a preliminary defined project goal

Targeted to an undefined objectives; final objectives change based on the needs of users

Role of Project Manager

Management and control of resources

Management and control of own resources; facilitation and encouragement of users

Control Point

Adjustment points are based on a predefined project plan

Adjustment can be flexible; in extreme cases, adjustments can even be made daily

Role of Users and User Communities

Users are an object of study; they may test and verify products and services

Equal and active participants in the project; co-creators of products or services

Resources and Capabilities

Project resources are used efficiently, including resources from the network

Readjustment and redefinition are the next steps; flexibility in integrating different types of knowledge in the living lab network/community; facilitation of end users and user communities

Tools

Project management tools and methods

Facilitative methods and group work tools

 

Roles in Living Labs

The literature provides a broad variety of rich descriptions on multiple and different stakeholders intertwined in innovation activities in real-life environments. Acknowledging the richness of such studies, the discussion offers many conceptualization of living labs. Such conceptualizations include roles and role patterns  (Leminen et al., 2014a, 2014b; Nyström et al., 2014), but also how creative consumer roles explain the emergence of innovation outcomes (Leminen et al., 2015a) and how network structures and driving parties increase the likelihood of targeted innovation outcomes (Leminen et al., forthcoming) in living labs.

Conclusion

A living lab is one form of emerging  open innovation network that provide many benefits for companies and other organizations, and it offer many research opportunities to scholars. As our understanding of the phenomenon expands and our usage of the terminology converges, we will further maximize the benefits of the living labs approach to innovation.

Acknowledgements

This Q&A is based on a research seminar given by the author at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada on August 13, 2015. The author gratefully acknowledges the feedback and input from the seminar participants.

 


References

Abowd, G. D. 1999. Classroom 2000: An Experiment with the Instrumentation of a Living Educational Environment. IBM Systems Journal, 38(4): 508–530.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1147/sj.384.0508

Almirall, E., Lee, M., & Wareham, J. 2012. Mapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9): 12–18.
http://timreview.ca/article/603

Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P., & Piirainen, T. 2010. Exploring Quadruple Helix Outlining User-Oriented Innovation Models. Työraportteja 85/2010 Working Papers. University of Tampere.

Azzopardi, L., & Balog, L. 2011. Towards a Living Lab for Information Retrieval Research and Development: A Proposal for a Living Lab for Product Search Tasks. In Proceedings of CLEF 2011: Conference on Multilingual and Multimodal Information Access Evaluation, LNCS 6941, September 2011: 26–37.

Bajgier, S., M., Maragah, H. D., Saccucci, M. S., Verzilli, A., & Prybutok, V. R. 1991. Introducing Students to Community Operations Research by Using a City Neighborhood as a Living Laboratory. Operations Research, 39(5): 701–709.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.39.5.701

Ballon, P., Glidden, J.,  Kranas, P., Menychtas, A., Ruston, S., & Van der Graaf, S. 2011.  Is there a Need for a Cloud Platform for European Smart Cities? In P. Cunningham & M. Cunningham (Eds), Proceedings of the eChallenges e-2011 Conference: 1–7. Dublin: International Information Management Corporation (IIMC).

Ballon, P., Pierson, J., & Deleare, S. 2005. Test and Experimentation Platforms for Broadband Innovation: Examining European Practice. In Proceedings of the 16th European Regional Conference, International Telecommunications Society, Portugal, 4-6 September 2005.

Bengtson, P.  1994. Which Comes First, Internal Involvement or External? The Journal for Quality and Participation, 17(5): 32–37.

Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Ihlström Eriksson, C., Ståhlbröst, A., & Svensson, J. 2009. A Milieu for Innovation: Defining Living Labs. In  K. R. E. Huizingh, S. Conn, M. Torkkeli, & I. Bitran (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd ISPIM Innovation Symposium: Simulating Recovery – The Role of Innovation Management, New York City, USA 6–9 December, 2009.

Dell´Era, C., & Landoni, P. 2014. Living Lab: A Methodology between User-Centred Design and Participatory Design. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(2): 137–154.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/caim.12061

Dutilleul, B., Birrer, F. A. J., & Mensink, W. 2010. Unpacking European Living Labs: Analysing Innovation’s Social Dimensions. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 4(1): 60–85.

Edvardsson, B. Kristensson, P., Magnusson, P., & Sundström, E. 2012. Customer Integration within Service Development – A Review of Methods and an Analysis of Insitu and Exsitu Contributions. Technovation, 32(7-8): 419–429.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.04.006

Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V.-P., & Kulkki. S. 2005. State-of-the-Art in Utilizing Living Labs Approach to User-Centric ICT Innovation – A European Approach. Center for Distance-spanning Technology. Lulea University of Technology, Sweden. Nokia Oy, Centre for Knowledge and Innovation Research at Helsinki School of Economics, Finland.

Ferrari, V., Mion, L., & Molinari, R. F. 2011. Innovating ICT Innovation: Trentino as a Lab. In Proceedings of ICEGOV2011: 329-332, Tallinn, Estonia, September 26–28, 2011.

Feurstein, K., Hesmer, K. A., Hribernik, K.D., & Schumacher, J. 2008. Living Labs: A New Development Strategy. In J. Schumacher & V.-P. Niitamo (Eds), European Living Labs – A New Approach for Human Centric Regional Innovation: 1-14. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.

Følstad, A. 2008. Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Communication Technology: A Literature Review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organisations and Networks, 10: 99–131.

Intille, S. S., Larson, K., Beaudin, J. S.,  Nawyn, J., Munguia Tapia, E., & Kaushik, P. 2005. A Living Laboratory for the Design and Evaluation of Ubiquitous Computing Interfaces. In Extended Abstracts of the 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 1941–1944. New York, NY: ACM Press.

Intille, S. S., Larson, K., Munguia Tapia, E., Beaudin, J., Kaushik, P., Nawyn, J., & R. Rockinson, R. 2006. Using a Live-In Laboratory for Ubiquitous Computing Research. In K. P. Fishkin, B. Schiele, P. Nixon, & A. Quigley (Eds.), Proceedings of PERVASIVE 2006, LNCS 3968: 349-365. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Juujärvi, S., & Pesso, K. .2013. Actor Roles in an Urban Living Lab: What Can We Learn from Suurpelto, Finland? Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(12): 22–27.
http://timreview.ca/article/742

Kviselius, N. Z., Andersson, P., Ozan, H., & Edenius, M. 2009. Living Labs as Tools for Open Innovation. Communications and Strategies, 74(2): 490–504.

Lasher, D. R., Ives, B., & Järvenpää, S. L. 1991. USAA-IBM Partnerships in Information Technology: Managing the Image Project. MIS Quarterly, 15(4): 551–565.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249458

Leminen, S. 2013. Coordination and Participation in Living Lab Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(11): 5–14.
http://timreview.ca/article/740

Leminen, S. (Ed.) 2011. Co-Creation with Users and Customers in Living Labs – Integrating Users and Customers in Companies’ Business Processes. Laurea Publications A76 61, Vantaa.

Leminen, S. 2015. Living Labs as Open Innovation Networks – Networks, Roles, and Innovation Outcomes. Unpublished work.

Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. 2012. Towards Innovation in Living Labs Network. International Journal of Product Development, 17(1/2): 43–59.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2012.051161

Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. 2014. Incremental and Radical Service Innovation in Living Labs. In B. Christiansen, S. Yildiz, & E. Yildiz (Eds.), Transcultural Marketing for Incremental & Radical Innovation: 281–295. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science Reference.

Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Kortelainen, M. 2012b. A Recipe for Innovation through Living Lab Networks. Paper presented at The XXIII ISPIM Conference, Barcelona, Spain, June 17–20, 2012.

Leminen, S., DeFillippi, R., & Westerlund, M. 2015b. Paradoxical Tensions in Living Labs. Paper presented at the XXVI ISPIM Conference – Shaping the Frontiers of Innovation Management, Budapest, Hungary, June 14–17, 2015.

Leminen, S., Nyström, A.-G., & Westerlund, M. 2015a. A Typology of Creative Consumers in Living Labs. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.08.008

Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström A.-G. 2012a. Living Labs as Open Innovation Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9): 6–11.
http://timreview.ca/article/602

Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A.-G. 2014a. On Becoming Creative Consumers – User Roles in Living Labs Networks. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 9(1): 33–52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2014.058082

Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., Nyström, A.-G., & Kortelainen, M. (forthcoming) The Effect of Network Structure on Radical Innovation in Living Labs. Journal of Business Industrial Marketing (JBIM).

Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., Sánchez, L., & Serra, A. 2014b. Users as Content Creator, Aggregator, and Distributor at Citilab Living Lab. In R. DeFillippi & P. Wikstrom (Eds.), Business Innovation and Disruption in Film, Video and Photography. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Lepik, K.-L., Krigul, M., & Terk, E. 2010. Introducing Living Lab's Method as Knowledge Transfer from One Socio-Institutional Context to Another: Evidence from Helsinki-Tallinn Cross-Border Region. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 16(8): 1089–1101.

Lievens, B., Schaffers, H., Turkama, P., Ståhlbröst, A., & Ballon, P. 2011. Cross Border Living Labs Networks to Support SMEs Accessing New Markets. In P. Cunningham & M. Cunningham (Eds.), Proceedings of the eChallenges e-2011 Conference: 8. International Information Management Corporation (IIMC).

Liedtke, C., Welfens, J., Rohn, H., & Nordmann, J. 2012. Living Lab: User-Driven Innovation for Sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(2): 106–118.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14676371211211809

Mavridis, A., Molinari, F., Vontas, A., & Crehan, P. 2009. A Practical Model for the Study of Living Labs Complex Environment. In Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST '09), 1–3 June, 2009.

Molinari, F. 2011. Living Labs as Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for the eGovernance of Innovation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV2011): 131-140, September 26–28, 2011, Tallinn, Estonia.

Mulder, I., & Stappers, P. J. 2009. Co-Creating in Practice: Results and Challenges. Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Concurrent Engineering (ICE 2009), Leiden, The Netherlands, 22–24 June, 2009.

Mulder, I., Velthuas, D., & Kriesn, M. 2008. The Living Labs Harmonization Cube: Communicating Living Lab Essentials. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10: 1–14.

Mutanga, M. B., Dlamini, I., Chani, T., Ndelela, N., & Adigun, M. 2011. Living Lab: A Potential Change Catalyst for Development in Nongoma. In P. Cunningham & M. Cunningham (Eds.), IST-Africa 2011 Conference Proceedings: 1–8. International Information Management Corporation (IIMC).

Niitamo, V.-P., Kulkki, S., Eriksson, M., & Hribernik, K. A. 2006 State-of-the-Art and Good Practice in the Field of Living Labs. In K. S. Thoben, Pawar, M. Taisch, & S. Terzi (Eds.). In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and Services through Collaborative Networks: 349–357. Milan, Italy: Nottingham University Business School.

Niitamo, V.-P., Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. 2012. A Small-Firm Perspective on the Benefits of Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9): 44–49.
http://timreview.ca/article/608

Nyström, A.-G., Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Kortelainen, M. 2014. Actor Roles and Role Patterns Influencing Innovation in Living Labs. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3): 483-495.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.016

Oliveira, A., Fradinho, E., Caires, R., Oliveira, J., & Barbosa, A. 2006. Successful Regional Information Society Strategy to an Advanced Living Lab in Mobile Technologies and Services System Sciences, 2006. In HICSS '06: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences: 1-8.

Schaffers, H., & Kulkki, S. 2007. Living Labs: An Open Innovation Concept Fostering Rural Development. Tech Monitor, (Sep-Oct): 30–38.

Schaffers, H., Sällström, A., Pallot, M., Hernández-Muñoz, J. M., Santoro, R.. &  Trousse, B. 2011.  Integrating Living Labs with Future Internet Experimental Platforms for Co-creating Services within Smart Cities. In K.-D. Thoben, Volker Stich, and Ali Imtiaz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2011 17th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising (ICE 2011): 1–11.

Schaffers, H., & Turkama, P. 2012. Living Labs for Cross-Border Systemic Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9): 25–30.
http://timreview.ca/article/605

Schuurman, D., & De Marez, L. 2009. User-Centred Innovation: Towards a Conceptual Integration of Lead Users and Living Labs. In Proceedings of COST298: The Good, the Bad and the Challenging, 13–15 May 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Schuurman, D., De Marez, L., & Ballon, P. 2013 Open Innovation Processes in Living Lab Innovation Systems: Insights from the LeYLab. Technology Innovation Management Review, (3)11: 28–36.
http://timreview.ca/article/743

Shuurman, D., Lievens, B., De Marez, L., & Ballon, P. 2012. Towards Optimal User Involvement in Innovation Processes: A Panel-Centered Living Lab Approach. In Proceedings of the Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) '12 Conference on Technology Management for Emerging Technologies, Vancouver, Canada, July 29, 2012 – August 2, 2012.

Ståhlbröst, A., & Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. 2011. Exploring Users Motivation in Innovation Communities. International Journal Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, (14)4: 298–314.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2011.043051

Tang, T., & Hämäläinen, M. 2012 Living Lab Methods and Tools for Fostering Everyday Life Innovation. In B. Katzy, T. Holzmann, K. Sailer, K. D. Thoben (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2012 18th International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation: 1–8.

Van Rensburg, J. R., Smit, D., & Veldsman, A. 2007. Marrying the "System of Innovation" and Micro-Enterprises in Real world Rural SADC: An Overview of Collaborative SMME Incubation in the Rural Living Lab of Sekhukhune. Paper presented at IST-Africa 2007 Conference, Maputo, Mozambique, 9-11 May, 2007.

Veeckman C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. 2013. Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(12): 6–15.
http://timreview.ca/article/748

Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. 2014. The Multiplicity of Research on Innovation through Living Labs. Paper presented at the XXV ISPIM Conference, Dublin, Ireland, June 8–10, 2014.

Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. 2011. Managing the Challenges of Becoming an Open Innovation ‎Company: Experiences from Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1(1): 9–25.
http://timreview.ca/article/489

Share this article:

Cite this article:

Rate This Content: 
No votes have been cast yet. Have your say!

Keywords: benefits, definition, innovation systems, living labs, Open innovation, types

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.