@article {1465,
	title = {Rural Living Labs: Inclusive Digital Transformation in the Countryside},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2021},
	month = {12/2021},
	pages = {59-72},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {59},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Digital transformation (DT) has received increasing attention in recent years. Up until now, most of the current studies focus on digital transformation in advanced and dense societies, especially urban areas and technologies. Hence, the phenomenon of DT is under-researched in the context of rural and sparsely populated contexts. This study aims at exploring how a rural living lab (RLL) can be shaped and how this approach can be designed to support digital transformation processes in rural contexts. In so doing, following a design science research methodology (DSRM) approach, we have made an artefact (that is, RLL framework) that is an "instantiation" that supports user centric digitalization of rural areas. The designed framework is developed based on the key components of "traditional" and "urban" living labs, as well as empirical data which was collected within the context of the DigiBy project. The DigiBy project aims at conducting DT pilots in rural areas to elevate peoples{\textquoteright} understanding of digitalization and the application of digitalization opportunities for service development in rural areas in the north of Sweden. As a result of these studies, five key components that guide the design of digital transformation pilots in rural areas emerged, namely: 1) rural context, 2) digitalization, 3) governance, control, and business mode, 4) methods facilitating DT processes, and 5) quintuple helix actors. We also offer an empirically derived definition of the rural living lab concept, followed by avenues for future research.},
	keywords = {Components, digital transformation, Living lab, Rural living lab, Rural residents, user engagement},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1465},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1465},
	author = {Abdolrasoul Habibipour and Johanna Lindberg and Mari Runardotter and Yomn Elmistikawy and Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st and Diana Chron{\'e}er}
}
@article {1224,
	title = {Urban Living Labs: Towards an Integrated Understanding of their Key Components},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {03/2019},
	pages = {50-62},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In today{\textquoteright}s ongoing urbanization and escalating climate change, there is an increasing demand on cities to be innovative and inclusive to handle these emerging issues. As an answer to these challenges, and in order to generate and adopt sustainable innovations and nature-based solutions in the urban areas, the concept of urban living labs has emerged. However, to date, there is confusion concerning the concept of the urban living lab and its key components. Some interpret the urban living lab as an approach, others as a single project, and some as a specific place {\textendash} and some just do not know. In order to unravel this complexity and better understand this concept, we sought to identify the key components of an urban living lab by discussing the perspective of city representatives in the context of an urban living lab project. To achieve this goal, we reviewed previous literature on this topic and carried out two workshops with city representatives, followed by an open-ended questionnaire. In this article, we identify and discuss seven key components of an urban living lab: governance and management structure; financing models; urban context; nature-based solutions; partners and users (including citizens); approach; and ICT and infrastructure. We also offer an empirically derived definition of the urban living lab concept.},
	keywords = {definition, innovation, key components, Living lab, nature-based solutions, NBS, ULL, UNaLab, urban living lab},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1224},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1224},
	author = {Diana Chron{\'e}er and Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st and Abdolrasoul Habibipour}
}
@article {1155,
	title = {A Taxonomy of Factors Influencing Drop-Out Behaviour in Living Lab Field Tests},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {05/2018},
	pages = {5-21},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The concept of a {\textquotedblleft}living lab{\textquotedblright} is a relatively new research area and phenomenon that facilitates user engagement in open innovation activities. Studies on living labs show that the users{\textquoteright} motivation to participate in a field test is higher at the beginning of the project than during the rest of the test, and that participants have a tendency to drop out before completing the assigned tasks. However, the literature still lacks theories describing the phenomenon of drop-out within the area of field tests in general and living lab field tests in particular. As the first step in constructing a theoretical discourse, the aims of this study are to present an empirically derived taxonomy for the various factors that influence drop-out behaviour; to provide a definition of {\textquotedblleft}drop-out{\textquotedblright} in living lab field tests; and to understand the extent to which each of the identified items influence participant drop-out behaviour. To achieve these aims, we first extracted factors influencing drop-out behaviour in the field test from our previous studies on the topic, and then we validated the extracted results across 14 semi-structured interviews with experts in living lab field tests. Our findings show that identified reasons for dropping out can be grouped into three themes: innovation-related, process-related, and participant-related. Each theme consists of three categories with a total of 44 items. In this study, we also propose a unified definition of {\textquotedblleft}drop-out{\textquotedblright} in living lab field tests.},
	keywords = {drop-out, field test, Living lab, taxonomy, user engagement, user motivation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1155},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1155},
	author = {Abdolrasoul Habibipour and Annabel Georges and Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st and Dimitri Schuurman and Birgitta Bergvall-K{\r a}reborn}
}
@article {1055,
	title = {Reflecting on Actions in Living Lab Research},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {02/2017},
	pages = {27-34},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living labs deploy contemporary open and user-centred engagement processes in real-world contexts where all relevant stakeholders are involved and engaged with the endeavour to create and experiment with different innovations. The approach is evidently successful and builds on the perspective that people have a democratic right to have influence over changes that might affect them, such as those brought about by an innovation. In this article, we will reflect on and discuss a case in which end users took part in the development of a method that stimulates learning and adoption of digital innovations in their own homes while testing and interacting with it. The results show that, when end users were stimulated to use the implemented innovation through different explicit assignments, they both increased their understanding of the situation as well as changed their behaviour. Living lab processes are complex and dynamic, and we find that it is essential that a living lab have the capability to adjust its roles and actions. We argue that being reflective is beneficial for innovation process managers in living labs because it allows them to adjust processes in response to dynamic circumstances. },
	keywords = {action research, Apollon, context, digital innovations, end users, innovation process, Living lab, research process},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1055},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1055},
	author = {Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st and Marita Holst}
}
@article {950,
	title = {Leveraging Living Lab Innovation Processes through Crowdsourcing},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {12/2015},
	pages = {28-36},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Around the globe, crowdsourcing initiatives are emerging and contributing in a diversity of areas, such as in crisis management and product development and to carry out micro-tasks such as translations and transcriptions. The essence of crowdsourcing is to acknowledge that not all the talented people work for you; hence, crowdsourcing brings more perspectives, insights, and visions to, for instance, an innovation process. In this article, we analyze how crowdsourcing can contribute to the different stages of innovation processes carried out in living labs and thus contribute to living labs by strengthening their core role as innovation process facilitators. We have also identified benefits and challenges that need to be grappled with for managers of living labs to make it possible for the crowd to fully support their cause.},
	keywords = {citizen, crowdsourcing, ICT, innovation process, Living lab, user},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/950},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/950},
	author = {Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st and Josefin Lassinantti}
}
@article {951,
	title = {Places and Spaces within Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {12/2015},
	pages = {37-47},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article, we propose the concepts of places and spaces as conceptual tools to facilitate the organization of innovation activities within living labs. We have taken a pragmatic perspective on these concepts regarding how they are integrated in design situations, and how different types of places and spaces can facilitate or hinder innovation. We have found that, by applying openness, realism, and influence in the different spaces of our living lab milieus, they have transformed into many different places depending on the stakeholders involved, the methods chosen, and the facilitation of activities. Hence, by understanding this line of reasoning, living lab managers can make more informed decisions and plans for innovation activities.},
	keywords = {influence, Living lab, openness, place, realism, space},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/951},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/951},
	author = {Birgitta Bergvall-K{\r a}reborn and Carina Ihlstr{\"o}m Eriksson and Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st}
}
@article {744,
	title = {A Living Lab as a Service: Creating Value for Micro-enterprises through Collaboration and Innovation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {11/2013},
	pages = {37-42},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The need to innovate is increasingly important for all types and sizes of organizations, but the opportunities for innovation differ substantially between them. For micro-, small,- and medium-sized enterprises, innovation activities are both crucial and demanding because of limited resources, competencies, or vision to innovate their offerings. To support these organizations, the concept of living labs as a service has started to emerge. This concept refers to living labs offering services such as designing the idea-generation processes, planning or carrying out real-world tests of innovations, and pre-market launch assessments. In this article, we will present the findings from a study of micro-enterprises operating in the information technology development sector, including the experienced value of services provided to the companies by a research-based living lab. We share experiences from Botnia, our own living lab in northern Sweden. In this living lab, our aim of creating value for customers is of key importance. Our study shows that using a living lab as a service can generate three different types of value: improved innovations, the role the living lab can play, and the support the living lab offers.},
	keywords = {experience-based values, innovation intermediary, Living lab, micro-enterprise, value},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/744},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/744},
	author = {Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st}
}
