@article {960,
	title = {The Evolution of Intermediary Activities: Broadening the Concept of Facilitation in Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {01/2016},
	pages = {45-58},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Innovation intermediaries play an important role in open innovation endeavours. In living lab projects, where different professional identities and organizational cultures are at play, intermediary actors facilitate learning between stakeholders and manage tensions and conflicts of interest. The current living lab literature recognizes the importance and multifacetedness of these actors, but does not shed light on the work they do at a more practical level. Our study seeks to capture the variety and evolution of work tasks of user-side innovation intermediaries during and after a four-year technology project in a living lab. The study explores how these mediating actors tackle the everyday challenges of a living lab project. This article is grounded on a longitudinal qualitative case study of a innovation process for a floor monitoring system for elderly care {\textendash} the "smart floor". },
	keywords = {co-design, elderly care, facilitation, health technology, innovation intermediaries, Living lab},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/960},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/960},
	author = {Louna Hakkarainen and Sampsa Hyysalo}
}
@article {749,
	title = {How Do We Keep the Living Laboratory Alive? Learning and Conflicts in Living Lab Collaboration},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {12/2013},
	pages = {16-22},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living 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.},
	keywords = {collaboration, conflicts, gerontechnology, health care, learning, living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/749},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/749},
	author = {Louna Hakkarainen and Sampsa Hyysalo}
}
