@article {1225, title = {Innovation Management in Living Lab Projects: The Innovatrix Framework}, journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review}, volume = {9}, year = {2019}, month = {03/2019}, pages = {63-73}, publisher = {Talent First Network}, address = {Ottawa}, abstract = {Despite living labs being described as {\textquotedblleft}orchestrators{\textquotedblright} 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.}, keywords = {assumption, business modelling, Innovation management, living labs, testing, user research, validation}, issn = {1927-0321}, doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1225}, url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1225}, author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Aron-Levi Herregodts and Annabel Georges and Olivier Rits} } @article {1204, title = {A Framework for Field Testing in Living Lab Innovation Projects}, journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review}, volume = {8}, year = {2018}, month = {12/2018}, pages = {40-50}, publisher = {Talent First Network}, address = {Ottawa}, abstract = {Within 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.}, keywords = {context research, field test, living labs, testing, user innovation}, issn = {1927-0321}, doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1204}, url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1204}, author = {Lynn Coorevits and Annabel Georges and Dimitri Schuurman} } @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 {1054, title = {Overcoming Barriers to Experimentation in Business-to-Business Living Labs}, journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review}, volume = {7}, year = {2017}, month = {02/2017}, pages = {20-26}, publisher = {Talent First Network}, address = {Ottawa}, abstract = {Business-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.}, keywords = {B2B, experimentation, living labs, testing, user research}, issn = {1927-0321}, doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1054}, url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1054}, author = {Ruben D{\textquoteright}Hauwers and Aron-Levi Herregodts and Annabel Georges and Lynn Coorevits and Dimitri Schuurman and Olivier Rits and Pieter Ballon} } @article {959, title = {Factors Affecting the Attrition of Test Users During Living Lab Field Trials}, journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review}, volume = {6}, year = {2016}, month = {01/2016}, pages = {35-44}, publisher = {Talent First Network}, address = {Ottawa}, abstract = {Next 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.}, keywords = {attrition, drop-out, field trial, Living lab, Open innovation, user engagement, user involvement}, issn = {1927-0321}, doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/959}, url = {http://timreview.ca/article/959}, author = {Annabel Georges and Dimitri Schuurman and Koen Vervoort} }