@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 {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 {1095, title = {A Structured Approach to Academic Technology Transfer: Lessons Learned from imec{\textquoteright}s 101 Programme}, journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review}, volume = {7}, year = {2017}, month = {08/2017}, pages = {5-14}, publisher = {Talent First Network}, address = {Ottawa}, abstract = {In this article, we describe imec{\textquoteright}s 101 Programme for academic technology transfer and explain how it supports researchers by following a structured process in a limited amount of time and by carefully involving different stakeholders and people with relevant skills and expertise. The programme combines insights in terms of processes and of team composition from the entrepreneurship literature and puts them into practice in an internal incubation programme that is generated from the bottom-up. Based on hands-on experiences and interviews with key stakeholders in the process, we evaluate the programme and distill lessons learned. The article highlights the importance of a structured technology transfer process in the early stages of opportunity discovery and entrepreneurial action, and it offers insights on team formation for academic spin-offs.}, keywords = {academic spin-off, entrepreneurial action, entrepreneurship, incubation, research valorization, technology transfer}, issn = {1927-0321}, doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1095}, url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1095}, author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Stan De Vocht and Sven De Cleyn and Aron-Levi Herregodts} }