@article {1201,
	title = {Living Labs versus Lean Startups: An Empirical Investigation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {7-16},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Although we seem to be living in an era where founding a startup has never been easier, studies point to the high mortality rates of these organizations. This {\textquotedblleft}startup hype{\textquotedblright} has also induced many practitioner-based innovation management approaches that lack empirical studies and validation. Moreover, a lot of these approaches have rather similar angles, but use different wordings. Therefore, in this article, we look into two of these {\textquotedblleft}hyped{\textquotedblright} concepts: the lean startup and living labs. We review the academic studies on these topics and explore a sample of 86 entrepreneurial projects based on project characteristics and outcomes. Our main finding is that the two approaches appear to be complementary. Living labs are powerful instruments to implement the principles of the lean startup, as the real-life testing and multi-disciplinary approach of living labs seem to generate more actionable outcomes. However, living labs also require the flexibility of a startup {\textendash} ideally a lean one {\textendash} to actually deliver this promise. Thus, rather than picking a winner in this comparison, we argue that combining the concepts{\textquoteright} different strengths can bring clear benefits.},
	keywords = {entrepreneurs, impact, Innovation management, lean startup, Living lab, Open innovation, testing, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1201},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1201},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Sonja M. Protic}
}
@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 {1056,
	title = {Action Research as a Framework to Evaluate the Operations of a Living Lab},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {02/2017},
	pages = {35-41},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {In this article, we propose an action research approach to capture and act upon the delights and frustrations of panel members who participate in living lab research in order to optimize the operations of the living lab itself. We used this approach to test the effectiveness of action research in providing guidelines to practitioners to evaluate and design effective and sustainable user involvement processes in living labs. We conducted a focused literature review and an in-depth case study of both the integration of a researcher within the community and the implementation of an action research project within an existing living lab. This living lab is regarded as both a forerunner and a best-practice example in Europe. Based on our findings, we recommend co-creating the {\textquotedblleft}operations{\textquotedblright} of a living lab with the users themselves following a combined action research and living lab approach.},
	keywords = {action research, Living lab, panel management, participatory action research, user research},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1056},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1056},
	author = {Sara Logghe and Dimitri Schuurman}
}
@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}
}
@article {748,
	title = {Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {12/2013},
	pages = {6-15},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Despite almost a decade of living lab activity all over Europe, there still is a lack of empirical research into the practical implementation and the related outcomes of living labs. Therefore, this article proposes a framework to create a better understanding of the characteristics and outcomes of living labs. We investigate three living labs in Belgium and one in Finland to learn how the different building blocks of living lab environments contribute to the outputs of innovation projects launched within the lab. The findings imply that managers and researchers contemplating innovation in living labs need to consider the intended inputs and outcomes, and reframe their innovation activities accordingly. We formulate practical guidelines on how living labs should be managed on the levels of community interaction, stakeholder engagement, and methodological setup to succeed in implementing living lab projects and to create user-centred innovations. That way, living lab practitioners can work towards a more sustainable way of setting up living labs that can run innovation projects over a longer period of time. },
	keywords = {co-creation, innovation ecosystem, Living lab, Open innovation, user involvement},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/748},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/748},
	author = {Carina Veeckman and Dimitri Schuurman and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
