@article {1356,
	title = {Understanding Civic Crowdfunding as a Mechanism for Leveraging Civic Engagement and Urban Innovation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {05/2020},
	pages = {51-66},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {51},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article studies the emergence of government-initiated civic crowdfunding platforms. Such platforms can be considered as governmental responses for bottom-up peer-to-peer support mechanisms related to urban innovation, which also allows top-down governance and governmental support systems for civic entrepreneurship. To better understand the implications of these innovative ICT-enabled interaction interfaces for collective urban innovation, this study investigates participation inequalities from the perspective of campaign instigators, using in-depth interviews (N=28), and from the perspective of the citizen-funder, using a survey (N=265). The analysis shows that urban crowdfunding practices mainly contribute to higher-level development of collective identities with increased neighborhood capacities. Although participation in such ICT-enabled interaction interfaces could reinforce digital inequalities and existing power balances, this research shows a more nuanced perspective, in which online and offline practices intertwine. Furthermore, while civic crowdfunding campaigns are driven by a traditional {\textquoteright}participation elite{\textquoteright}, the deliberation process on development projects involves new publics that are not typically engaged in civic activities. Hence, civic crowdfunding formulates a new mode of civic engagement in which institutional involvement acts as a trust broker between civic funders and civic entrepreneurs, as well as adding legitimacy to innovation processes in the public sphere.},
	keywords = {Civic crowdfunding, Civic engagement, Civic entrepreneurship, Civic identity, Digital citizenship, Participation inequalities, Peer-to-peer economy, Social cohesion, Urban innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1356},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1356},
	author = {Bastiaan Baccarne and Tom Evens and Lieven De Marez}
}
@article {972,
	title = {Governing Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {03/2016},
	pages = {22-30},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Growing urbanization puts pressure on both social and ecological systems. This pressure raises complex and multi-facetted challenges that can only be tackled by collaborative and distributed innovation development processes. However, theoretical frameworks that assess such collaborations are often very conceptual, with little focus on the actual governance mechanisms that facilitate them. This article studies the urban living lab concept as an inter-organizational design and multi-stakeholder innovation development process to govern the quintuple helix model for innovation by means of an action research based multidimensional case study design, which focuses on the concepts of innovation democracy, mode 3 knowledge production, the innovation ecosystem as a system of societal subsystems, and socio-ecological transition. In this way, we provide a more profound understanding of such innovation processes to tackle socio-ecological challenges by means of public{\textendash}private interactions driven by eco-entrepreneurship. },
	keywords = {distributed innovation, quintuple helix innovation, social ecology, socio-ecological entrepreneurship, urban living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/972},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/972},
	author = {Bastiaan Baccarne and Sara Logghe and Dimitri Schuurman and Lieven De Marez}
}
@article {956,
	title = {The Impact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contributions and Outcomes},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {01/2016},
	pages = {7-16},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Open innovation scholars as well as practitioners are still struggling with the practical implementation of open innovation principles in different contexts. In this article, we explore the value of a living lab approach for open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Using a case study approach, we compared 27 SME projects conducted by iMinds Living Labs from 2011 to 2015. The results suggest that a real-life intervention and a multi-method approach {\textendash} both of which are methodological characteristics of living lab projects {\textendash} increase the chance of generating actionable user contributions for the innovation under development. Moreover, the results also suggest that a living lab project yields maximal value when evolving from concept towards prototype. Besides these exploratory findings, this article also demonstrates that living lab projects are a perfect "playground" to test and validate assumptions from the open innovation literature.},
	keywords = {collaboration, distributed innovation, entrepreneur, Innovation management, living labs, Open innovation, SME, startup, user innovation, user involvement},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/956},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/956},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Lieven De Marez and Pieter Ballon}
}
@article {743,
	title = {Open Innovation Processes in Living Lab Innovation Systems: Insights from the LeYLab},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {11/2013},
	pages = {28-36},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living labs have emerged on the crossroads of the open innovation and user innovation frameworks. As open innovation systems, living labs consist of various actors with each playing their specific role. Within this article, we will take an open innovation perspective by analyzing the knowledge spill-overs between living lab actors through three in-depth innovation case studies taking place within the LeYLab living lab in Kortrijk, Belgium. The results illustrate how living labs foster the three open innovation processes of exploration, exploitation, and retention. From our analysis, we conclude that living labs are particularly useful for exploration and, to a lesser extent, exploitation. In terms of retention, living labs seem to hold a large potential; however, the success and the nature of the innovation processes depend on the sustainability of living labs, the number of innovation cases, and the alignment of these cases with the living lab infrastructure. Based on these findings, a concrete set of guidelines is proposed for innovating in living labs and for setting up a living lab constellation.},
	keywords = {knowledge exchange, living labs, Open innovation, open innovation networks, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/743},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/743},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Lieven De Marez and Pieter Ballon}
}
@article {606,
	title = {Structuring User Involvement in Panel-Based Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {09/2012},
	pages = {31-38},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {A shift towards open innovation approaches with systematic user involvement has occurred within media and ICT. One of the emerging frameworks structuring these initiatives is the "living lab" approach. Despite the growing evidence of the beneficial nature of customer involvement in product development, research into specific user characteristics for innovation is still scarce, particularly in living labs, with the notable exception of literature on lead users. Especially within the context of living labs for ICT and media innovation, an application of the lead-user framework looks promising as a way to structure and facilitate user involvement. This article is based on the experiences of three Flemish living lab initiatives with a panel-based approach and provides a customer characteristics framework that guides user involvement in living labs.},
	keywords = {customer characteristics, living labs, Open innovation, user panels, user-driven innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/606},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/606},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Lieven De Marez}
}
