@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 {1044, title = {Editorial: Innovation in Living Labs (January 2017)}, journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review}, volume = {7}, year = {2017}, month = {01/2017}, pages = {3-6}, publisher = {Talent First Network}, address = {Ottawa}, keywords = {agile methods, conceptualizations, innovation labs, Innovation management, innovation tool, living labs, Open innovation, user innovation}, issn = {1927-0321}, doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1044}, url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1044}, author = {Chris McPhee and Dimitri Schuurman and Pieter Ballon and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund} } @article {1045, title = {Innovation in the Public Sector: Exploring the Characteristics and Potential of Living Labs and Innovation Labs}, journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review}, volume = {7}, year = {2017}, month = {01/2017}, pages = {7-14}, publisher = {Talent First Network}, address = {Ottawa}, abstract = {Living labs and innovation labs share many common traits and characteristics. Both concepts are linked to the public sector, and both concepts can be regarded as coping mechanisms to deal with contemporary changes in the innovation landscape and within society as a whole. Both build on past initiatives and practices, but are also struggling to find their own clear identity and {\textquotedblleft}raison d{\textquoteright}{\^e}tre{\textquotedblright}. Because both concepts are largely practice-driven, their theoretical underpinnings and foundations are mostly established after the fact: making sense of current practice rather than carefully researching and planning the further development. However, despite their similarities and common ground, most researchers treat living labs and innovation labs as separate literature streams. Here, starting from a review of the current issues and challenges with innovation in the public sector, we look for links between both concepts by analyzing the current definitions, the predecessors, and the {\textquotedblleft}state of the art{\textquotedblright} in terms of empirical research. Based on these findings, we summarize a set of similarities and differences between both concepts and propose a model towards more collaboration, mutual exchange, and integration of practices between innovation labs, which can be regarded as initiators of innovation, and living labs, which can be regarded as executors of innovation. Thus, we add to the conceptual development of both concepts and propose a roadmap for the further integration of both the theory and practice of living labs and innovation labs.}, keywords = {collaborative innovation, innovation labs, living labs, Open innovation, public sector, user innovation}, issn = {1927-0321}, doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1045}, url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1045}, author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Piret T{\~o}nurist} } @article {955, title = {Editorial: Living Labs and User Innovation (January 2016)}, journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review}, volume = {6}, year = {2016}, month = {01/2016}, pages = {3-6}, publisher = {Talent First Network}, address = {Ottawa}, keywords = {closed innovation, field trials, impact assessment, living labs, Open innovation, user engagement, user innovation}, issn = {1927-0321}, doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/955}, url = {http://timreview.ca/article/955}, author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Dimitri Schuurman and Mika Westerlund and Eelko Huizingh} } @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 {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 {947, title = {Editorial: Living Labs and User Innovation (December 2015)}, journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review}, volume = {5}, year = {2015}, month = {12/2015}, pages = {3-5}, publisher = {Talent First Network}, address = {Ottawa}, keywords = {business models, closed innovation, context, crowdsourcing, innovation networks, living labs, Open innovation, spaces and places, urban living labs, user innovation}, issn = {1927-0321}, doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/947}, url = {http://timreview.ca/article/947}, author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Dimitri Schuurman and Mika Westerlund and Eelko Huizingh} } @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} } @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} }