@article {1464,
	title = {Living Labs for Public Sector Innovation: insights from a European case study},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {11},
	year = {2021},
	month = {12/2021},
	pages = {47-58},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {47},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living labs have gained increased attention in research and practice as both a practical and theoretical innovation phenomenon that emphasizes co-creation, real-life settings, and user/customer involvement. More recently, living labs have also emerged as a specific approach to open innovation processes in the context of publics across the EU. Nevertheless, it is still not clear how the understanding of living labs can be translated and organized into new sectorial settings, what type of public sector innovation challenges it addresses, and what role citizens and users have. The aim of this article is therefore to explore and analyze how living labs are applied as processes for public sector innovation. Based on a mixed method approach of 21 European living lab cases, the analysis reveals a pattern of three different processes for living lab organizational and actor roles: living labs organized as cross-sectorial collaboration, living labs emerging within the public sector as main initiator and beneficiary, and living labs developed by civil society actors. The findings are presented as three scenarios for implementing living labs, which also acts as a background for the article{\textquoteright}s final discussion about the potentials and pitfalls of living labs in public sector contexts.},
	keywords = {Citizen engagement, co-creation, living labs, Open innovation, Public sector innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1464},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1464},
	author = {Anne Vorre Hansen and Lars Fuglsang and Christine Liefooghe and Luis Rubalcaba and David Gago and Ines Mergel \& Nathalie Haug and Maria Taivalsaari R{\o}hneb{\ae}k \& Francesco Mureddu}
}
@article {1404,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (November 2020)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {11/2020},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {3},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {AI innovation and maturity, and diaspora entrepreneurs., artificial intelligence, confidential information, criminal law, digitally enhanced teamwork, economic espionage, entrepreneurship, health technology, immigrants, Innovation management, living labs, migration, Multidisciplinarity, situated practice, small and medium-sized enterprises, stakeholder participation, sustainability, trade secrets, transnationals},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1404},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1404},
	author = {Stoyan Tanev and Gregory Sandstrom}
}
@article {1400,
	title = {{\textquotedblleft}I Stood By and Watched{\textquotedblright}:  An Autoethnography of Stakeholder Participation in a Living Lab},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {10},
	year = {2020},
	month = {11/2020},
	pages = {19-30},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	chapter = {19},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {An emerging and innovative way of organizing projects in health technology and innovation is the so-called "living lab" Because of their characteristics, living labs may provide a solution to a very old problem: how to facilitate the meaningful participation of stakeholders in science and technology? In this article, I (we use a first-person perspective in the paper) aim to contribute to the literature by providing an account of my experiences as a participation researcher with stakeholder participation in a living lab in the Netherlands. I participated in a yearlong project on ensuring freedom for residents in a closed psychogeriatric ward. Using three key moments from that experience, I illustrate why participation was the intention, but was harder to achieve in practice. Participation processes and living labs are situated in specific social and physical contexts. I discuss the "situatedness" of living labs and propose to reconceptualize them as "situated practices" the value of a living lab lies in the processes of work it conducts on specific innovations situated in its local context. A key conclusion is that providing narrative descriptions of living lab projects, with attention to situatedness and stakeholder participation, can provide invaluable examples, insights, and inspirations for other researchers in the field.},
	keywords = {dementia, health technology, living labs, nursing home, psychogeriatric care, situated practice, stakeholder participation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1400},
	url = {timreview.ca/article/1400},
	author = {Samuel Schrevel and Meralda Slager and Erwin de Vlugt}
}
@article {1220,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs (March 2019)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {03/2019},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {accelerators, business models, frameworks, innovation, living labs, Open innovation, stakeholders, sustainability, tools, UN Sustainable Development Goals, urban living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1220},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1220},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Anna St{\r a}hlbr{\"o}st and Abdolrasoul Habibipour and Mari Runardotter and Diana Chron{\'e}er}
}
@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 {1166,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation Management (July 2018)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {07/2018},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {corporate incubators, entrepreneurial ecosystems, innovation capacity, innovation ecosystems, Innovation management, ISPIM, KPIs, living labs, middle managers, topic modelling},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1166},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1166},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1160,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (June 2018)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {06/2018},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {3D printing, additive manufacturing, Amazon, boundary spanning, business models, civic innovation, culture, entrepreneurship, innovation integrators, knowledge transfer, living labs, sociotechnical systems, startup, university{\textendash}industry collaboration},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1160},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1160},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1154,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (May 2018)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {05/2018},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {business models, co-creation, drop out, entrepreneurship, facilitation, innovation, internationalization, lean global startups, living labs, services, servitization, stakeholders, users, value propositions, value-in-use},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1154},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1154},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1200,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs (December 2018)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {analysis, constructs, cultural space, definition, ENoLL, framework, innovation, ISPIM, lean startup, library, living labs, methodology, stakeholder},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1200},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1200},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Dimitri Schuurman and Mika Westerlund and Eelko Huizingh}
}
@article {1203,
	title = {Exploring the Use of Stakeholder Analysis Methodology in the Establishment of a Living Lab},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {26-39},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article explores how to conduct a cost-effective stakeholder analysis to investigate opportunities and interest in establishing a living lab for an autonomous ferry connection. Using an action research approach, we share our experiences with the process and results, and we reflect openly on the strengths and weaknesses of both the stakeholder methodology generally as well as our own implementation specifically. According to the cyclic nature of action research and experiential learning, the research was conducted in two iterations, with the second iteration drawing upon input from the first. We compare and discuss these two approaches in terms of costs and benefits from a practitioner{\textquoteright}s perspective. The article provides a contribution to stakeholder analysis methodology for complex, multi-stakeholder innovation initiatives, such as living labs.},
	keywords = {action research, autonomous vessels, living labs, management, maritime, Open innovation, quadruple helix, stakeholder analysis},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1203},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1203},
	author = {Marius Imset and Per Haavardtun and Marius Stian Tannum}
}
@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 {1205,
	title = {Key Constructs and a Definition of Living Labs as Innovation Platforms},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {51-62},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Despite the growing popularity of using living labs as innovation platforms and the increasing scholarly attention toward the topic, still relatively little is known about many of their central characteristics. We use a qualitative research approach to identify key constructs of living labs and to understand how these constructs show up in the operation of living labs. So doing, we used theoretical constructs from the literature on user innovation, co-creation, and living labs to analyze a sample of membership applications to the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). The results from the content analysis of 40 applications revealed nine key constructs that are characteristic to living labs: 1) objective, 2) governance, 3) openness, 4) stakeholders, 5) funding, 6) value, 7) communications, 8) infrastructure, and 9) methods. These key constructs provide new insight that helps us to provide a definition of living labs as innovation platforms.},
	keywords = {constructs, definition, ENoLL, innovation, living labs, platform},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1205},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1205},
	author = {Mika Westerlund and Seppo Leminen and Christ Habib}
}
@article {1088,
	title = {The Defining Characteristics of Urban Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {07/2017},
	pages = {21-33},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The organization of supported and sustainable urban interventions is challenging, with multiple actors involved, fragmented decision-making powers, and multiple values at stake. Globally, urban living labs have become a fashionable phenomenon to tackle this challenge, fostering the development and implementation of innovation, experimentation, and knowledge in urban, real-life settings while emphasizing the important role of participation and co-creation. However, although urban living labs could in this way help cities to speed up the sustainable transition, urban living lab experts agree that, in order to truly succeed in these ambitious tasks, the way urban living labs are being shaped and steered needs further research. Yet, they also confirm the existing variation and opaqueness in the definition of the concept. This article contributes to conceptual clarity by developing an operationalized definition of urban living labs, which has been used to assess 90 sustainable urban innovation projects in the city of Amsterdam. The assessment shows that the majority of the projects that are labelled as living labs do not include one or more of the defining elements of a living lab. In particular, the defining co-creation and development activities were found to be absent in many of the projects. This article makes it possible to categorize alleged living lab projects and distill the {\textquotedblleft}true{\textquotedblright} living labs from the many improperly labelled or unlabelled living labs, allowing more specific analyses and, ultimately, better targeted methodological recommendations for urban living labs.},
	keywords = {characteristics, cities, definition, living labs, TIM Review, urban living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1088},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1088},
	author = {Kris Steen and Ellen van Bueren}
}
@article {1086,
	title = {Editorial: 10th Anniversary Issue (July 2017)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {07/2017},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {ecosystems, entrepreneurship, inclusive innovation, India, knowledge commercialization, living labs, OSBR, TIM Review, topic modelling, universities, urban},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1086},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1086},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1052,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation in Living Labs (February 2017)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {02/2017},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {action research, business-to-business, emotions, innovation, living labs, needsfinding, operations, reflection},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1052},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1052},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund and Dimitri Schuurman and Pieter Ballon}
}
@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 {1115,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (November 2017)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {11/2017},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {academic publishing, business models, cities, collaboration, entrepreneurship, fourth industrial revolution, Industry 4.0, Internet of Things, IOT, living labs, open access, open data, Open innovation, social innovation, value propositions},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1115},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1115},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@article {1048,
	title = {Heading for a FALL: A Framework for Agile Living Lab Projects},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {01/2017},
	pages = {37-43},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living lab methodologies need to enhance reactivity to changing requirements as these appear in a project. Agile methods allow for quick reactivity, but have been critiqued for not sufficiently taking into account the end-user perspective. In this article, we describe how to blend living lab methodologies with agile methods and, to this end, we present a Framework for Agile Living Lab projects (FALL). To make the framework actionable, we propose a number of actor roles. With concrete examples from living lab practice and a discussion of the theoretical basis, this article is relevant to both academics and practitioners. },
	keywords = {agile, design science research, lean UX, living labs, methodology, SCRUM},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1048},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1048},
	author = {Tanguy Coenen and Sarie Robijt}
}
@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 {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 {1029,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation in Tourism (November 2016)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {11/2016},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {action research, boundary objects, co-creation, crowdsourcing, innovation, living labs, smart cities, smart destinations, technology, tourism},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1029},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1029},
	author = {Chris McPhee and David Guimont and Dominic Lapointe}
}
@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 {1037,
	title = {Editorial: Smart Cities and Regions (December 2016)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {12/2016},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {collaborative innovation, ecosystems, living labs, online platforms, Open innovation, regional innovation, smart cities, smart regions},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1037},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1037},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Taina Tukiainen and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {1031,
	title = {Empowering Local Tourism Providers to Innovate through a Living Lab Process: Does Scale Matter?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {11/2016},
	pages = {18-25},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {A destination management organization looking to integrate technology into its tourism offering tasked a living lab with engaging tourists and tourism providers in the process. At the end of the two-year initial funding period for an action research project, the process is a success and stakeholders are engaged in the innovation ecosystem. But what is next? By observing participants and gathering feedback from stakeholders through a Policy Delphi panel, the outcomes of the project and the intentions and actions of the tourism providers and other parties were identified. Innovation capacity has increased: spin-offs were created and stakeholders have embraced open and collaborative innovation. Now, stakeholders are determined to make the process sustainable by finding other funding sources. But what should be the level of cooperation and intervention? What level can best foster innovation and knowledge retention? A case study combining a grid of characteristics and levels of analysis for living labs was used to identify one key question: for a living lab in tourism, does scale matter? This article will explore that question and will contribute to the understanding of the living lab as a model of socio-territorial action.},
	keywords = {action research, destination management, innovation, level, living labs, scale, socio-territorial action, territoriality, tourism},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1031},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1031},
	author = {David Guimont and Dominic Lapointe}
}
@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 {876,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation Tools and Techniques (March 2015)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {03/2015},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {innovation, lean, living labs, management, processes, project management, risk, signalling, smart cities, systems engineering, techniques, technology entrepreneurship, tools},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/876},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/876},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Brendan Galbraith and Nadia Noori}
}
@article {924,
	title = {Editorial: Insights (September 2015)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {09/2015},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {cognitive computing, collaborative design, competence, competence-based view, coordination, entrepreneurial marketing, entrepreneurship, IBM Watson, innovation activities, living labs, Open innovation, opportunity identification, user adoption},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/924},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/924},
	author = {Chris McPhee}
}
@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 {931,
	title = {Editorial: Smart Cities and Regions (October 2015)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {10/2015},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {collaboration, ecosystems, innovation ecosystem, living laboratories, living labs, Open innovation, regional innovation, smart cities, smart regions, smart specialisation, smart specialization, sustainability, urban capabilities},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/931},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/931},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Taina Tukiainen and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {949,
	title = {Exploring the Benefits of Integrating Business Model Research within Living Lab Projects},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {12/2015},
	pages = {19-27},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Business model and living lab research both have similar objectives {\textendash} to maximize the probability of successful market introduction of innovative solutions {\textendash} be it through different means. Yet, there are still only few studies or reports discussing both, with those studies that do touch the subject staying at a high level. iMinds Living Labs has gained a lot of experience in combined living lab and business model innovation projects and, rather than being competing approaches, our results have shown that these two research methodologies can be complementary, where the combined approach turns out to be more powerful than each individual approach used alone. The goal of this article is to promote the inclusion of business model research in a model of "a living lab as a service" (and vice versa) by explaining the benefits and by introducing a practical framework to implement such combined research tracks based on the experience at iMinds Living Labs over the past few years.},
	keywords = {business model, collaboration, innovation, living labs, user research, value network, value proposition},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/949},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/949},
	author = {Olivier Rits and Dimitri Schuurman and Pieter Ballon}
}
@article {927,
	title = {The Organization of Living Labs: Coordinating Activities for Regional Innovation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {09/2015},
	pages = {23-28},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article contributes to the ongoing knowledge from the first decade of operating living labs with a study on the coordination of novel innovation activities in living labs. The article provides an organizational model for living labs to order the activities that eventually will allow the conceptualization of living labs as innovation systems, thus giving user involvement a more central role in innovation process theories. This article shows how innovation networks systematically align their activities to reliably achieve their objectives. Next to this interpretivist theoretical contribution, the article contributes relevant practical insights to technology innovation management practitioners based on in-depth living lab cases that exhibit interesting, relevant, and new activities.},
	keywords = {activities, co-creation, ideation, innovation systems, living labs, processes, venturing},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/927},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/927},
	author = {Bernhard R. Katzy and Claudia B{\"u}cker}
}
@article {928,
	title = {Q\&A. What Are Living Labs?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {09/2015},
	pages = {29-35},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {benefits, definition, innovation systems, living labs, Open innovation, types},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/928},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/928},
	author = {Seppo Leminen}
}
@article {788,
	title = {Editorial: Service and Innovation (May 2014)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {05/2014},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {collaboration, innovation indicators, innovation practices, intellectual property, knowledge-intensive business services, living labs, online gaming, service business development, service design, service innovation, service-dominant logic, trademarks, value chains, value creation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/788},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/788},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Risto Rajala and Marja Toivonen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {793,
	title = {Integrating Design for All in Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2014},
	month = {05/2014},
	pages = {50-59},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {The European Union has identified innovation as a key driver behind business competitiveness and responsive governance. However, innovation in and of itself may not be sufficient to help businesses bring new products to market and to help governments shape public services that meet the real needs of citizens. The Integrating Design for All in Living Labs (IDeALL) project sought to identify and test methodologies for designing with users in real-life settings. The results of the experiments showed how different methodologies can be applied in different contexts, helping to provide solutions to societal issues and to create products and services that genuinely meet user requirements. In this article, we describe the methodologies used in the IDeALL project and provide examples of the project{\textquoteright}s experiments and case studies across four main areas: i) services; ii) health and social care; iii) information and communication technology; and iv) urban design. },
	keywords = {3H, co-creation, design, design for all, health, HUMBLES, ICT, innovation, living labs, LUPI, methodologies, service prototyping, services, social care, urban design, user-centred approaches},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/793},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/793},
	author = {Madeleine Gray and Mika{\"e}l Mangyoku and Artur Serra and Laia S{\'a}nchez and Francesc Aragall}
}
@article {747,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs and Crowdsourcing (December 2013)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {12/2013},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {crowdsourcing, living labs, Open innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/747},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/747},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Mika Westerlund and Seppo Leminen}
}
@article {739,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs (November 2013)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {11/2013},
	pages = {3-4},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {design, living labs, networks, Open innovation, regional development, services},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/739},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/739},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {741,
	title = {The Habitation Lab: Using a Design Approach to Foster Innovation for Sustainable Living},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {11/2013},
	pages = {15-21},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {This article describes a first step towards a strategy for using living labs as a means to foster innovation and develop new concepts of sustainable living from an architectural point of view. The overall aim is to enable truly sustainable living through radically reduced energy and resource use thus addressing both environmental and social aspects of sustainability. Earlier research has shown that contemporary housing developments, including those with a sustainable profile, do not profoundly question modern lifestyles and consumption, which is a necessity to overcome limitations of a technological focus on environmental efficiency in construction. Thus, we see an opportunity for the discipline of architecture to engage in current investments in living lab facilities in order to push innovation in the field of sustainable housing.
We introduce the concept of a "Habitation Lab", which will provide an arena for radical and high-risk design experimentation between users, building-sector actors, and academia, and we describe a case study of a planned Habitation Lab within a living lab facility where traditional solutions for daily living and habitation are questioned and new architectural innovations are explored and evaluated. The idea of using experimental activities in the field of housing is not new, and we argue that new investments should build on earlier experiences to avoid perpetuating misconceptions and repeating past failures. Furthermore, to ensure the dissemination and uptake of results, the design of the Habitation Lab should consider the innovation and learning trajectories of the building sector. We propose a transdisciplinary setting to provide a neutral arena for value creation and to increase the distribution of experiences. },
	keywords = {experimentation, Habitation Lab, housing development, innovation, living labs, residing, sustainable},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/741},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/741},
	author = {Paula Femen{\'\i}as and Pernilla Hagbert}
}
@article {749,
	title = {How Do We Keep the Living Laboratory Alive? Learning and Conflicts in Living Lab Collaboration},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {12/2013},
	pages = {16-22},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living lab environments are often promoted as a way to engage private companies, citizens, researchers, and public organizations in mutually beneficial learning. Based on an in-depth case study of a four-year living lab collaboration in gerontechnology, we agree that successful living lab development hinges on learning between the parties, yet its emergence cannot be presumed or taken for granted. Diverse competences and interests of participating actors often make technology development projects complicated and volatile. The study describes two specific challenges faced in a living lab project: i) power issues between the actors and ii) end-user reluctance to participate in the development of new technology. Despite the hardships, we suggest that the living lab environment worked as a catalyst for learning between users and developers. Nevertheless, realizing the benefits of this learning may be more challenging than is usually expected. Learning for interaction is needed before effective learning in interaction is possible.},
	keywords = {collaboration, conflicts, gerontechnology, health care, learning, living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/749},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/749},
	author = {Louna Hakkarainen and Sampsa Hyysalo}
}
@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 {604,
	title = {Designing Viable Business Models for Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {09/2012},
	pages = {19-24},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Over 300 regions have integrated the concept of living labs into their economic development strategy since 2006, when the former Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho launched the living lab innovation policy initiative during his term of European presidency. Despite motivating initial results, however, success cases of turning research into usable new products and services remain few and uncertainty remains on what living labs actually do and contribute. This practitioner-oriented article presents a business excellence model that shows processes of idea creation and team mobilization, new product development, user involvement, and entrepreneurship through which living labs deliver high-potential investment opportunities. Customers of living labs are identified as investors such as venture capitalists or industrial firms because living labs can generate revenue from them to create their own sustainable business model. The article concludes that living labs provide extensive support {\textquotedblleft}lab{\textquotedblright} infrastructure and that it remains a formidable challenge to finance it, which calls for a more intensive debate.},
	keywords = {business excellence model, business models, co-creation, living labs},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/604},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/604},
	author = {Bernhard Katzy}
}
@article {601,
	title = {Editorial: Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {09/2012},
	pages = {3-5},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {co-creation, innovation, living labs, Open innovation, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/601},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/601},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Mika Westerlund and Seppo Leminen}
}
@article {602,
	title = {Living Labs as Open-Innovation Networks},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {09/2012},
	pages = {6-11},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living labs bring experimentation out of companies{\textquoteright} R\&D departments to real-life environments with the participation and co-creation of users, partners, and other parties. This study discusses living labs as four different types of networks characterized by open innovation: utilizer-driven, enabler-driven, provider-driven, and user-driven. The typology is based on interviews with the participants of 26 living labs in Finland, Sweden, Spain, and South Africa. Companies can benefit from knowing the characteristics of each type of living lab; this knowledge will help them to identify which actor drives the innovation, to anticipate likely outcomes, and to decide what kind of role they should play while "living labbing". Living labs are networks that can help them create innovations that have a superior match with user needs and can be upscaled promptly to the global market.},
	keywords = {co-creation, innovation, living labs, networks, Open innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/602},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/602},
	author = {Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund and Anna-Greta Nystr{\"o}m}
}
@article {605,
	title = {Living Labs for Cross-Border Systemic Innovation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {09/2012},
	pages = {25-30},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Innovation is increasingly taking place in cross-border collaborative networks, which are shaped by the characteristics of systemic innovation, the strategies and objectives of main actors, and the dynamics of the innovation process. Participation in such networks is of high importance for small firms, but requires long-term investments and a diverse range of collaboration and innovation capabilities. This article explores how living labs, understood as innovation projects based on open and user-centric innovation methodologies, can form collaboration networks to support small firms and other actors to engage in cross-border collaboration and to accelerate the development and acceptance of innovations. Based on the lessons learned from a major living lab project, APOLLON, we conclude that adopting the living labs networking approach requires thorough understanding of each party{\textquoteright}s objectives and drivers, the alignment of operational processes, establishment of open and collaborative culture, as well as competences, methods, and tools for supporting cooperation and community building. },
	keywords = {collaboration, innovation, living labs, networks, systemic},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/605},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/605},
	author = {Hans Schaffers and Petra Turkama}
}
@article {603,
	title = {Mapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {2},
	year = {2012},
	month = {09/2012},
	pages = {12-18},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {A growing interest in living labs as a mechanism for innovation has drawn significant attention to both the different flavours of this methodology and to the organizations that put it into practice. However, little has been done to assess its impact and to compare its contribution to other innovation methodologies. This article aims to cover that gap by summarizing the most common European living labs approaches and positioning them in the landscape of user-contributed innovation methodology. The merits and appropriateness of living labs in these settings are also assessed.},
	keywords = {innovation, living labs, living labs methodologies, Open innovation, user-driven design},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/603},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/603},
	author = {Esteve Almirall and Melissa Lee and Jonathan Wareham}
}
@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}
}
