01919nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245006800055210006600123260004200189300001000231490000600241520125600247653002101503653001501524653001601539653001201555653002001567100002001587700002101607700002301628856003801651       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aA Framework for Field Testing in Living Lab Innovation Projects0 aFramework for Field Testing in Living Lab Innovation Projects  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2018  a40-500 v83 aWithin 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.10acontext research10afield test10aliving labs10atesting10auser innovation1 aCoorevits, Lynn1 aGeorges, Annabel1 aSchuurman, Dimitri  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/120402305nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245008300055210006900138260004200207300000900249490000600258520151400264653001301778653001501791653001501806653001301821653002001834653002001854100002801874700002101902700002301923700002301946700003301969856003702002       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aA Taxonomy of Factors Influencing Drop-Out Behaviour in Living Lab Field Tests0 aTaxonomy of Factors Influencing DropOut Behaviour in Living Lab   aOttawabTalent First Networkc05/2018  a5-210 v83 aThe concept of a “living lab” is a relatively new research area and phenomenon that facilitates user engagement in open innovation activities. Studies on living labs show that the users’ 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 “drop-out” 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 “drop-out” in living lab field tests.10adrop-out10afield test10aLiving lab10ataxonomy10auser engagement10auser motivation1 aHabibipour, Abdolrasoul1 aGeorges, Annabel1 aStåhlbröst, Anna1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aBergvall-Kåreborn, Birgitta  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/1155