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/120401903nas a2200253   4500008004100000022001400041245006500055210006400120260004200184300000900226490000600235520118600241653001801427653001101445653002601456653001701482653001501499653002001514653001201534653002001546100002301566700002201589856003801611       2018                        eng d  a1927-032100aLiving Labs versus Lean Startups: An Empirical Investigation0 aLiving Labs versus Lean Startups An Empirical Investigation  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2018  a7-160 v83 aAlthough 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 “startup hype” 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 “hyped” 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 – ideally a lean one – to actually deliver this promise. Thus, rather than picking a winner in this comparison, we argue that combining the concepts’ different strengths can bring clear benefits.10aentrepreneurs10aimpact10aInnovation management10alean startup10aLiving lab10aOpen innovation10atesting10auser innovation1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aProtic, Sonja, M.  uhttps://timreview.ca/article/120100798nas a2200277   4500008004100000022001400041245005600055210005300111260004200164300000800206490000600214653001800220653002300238653002000261653002600281653002000307653001600327653002000343653002000363100001800383700002300401700001900424700001900443700002100462856003700483       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Innovation in Living Labs (January 2017)0 aEditorial Innovation in Living Labs January 2017  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2017  a3-60 v710aagile methods10aconceptualizations10ainnovation labs10aInnovation management10ainnovation tool10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10auser innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aBallon, Pieter1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aWesterlund, Mika  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/104402300nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245011600055210006900171260004200240300000900282490000600291520156900297653002901866653002001895653001601915653002001931653001801951653002001969100002301989700002102012856003702033       2017                        eng d  a1927-032100aInnovation in the Public Sector: Exploring the Characteristics and Potential of Living Labs and Innovation Labs0 aInnovation in the Public Sector Exploring the Characteristics an  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2017  a7-140 v73 aLiving 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 “raison d’être”. 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 “state of the art” 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.10acollaborative innovation10ainnovation labs10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10apublic sector10auser innovation1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aTõnurist, Piret  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/104500772nas a2200265   4500008004100000022001400041245006200055210005900117260004200176300000800218490000600226653002200232653001700254653002200271653001600293653002000309653002000329653002000349100001800369700001900387700002300406700002100429700002000450856003600470       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs and User Innovation (January 2016)0 aEditorial Living Labs and User Innovation January 2016  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2016  a3-60 v610aclosed innovation10afield trials10aimpact assessment10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10auser engagement10auser innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aHuizingh, Eelko  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/95501818nas a2200289   4500008004100000022001400041245008700055210006900142260004200211300000900253490000600262520097600268653001801244653002701262653001701289653002601306653001601332653002001348653000801368653001201376653002001388653002101408100002301429700002101452700001901473856003601492       2016                        eng d  a1927-032100aThe Impact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contributions and Outcomes0 aImpact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contribution  aOttawabTalent First Networkc01/2016  a7-160 v63 aOpen 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 – both of which are methodological characteristics of living lab projects – 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.10acollaboration10adistributed innovation10aentrepreneur10aInnovation management10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aSME10astartup10auser innovation10auser involvement1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aDe Marez, Lieven1 aBallon, Pieter  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/95600869nas a2200301   4500008004100000022001400041245006300055210006000118260004200178300000800220490000600228653002000234653002200254653001200276653001800288653002400306653001600330653002000346653002200366653002200388653002000410100001800430700001900448700002300467700002100490700002000511856003600531       2015                        eng d  a1927-032100aEditorial: Living Labs and User Innovation (December 2015)0 aEditorial Living Labs and User Innovation December 2015  aOttawabTalent First Networkc12/2015  a3-50 v510abusiness models10aclosed innovation10acontext10acrowdsourcing10ainnovation networks10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aspaces and places10aurban living labs10auser innovation1 aMcPhee, Chris1 aLeminen, Seppo1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aWesterlund, Mika1 aHuizingh, Eelko  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/94701830nas a2200229   4500008004100000022001400041245008900055210006900144260004200213300001000255490000600265520112200271653002301393653001601416653002001432653002901452653002001481100002301501700002101524700001901545856003601564       2013                        eng d  a1927-032100aOpen Innovation Processes in Living Lab Innovation Systems: Insights from the LeYLab0 aOpen Innovation Processes in Living Lab Innovation Systems Insig  aOttawabTalent First Networkc11/2013  a28-360 v33 aLiving 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.10aknowledge exchange10aliving labs10aOpen innovation10aopen innovation networks10auser innovation1 aSchuurman, Dimitri1 aDe Marez, Lieven1 aBallon, Pieter  uhttp://timreview.ca/article/743