{\rtf1\ansi\deff0\deftab360

{\fonttbl
{\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 Arial}
{\f1\froman\fcharset0 Times New Roman}
{\f2\fswiss\fcharset0 Verdana}
{\f3\froman\fcharset2 Symbol}
}

{\colortbl;
\red0\green0\blue0;
}

{\info
{\author Biblio 7.x}{\operator }{\title Biblio RTF Export}}

\f1\fs24
\paperw11907\paperh16839
\pgncont\pgndec\pgnstarts1\pgnrestart
Huang, J. Hong, & Thomas, E. 2021. A Review of Living Lab Research and Methods for User Involvement. Technology Innovation Management Review, 11(9/10): 88-107. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1467\par \par Kunttu, L., & Neuvo, Y. 2020. The Role of Academics, Users, and Customers in Industrial Product Development. Technology Innovation Management Review, 10(3): 60-69. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1337\par \par Haukipuro, L., V\'e4in\'e4m\'f6, S., & Hyrk\'e4s, P. 2018. Innovation Instruments to Co-Create Needs-Based Solutions in a Living Lab. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(5): 22-35. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1156\par \par Georges, A., Schuurman, D., & Vervoort, K. 2016. Factors Affecting the Attrition of Test Users During Living Lab Field Trials. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(1): 35-44. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/959\par \par Schuurman, D., De Marez, L., & Ballon, P. 2016. The Impact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contributions and Outcomes. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(1): 7-16. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/956\par \par Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. 2013. Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(12): 6-15. http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/748\par \par }