Search results

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the factors playing a role in the engagement of end-users to participate in Living Lab field trials.

Multiple case study analysis of three Living Lab cases in which field trials were organized.

Based on academic literature on field trials, user engagement and the technology acceptance model, the authors argue that several factors play a role in the participation of users in field trials. An influential factor that emerged is the functional maturity of the innovation, the extent to which a prototype resembles the functionalities and the processes of the final, go-to-market product at the moment of the field trial. Within this exploratory paper, we propose the “user engagement model for field trials” to explain the factors that play a role in the engagement of end-users in field trials.

The methodological limitations of a case study design make it difficult to extrapolate the findings toward a larger sample. Therefore, this paper focuses on making an in-depth analysis rather than making general claims. However, the insights regarding user engagement for participation pave the way for future validation on a larger scale and suggest future research directions.

The findings of this paper suggest that Living Lab field trials should carefully take into account the (perceived) functional maturity of the innovation and the specific characteristics of the innovation when engaging end-users for field trials. Interaction and trust between the test-users and the other stakeholders is of great importance for the active engagement of test-users during field trials.

This exploratory paper adds to a general understanding of end-user involvement in innovation development processes and suggests guidelines to engage end-users to participate in field trials. In addition, it introduces the concept of functional maturity of innovations and the user-engagement model for field trials.

This paper aims to explore the role of private stakeholders in the living lab (LL) ecosystem and the relationship of private stakeholders to open innovation (OI) practices. There is extensive literature on private stakeholders and OI, but seldom mention is made on the specific question of how private stakeholders integrate OI in the context of a LL.

The authors will analyze qualitatively how private businesses that have participated in a in situ open innovation evaluate and perceived their open innovation practices. Therefore, how they relate to open innovation. Then, the authors will identify a typology of the businesses in relation to OI.

The research focused on the relationship of private stakeholders to OI in the context of in situ OI activities. The results obtained are consistent with literature on OI (Chesbrough, 2003). However, there are differences: if the elements mentioned by the respondents are described in literature, their representation of OI and its components allows us to affirm that this practice is not generalised and that it is often open to interpretation. That emphasises the importance of the role LLs can play as intermediaries to accompany private stakeholders in the OI process. Private stakeholders look for a guide to develop their OI know-how and find their way in the OI ecosystem.

The value of this paper is to bridge the research on OI done with private organisation and the research on LLs. The research literature did not pay much attention to the representation of the private stakeholders in the OI ecosystem. This paper has provided the start to open up that field.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a more socially centred understanding of living labs for urban research questions by reflecting on current technologically centred and innovation-driven approaches.

The paper takes the form of literature review complemented by conceptual knowledge from practical experiences.

Urban living labs, as they were introduced from a technological and economic point of view, have to be translated into the context of social sciences. By doing so, they may be a promising tool to stimulate co-creation and collaboration also in urban research projects that focus on social research questions and include diverse target groups. Socially centred living labs take into account the local context by developing a space of encounter for the participants in the urban living lab and by implementing a set of living methods that suit both the research design and the local requirements.

This paper argues that urban living labs can be a valuable tool in urban research to include researchers, politicians, local stakeholders and residents in an open concept of co-creation. It argues that a locally contextualised design in terms of space and methods is necessary to create an environment of trust and collaboration.

This paper aims to examine how to support use of design in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) by developing a new design support service. Design is emerging as one of the major themes of modern business development. However, most organisations – especially SMEs – view incorporating design as problematic.

This paper presents the service development process as a case study and contributes to the discussions on service development projects realised in the Living Lab context and enhancing the use of design among SMEs. The project had two basic assumptions as a starting point: using design is beneficial for SMEs’ business and business advisors are the best channel for reaching these SMEs. The basics of service design process and several tools such as the service design blueprint, the business model canvas and problem interviews were utilised to develop a service concept and to test it among target SMEs.

It is difficult to find SMEs that need design and are not yet served by the current regional or national service offerings. The findings demonstrate the importance of user involvement in the beginning of service design process.

Limited sample size may impact the generalisability of the results. Increasing the sample size of companies might provide new insights not yet discovered in this study.

Policymakers can benefit from the insights on design support service development when designing new services for SMEs. Co-design processes that are elemental to the Living Lab approach could also benefit the development of public business-to-business (B2B) services.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a Living Lab protocol to evaluate interventions for people with dementia in context. The number of people with dementia is continuously growing, resulting in all kinds of societal challenges. As there is no cure for the diseases today, there is a need to look at alternative ways to combat these challenges, like the design of suitable interventions. These can support people with dementia to live more independent, with a higher quality of life. The protocol is developed over three Living Lab cases. In this, the authors focus on how to involve people living with dementia and the Living Lab stakeholder network.

Over three Living Lab cases, 26 people with dementia, and their caregivers, participated. In these cases, the authors focussed on three different interventions, namely: a reminder system, a daylight lamp and a mobile interface. Yet, a similar protocol was implemented that was built upon insights from its previous case. Hereby, the authors gathered hands-on insights concerning the design and implementation of a Living Lab protocol. Finally, the authors propose a protocol for those interested in pursuing similar goals.

For the resulting proposal, the authors found that it is important to actively involve the relevant Living Lab stakeholders from the start of the process. Because, first, care stakeholders protect participants as gatekeepers, and have a general interest in the interventions. Second, for industry stakeholders, the in-context Living Lab set-up needs to be aligned with their needs to gather usable insights for their interventions. Finally, the authors propose to keep the users engaged beyond the studies by facilitating a Living Lab community. This leads to a higher user engagement and a wider pool to select from for future Living Lab sessions.

However, the authors have to be careful to base conclusions on this protocol, due to the limited number of participants and, therefore, the authors suggest this is investigated further. Additionally, the authors feel the role of stakeholders, and who is in the lead, should be investigated further.

By reflecting on three Living Lab cases, the authors propose a ready-to-use Living Lab protocol that can be applied by anybody who is interested to design more suitable interventions for impaired users.

The building of a community as a basis of a Living Lab provides opportunities for all relevant stakeholders, and could reach beyond the development of interventions.

The paper provides hands-on insights on applying and developing a Living Lab protocol. This is done by structurally involving relevant stakeholders, while continuously adapting to the user’s needs. Only by continuing to do so, the societal challenges can successfully be addressed.

This paper aims to explore how Living Labs might be evaluated, building on the current efforts of the European Network of Living Lab (ENoLL) to encourage new members, and complementing their existing criteria with elements from business model development strategies – specifically the Business Model Canvas (BMC) (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010).

First, it is explored how Living Labs have emerged, at the intersection of transition management, open innovation and collaborative consumption. It is then suggested that the BMC could be a complementary tool in Living Lab evaluation.

This tool helped identify three important elements missing from current ENoLL evaluation criteria: identification of the cost structure, customer segments and the revenue stream. The case study of an Energy Living Lab created in Western Switzerland is used to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of different evaluation criteria; this paper is then concluded with some ideas on how future research might contribute to further strengthening Living Lab evaluation process towards long-term “sustainability”.

This article will be of value for ENoLL to refine their evaluation criteria for the next “wave” of application. It could as well help living labs to reflect on how to keep a living lab alive.