Search results

Labs are meant for the creation of new products and services or to overcome innovation challenges (Carstensen & Bason, 2012). Media labs, besides the name, go beyond the media industry concepts to respond to technology, communication, and economic changes (Bisso Nunes & Mills, 2021). For that, they integrate public spaces, media, arts, and tech. In short, media labs are organizational structures that allow for experimentation and development, and facilitate open innovation and individual and organizational learning. Many media labs are focused on accelerating media involvement in functional and experimental innovations and rise in a context unrelated to the temporality of media content production, on a systematic innovation approach. But media labs also represent great diversity. In this chapter, we explore key elements of the media lab phenomenon: history, definition, evolution and appearance globally and in Latin America, emergence beyond the media industry, and, by the end, final thoughts about media labs' roles amid future organizational and technological transformations.

The paper aims to discuss the role of innovation labs as innovative management models to foster digital and continuous innovation practices within organisations of the digital ecosystem. A meta-model resulting from the analysis of the case study is proposed to describe the key phases and the relevant issues for the effective management of innovation labs as catalysts of digital innovation.

The paper combines theoretical insights with the empirical evidence gathered from a case study. The case study concerns the analysis of an innovation lab engaged in fostering innovation capacity and supporting digital transformation in a regional tourism ecosystem.

The study advances theoretical and practical knowledge about how to effectively design and manage innovation labs. Furthermore, the research provides scholars and practitioners with useful insights and implications for the elaboration, development and assessment of the managerial initiatives aimed at supporting organisations in facing the severe challenges of digital transformation, as well as in increasing organisations’ innovation capacity and continuous innovation attitudes.

The originality and value of the paper reside in enriching the empirical base for a later theory building on management issues of innovation labs, as well as in the proposal of a grounded-theory-based model for their successful management. In doing so, the study fills a relevant gap emerging in the current literature such as the lack of studies dealing with management models for the implementation of digital innovation strategies to manage digital knowledge, foster continuous innovation and based on innovative approaches and methodologies.

This study aims to focus on living labs as a means of achieving radical innovation by discussing the differences in their network structure and its effect on the type of innovation outcome.

This research analyses 24 living labs in four countries using qualitative methods.

A specific network structure referred to as a distributed multiplex supports radical innovation in living labs, while distributed and centralized network structures support incremental innovations. Also, the results suggest that radical innovation depends on the driving actor and objectives in a living lab.

A bias on the perceived novelty of innovation may exist when analyzing data collected through interviews with a limited number of living lab participants compared to a large number of informants. This study proposes a two-dimensional framework based on the network structure to investigate innovation in living labs.

This paper offers a classification tool to identify, categorize and make sense of organizations’ participation in open innovation networks and in living labs.

The study provides evidence that, although the distributed multiplex network structure supports the emergence of radical innovations, the distributed and centralized network structures support incremental innovation. A combination of a provider- or utilizer-driven living lab and a distributed multiplex network structure, with a clearly defined and future-oriented strategic objective, offers good potential for radical innovation to occur.

The purpose of this paper is to question the appropriateness of current lab types for addressing wicked problems. A new lab type, a Systemic Innovation Lab, is proposed which combines the features of existing labs that are suited to addressing wicked problems.

Characteristics of initiatives that are considered appropriate for addressing wicked problems and existing lab types that contain any of these characteristics are identified. These lab types are Social Innovation Labs, Living Labs, Urban Living Labs, Urban Transition Labs and Public Sector Innovation Labs. The proposed new lab type is reasoned by combining the features of existing labs that are suited to addressing wicked problems. How the new lab would work in practice is illustrated with a case study.

When addressing wicked problems, labs need to take a systemic design and not a service design approach. They also need to focus on addressing complex problems, take a place-based and transition approach, enable coherent action by diverse actors, involve users as co-creators, support a networked governance approach and recognize government as an enabler of change.

This paper provides a new lab type designed specifically for addressing wicked problems. This new lab supports practitioners that take a systemic design, solution ecosystem and systemic innovation approach. Systemic design is based on a core set of principles that are a crossover between design and complexity theory.

For the first time, this paper analyzes different lab types to determine their appropriateness for addressing wicked problems. It also proposes a new lab type whose sole purpose is addressing wicked problems.

Sustaining product innovation in an established company – increasingly the key to a company’s economic success, and perhaps its survival – is a challenging task The author describes a and the model often referred to as an “Idea lab” that has emerged as a necessary organizational feature to accomplish this goal.

The author explains how to manage Idea labs as deliberately established locations, where individuals and teams with new product ideas can work together for concentrated bursts of time, sharpening and focusing their product concept, embedding the voice of the customer in product design and charting alternative progression paths for their ideas to be developed into potentially profitable offerings by units of the business that will nurture them.

In today’s organizations, the managerial prime directive is fundamentally being redefined as one of addressing the challenge of sustained, profitable innovation that opens new markets or reinvigorates existing ones. Idea labs should be considered a vital process in fostering sustaining innovation.

A critical success factor is the interplay between idea originators, technology specialists and product managers with a keen awareness of customer needs, competitor initiatives and genuine product differentiation.

A comprehensive guide for top managers and innovators, the article details the four key facets of Idea labs: Positioning in the firm’s innovation value chain. Tasks. Processes. Structure.

There has been a high rate of failure among the Living Labs in Kenya resulting in the expected outcomes not fully realized. This paper aims to assess the sustainability of Living Labs in Kenya.

Based on the four capital method of sustainable development evaluation framework, data were collected through interviews and questionnaires from innovators, users and employees among the 25 living labs in Kenya.

The research found that some innovators are not familiar with the living labs, the living labs are innovative and prepared to survive in future, some labs have strategic plans on how to pursue future environment and have developed ways of choosing right people to incubate, inability to get enough funding from the host organizations and limited knowledge on the supervision level of the operations. A model is proposed that can be generalized to other living labs in developing countries.

The study was done in Nairobi where most of the living labs are situated.

The study concludes by emphasizing on the user involvement during innovation process. There is need to expand the capacities of living labs to accommodate more people to ensure more innovations are supported at a time. The senior managers in charge of the living labs should increase the level of supervision to ensure that the labs are effective in their incubation efforts and institutionalize support of the host organization to the labs to ensure continued growth and expansion.

The findings of this study are of value to research community, the decision and policymakers as it seeks to document the current status of the living labs in the Kenya

Laboratories or “labs” outside science and technology have become increasingly popular in recent years. Their proliferation raises questions about what they have in common and the extent to which “lab” as a metaphor is still pertinent. We develop six criteria to assess these types of labs: (1) theoretical foundations; (2) experimentation; (3) collaboration; (4) boundaries; (5) governance; and (6) temporality. We identify a number of paradoxes in the operation of labs and explore their implications for research and practice.

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 investigate the role of relational governance in innovation platform development, specifically investigating the context of living labs.

Two longitudinal case studies are presented, derived from auto-ethnographic narratives, qualitative interviews and secondary documents, which cover the critical stages in the development of each living lab.

Empirical insights demonstrate the relevance of coordination activities based on joint planning and activities to support innovation platform development across different stages. The governance role of research actors as platform activators is also identified.

The paper offers a useful perspective for identifying collective goals between living lab actors and aligning joint activities across different stages of living lab development.

The case provides insights into the challenges and opportunities for collaboration between academia, industry and users to support sustainable construction innovation.

A relational governance mode is identified, going beyond top down or bottom up approaches, which contributes a new understanding of how collective goals align within a relational space.