Evaluating living labs core competences and assets

Vontas, Apóstolos; Protogeros, Nikolaos

doi:10.1109/dest.2009.5276772

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This methodology provides a systematic understanding of the basic factors shaping the co-creative processes in LLs. Further, Vontas & Protogeros [39] recommend a PACE (Project Assets, Core competencies and Exploitable items) evaluation toolkit which is more elaborated than but similar to the DCCI. Overall, our review shows that several scholars are recommending different types of models for structuring evaluation, but largely for those using quantitative data; at the same time, these are found to be case specific and not widely applied across contexts.…”

Section: Quantitative Evaluation Methods/toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving toward Generalizability? A Scoping Review on Measuring the Impact of Living Labs

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The living labs (LLs) approach has been applied around the globe to generate innovation within and suited to real-life problems and contexts. Despite the promise of the LL approach for addressing complex challenges like socio-ecological change, there is a gap in practitioner and academic community knowledge surrounding how to measure and evaluate both the performance of a given LL process and its wider impacts. Notably, this gap appears particularly acute in LLs designed to address environmental or agricultural sustainability. This article seeks to verify and address this knowledge gap by conducting an adopted scoping review method which uses a combination of tools for text mining alongside human text analysis. In total, 138 academic articles were screened, out of which 88 articles were read in full and 41 articles were found relevant for this study. The findings reveal limited studies putting forward generalizable approaches or frameworks for evaluating the impact of LLs and even fewer in the agricultural or sustainability sector. The dominant method for evaluation used in the literature is comparative qualitative case studies. This research uncovers a potential tension regarding LL work: the specificity of LL studies works against the development of evaluation indicators and a universal framework to guide the impact assessment of LLs across jurisdictions and studies in order to move toward generalizability.

show abstract

Section: Quantitative Evaluation Methods/toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving toward Generalizability? A Scoping Review on Measuring the Impact of Living Labs

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, research on living labs from a network perspective is sparse (Leminen et al , 2012a; Schaffers and Turkama, 2012; Leminen, 2013). Only a few studies have focused on the structures of living lab networks (Vontas and Protogeros, 2009; Lievens et al , 2010; Dong et al , 2011). Furthermore, literature on living labs, particularly from the structure perspective, identifies and discusses innovation outcomes, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of network structure on radical innovation in living labs

Leminen

Westerlund

Kortelainen

2016

JBIM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach This research analyses 24 living labs in four countries using qualitative methods. Findings 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. Research limitations/implications 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. Practical implications This paper offers a classification tool to identify, categorize and make sense of organizations’ participation in open innovation networks and in living labs. Originality/value 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.

show abstract

Evaluating living labs core competences and assets

Cited by 2 publications

References 1 publication

Moving toward Generalizability? A Scoping Review on Measuring the Impact of Living Labs

Moving toward Generalizability? A Scoping Review on Measuring the Impact of Living Labs

The effect of network structure on radical innovation in living labs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About