Overcoming Barriers to Experimentation in Business-to-Business Living Labs

D’Hauwers, Ruben; Herregodts, Aron-Levi; Georges, Annabel; Coorevits, Lynn; Schuurman, Dimitri; Rits, Olivier; Ballon, Pieter

doi:10.22215/timreview1054

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, various influences affect living lab processes that are beyond control of managers of living labs (exogenous influences), like a shift in overall policy priority leading to budget cuts among stakeholders involved (Evans, 2017;Mohr et al, 2010). The outcomes of living labs are also influenced by the quality of the micro-level learning (co-creation) processes and the broader networking (D'Hauwers et al, 2016;De Moor et al, 2010;Leminen et al, 2015;Nystr€ om et al, 2014). Outcomes in the sense of intended outcomes include a better knowledge of user wishes, a better user-quality of inventions or userdriven inventions, and speeding up and bringing more inventions to market (e.g.…”

Section: Influences On Living Labs' Processes and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for the evaluation of living labs as boundary spanners in innovation

Geenhuizen

2018

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Living labs, as a methodology to enhance user-centric innovation, have large potentials in bringing inventions to the marketplace, but their performance can benefit more from evaluation. This article develops a novel framework for evaluation of living labs, including (1) a system approach providing an analytical view on living labs’ performance and results; (2) a focus on actor-complexity and boundary-spanning needs; (3) a set of questions concerning, e.g. absorption of user-feedback, satisfaction among actors, and openness and connecting with larger networks; (4) a list of key performance factors; and (5) a focus on participatory evaluation. The design of this evaluation framework rests on a comprehensive literature search and case studies representing different actor complexity, namely home-solutions in healthcare, reconstruction of large (multi)functional buildings, and multiple combinations of activity (university campuses). Key performance factors are found to be: an early involvement of adequately skilled users in multiple learning processes, including absorption of feedback, and a broader but balanced set of actors connecting with upscaling and acceptance in the market. Also, boundaries need to be better bridged by learning how to handle conflicts and deal with intermediation, while respecting shared goals and interests. Specifically, university living labs call for maintaining a solid relation with cities and their actors. Overall, an explicitly designed evaluation framework is a key part of the working plan of living labs. The results also indicate a need for stronger attention for boundary-spanning in evaluation, because living labs are increasingly applied in comprehensive multi-activity settings.

show abstract

Section: Influences On Living Labs' Processes and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for the evaluation of living labs as boundary spanners in innovation

Geenhuizen

2018

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Overcoming Barriers to Experimentation in Business-to-Business Living Labs

Cited by 1 publication

References 12 publications

A framework for the evaluation of living labs as boundary spanners in innovation

A framework for the evaluation of living labs as boundary spanners in innovation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About