Spaces to foster and sustain innovation: Towards a conceptual framework

Osorio, Ferney; Reyes, José Ismael Peña; Camargo, Mauricio; Dupont, Laurent

doi:10.1109/ice.2015.7438661

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, not all of them reach that level of specificity; we therefore only present the main pillars. Regarding the comparison, we established a set of five dimensions to identify the comprehensiveness of the current frameworks (Osorio Bustamante, Pena Reyes, Camargo, & Dupont, ). These dimensions are: Space and infrastructure focus: As the motivation and research questions rely on the role of the physical space to support innovation, we try to compare whether the space or the infrastructure has been considered as one of the main features of analysis. Strategy vs. outcomes approach: To understand the performance of the space it is necessary to analyse how and why it was initially conceived, and the way the space has been used; we therefore seek to identify a framework that contributes in this regard. Criteria definition: Almost all frameworks have a solid theoretical basis, although not all of them define criteria to evaluate their constitutive pillars.…”

Section: Exploratory Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of Existing Framework On Physical Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Design and management of innovation laboratories: Toward a performance assessment tool

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a strong emergence of new spaces to foster innovation all over the world (Fablabs, Living Labs and Design Factories, among others). Past experiences have shown these types of projects involving “innovation laboratories” are at risk of not succeeding in their goals. Although several studies have tackled the problem of design, development and sustainability of innovation laboratories, there is still a gap in understanding how the capabilities and performance of these environments are affected by the strategic intentions at the early stages of design and functioning. Throughout this work, eight frameworks from the literature that analyze innovation laboratories are identified and compared. Then, based on both literature and the authors' experience, an updated framework is proposed as the basis for a guidance tool for researchers and practitioners aiming to assess or to adapt an existing project. As part of the operationalization process of the framework, a maturity grid‐based assessment tool is proposed to evaluate the maturity degree of an innovation laboratory. Afterwards, to evaluate the viability and to integrate the perception of innovation laboratory managers, an exploratory study with answers from fifteen laboratories from five different countries is performed. Insights and implications for emerging and already existent projects of innovation laboratories are then discussed.

show abstract

Section: Exploratory Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of Existing Framework On Physical Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design and management of innovation laboratories: Toward a performance assessment tool

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They posit that the model proposed by Moultrie et al (2007), with some updates, was a useful tool for researchers and practitioners wishing to help organizations create physical spaces that enhance their innovation processes. Bustamante et al (2015) recommended the following updates to Moultrie et al's Transformational Model, which focused mainly on the strategic intention phase (see Figure 2).…”

Section: Bustamante Et Al's Update Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…TRANSFORMATIONAL MODEL Bustamante et al (2015) recommended keeping only strategic goals and teamwork from Moultrie et al's Transformational Model and adding: ecosystem approach, real-world context, user centric innovation, culture and community, and lifespan as aspects to be examined in the strategic intention phase. In the strategic intention phase, an ecosystems approach results in generating added value to all stakeholders.…”

Section: Figure 2 Bustamante Et Al's Update To Moultrie Et Al'smentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Can Universities Learn From Organizational Creative Space Design Research? A Look at Maker Spaces

Santos¹,

Barber²,

Harris³

et al. 2021

JHETP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The maker movement is a relatively nascent concept characterized by open access to resources and tools to foster innovation and creativity. This movement has created an opportunity for universities to support student ingenuity and originality. Organizational design and creativity research has provided conceptual frameworks and assessments to inform the physical layout of a maker space. This paper provides university leaders with propositions and processes for designing and assessing the impact of a maker space. The propositions are supported by theoretical models and assessment approaches. A central theme to the propositions is that the physical attributes of a maker space must be user centric.

show abstract