Configuring Living Labs For A ‘Thick’ Understanding Of Innovation

The Impact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contributions and Outcomes

“…In terms of methodological deconstruction of the living labs approach, the work of Pierson and Lievens (2005) remains unique in describing the different phases of a living lab project: i) contextualization, ii) selection, iii) concretization, iv) implementation, and v) feedback. However, the methodological basis of these five phases is left unexplored, as are the actual outcomes and added value when engaging in living lab projects.…”

Governing Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship

“…Both living lab processes were designed along principles whereby the living lab project had to: i) incorporate multiple iterations (Pierson & Lievens, 2005;Schaffers & Budweg, 2009), ii) involve multiple stakeholders (Feurstein et al, 2008;Frissen & Lieshout, 2004; www.timreview.ca…”

Categorization of Innovation Tools in Living Labs

“…Although Pierson and Lievens (2005) propose that living labs are cyclic by nature, other scholars (e.g., Ståhlbröst, 2008) provide a guideline for the iterative living lab. Building on this guideline, Ståhlbröst and Bergvall-Kåreborn (2008) stress that iteration and interaction between phases foster innovation development, and Holst, Ståhlbröst, and Bergvall-Kåreborn (2010) add that openness improves and fastens innovation.…”