Living Labs as boundary-spanners between Triple Helix actors

Geenhuizen, Marina van

doi:10.17477/jcea.2016.15.1.078

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If results of quantitative analysis are combined with understandings from action-based research, evaluation and monitoring can be carried out on a more thorough basis. In addition, the case study analysis was restricted to Northwest Europe and Canada, implying influence of specific cultural traits and values (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005; Van Geenhuizen, 2016). For example, the bottom-up and participative character of living labs and their evaluation presented in this article may not match with planning and management cultures elsewhere in the world.…”

Section: 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

Self Cite

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: 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

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This aligns with Ranga and Etzkowitch (2013) who have pointed to the task barriers and relationship barriers within the Triple Helix framework. In the Canadian case, it is the relationship barriers that dominate and are often influenced by imbalances in the power positions within Triple Helix stakeholders (van Geenhuizen 2016). Possession of political power has the ultimate impact on the innovation ecosystem as it influences funding, strategic priorities, and the legitimacy of the intermediaries.…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

'Innovation policy is a team sport' - insights from non-governmental intermediaries in Canadian innovation ecosystem

Tamtik

2018

Triple Helix

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy-makers and practitioners alike have increasingly embraced the innovation ecosystem approach to support the flow of knowledge within the Triple Helix framework. This approach focuses on the collaborative and interdependent nature of innovation, which is based on social aspects of knowledge transfer supporting relationships, partnerships, and connections. The important role of intermediary stakeholders that help to facilitate such partnerships is under-researched. This paper examines the work of three intermediary stakeholders in the Canadian innovation ecosystem—the Canadian Science Policy Centre, the MaRS Discovery District, and university Vice Presidents Research. By interviewing 40 experts from the federal and provincial governments, non-governmental organizations, industry, and the higher education sector in Ontario, this study examines how innovation ecosystems are created and what factors influence the success of bringing diverse stakeholders together. The findings suggest that strong political vision and leadership, an inclusive approach to recognizing the needs of diverse stakeholders, and clarity on ways to measure and fund innovation serve as important factors in the Canadian innovation ecosystem. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40604-018-0062-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Likewise, points of departure in urban living labs, are often equality, transparency, and balanced stakeholder involvement. This situation seems at odds with traditional and non-western forms of knowledge (production), particular social and religious context, and constraints of specific power distribution, calling for more social innovation, and eventually new ways of negotiation and decision-making [70,71], not identified so far. Table 2 presents 37 'filtered' key learnings of sustainability-oriented urban living labs that tend to be important in many living lab stages.…”

Section: Application In Filter To Urban Living Labs (Ull) Process Andmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying an RRI Filter in Key Learning on Urban Living Labs’ Performance

Geenhuizen

2019

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban living labs is a practical methodology in improving sustainability in cities by facilitating collaborative learning and innovation in a real-life environment, thereby mainly responding to the needs of users (citizens). The paper aims to filter a list of key learnings on urban living labs through the lens of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). One of the motivations is that key learnings on urban living labs are mainly derived from means-goal effectiveness (MGE) thinking while the urban setting calls for a broader perspective due to complexity and tension from the multi-actor, multifunctional, and multi-scalar character of cities. The filtering reveals almost 40 learnings as 'overlap' and 'exclusive for MGE'. Importantly, five learnings are identified as specific for RRI and potentially enriching living lab methodology: ethical and normative principles like health, safety, security, and equality between societal groups, and a wider distribution of benefits and risks of living lab outcomes, in particular, contradictory sustainability issues. The RRI filtering causes three practical implications: coping with uneven power distribution between stakeholders, limited feasibility of applying the comprehensive learning framework, and challenges of overarching platform structures enabling to better incorporate RRI concerns in living lab methodology. The findings as presented in an adapted list are new, as RRI values and concerns have seldom been applied to practical innovation and have never been explicitly applied to urban living labs' performance beyond the borders of effectiveness thinking. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3833 2 of 16ICT-based innovations [17]. Since then, ENoLL membership has been granted to 440 historically recognized living labs (Appendix A).Application of living labs methodology is by no means everywhere the same. To date, the methodology has been used in practice with different emphasis on users' roles in finding solutions, prior definition of structure and processes and focus on exploration or exploitation of opportunities [1,18,19]. Furthermore, we mention differences in spatial and organizational scale: living lab methodology has been applied as small-scale physical experimentation spaces but also as networked spaces at regional scale that act as platforms for sets of experimentations using some sort of open innovation [20][21][22]. The common core of the methodology, however, has remained. This paper deals with urban living labs within a 'larger category' of living labs. What urban living labs distinguish, is indicated in the literature as follows: being localized or place-based; involvement of local government and local citizens; acting as locally involved public-private partnership; applying coproduction/co-creation with local actors; and typically dealing with urban sustainability problems [23][24][25][26][27][28]. Urban living labs may include various stages in innovation, running from ideation and experimentation to upscaling and application in practice/market. In urban practice toda...

show abstract

Living Labs as boundary-spanners between Triple Helix actors

Cited by 18 publications

References 42 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

'Innovation policy is a team sport' - insights from non-governmental intermediaries in Canadian innovation ecosystem

Applying an RRI Filter in Key Learning on Urban Living Labs’ Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About