Living Labs as open innovation systems for knowledge exchange: solutions for sustainable innovation development

Abstract

Abstract:In nowadays knowledge economy, no more general 'best practice' innovation management exists. Within this paper we investigate the potential of Living Labs as open innovation systems that foster different knowledge transfers amongst the actors participating in them. By means of an in-depth case study research we explore a variety of hypotheses abstracted from the open innovation literature on knowledge transfers and other variables influencing exchange and collaboration in open innovation systems. We conclude that given certain criteria are met, Living Labs can be a solution for sustainable innovation development.

Multi-Stakeholder Innovation in Smart City Discourse: Quadruple Helix Thinking in the Age of “Platforms”

“…An intertwined stream of thought in this context is that of the "democratization of innovation" (von Hippel, 2005). Traditionally, innovation was seen as an inherently closed process with most operations running inside the boundaries of the company and research and development processes taking place in secretive in-house laboratories: knowledge and technologies were protected and kept safe from external influences (Schuurman et al, 2014). These exclusively closed modes of innovation have evolved in the last decades and new, open models of innovation have started to emerge (Chesbrough, 2006).…”

How to Make Living Labs More Financially Sustainable? Case Studies in Italy and the Netherlands

“…The methodology of LLs involves four key activities: exploration, co-creation, experimentation and evaluation (ENoLL, 2016). Through the activity of exploration, a LL can capture new knowledge from external sources to enhance technological development (Schuurman et al, 2016) and discover new opportunities (Almirall & Wareham, 2011). Researchers, businesses and users explore novel manners of contextualizing knowledge and technologies in a real-life setting (Pierson & Lievens, 2005).…”

“…As a result, there is not yet a comprehensive definition of public value arising from LLs (Wood & Leighton, 2010), given that they offer conditions and mechanisms for various stakeholders to collaborate and generate innovation outcomes in real-life environments . LLs dedicated to public value can therefore effectively increase cohesion in society (Schuurman et al, 2016) and improve the behavior of users regarding issues like environmental awareness and urban safety (Ståhlbröst & Holst, 2016).…”

Accelerate innovation towards sustainable living: exploring the potential of Living Labs in a recently completed case

“…Based on this classification, Schuurman et al (2016) proposed five different roles for actors involved in Living Labs by also adding the role of researchers, who in the original definition by Leminen et al (2012) belong to the group of providers by being part of a technical university. As defined by Schuurman et al (2016), utilisers are often involved in short-term projects and use Living Labs as a strategic tool to develop and test their products or services in collaboration with users and other stakeholders. Enablers support and facilitate the Living Lab project by providing financial resources or policy support for the different operations in the Living Lab.…”

“…Enablers support and facilitate the Living Lab project by providing financial resources or policy support for the different operations in the Living Lab. Providers, like utilisers, are involved in the co-development of new products and services, but are more focused on long-term results and their role is, better suited to larger companies with more established technologies according to Schuurman et al (2016). Users can be referred to as the endusers of Living Labs and the technologies included in them.…”