@article {1052,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation in Living Labs (February 2017)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {02/2017},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {action research, business-to-business, emotions, innovation, living labs, needsfinding, operations, reflection},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1052},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1052},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund and Dimitri Schuurman and Pieter Ballon}
}
@article {1044,
	title = {Editorial: Innovation in Living Labs (January 2017)},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {01/2017},
	pages = {3-6},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {agile methods, conceptualizations, innovation labs, Innovation management, innovation tool, living labs, Open innovation, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1044},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1044},
	author = {Chris McPhee and Dimitri Schuurman and Pieter Ballon and Seppo Leminen and Mika Westerlund}
}
@article {1054,
	title = {Overcoming Barriers to Experimentation in Business-to-Business Living Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {02/2017},
	pages = {20-26},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Business-to-business (B2B) living lab projects have been mentioned in different areas of academic research, but the innovation management literature requires deeper analysis of their potential opportunities and challenges. Real-life experimentation is a key requirement for living labs as it enables deeper insights in the potential success of innovations. However, the literature has not provided insights on how living lab projects can implement real-life experimentation in B2B innovation projects and does not describe appropriate conditions for experimentation in these settings. In this study, we identified three main barriers preventing real-life experimentation in B2B living lab projects: the technological complexity, the need for integration, and the difficulty in identifying testers. The barriers are discussed in detailed and potential solutions are provided to help overcome these barriers and stimulate the adoption of real-life experimentation in B2B innovation projects.},
	keywords = {B2B, experimentation, living labs, testing, user research},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1054},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1054},
	author = {Ruben D{\textquoteright}Hauwers and Aron-Levi Herregodts and Annabel Georges and Lynn Coorevits and Dimitri Schuurman and Olivier Rits and Pieter Ballon}
}
@article {956,
	title = {The Impact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contributions and Outcomes},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2016},
	month = {01/2016},
	pages = {7-16},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Open innovation scholars as well as practitioners are still struggling with the practical implementation of open innovation principles in different contexts. In this article, we explore the value of a living lab approach for open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Using a case study approach, we compared 27 SME projects conducted by iMinds Living Labs from 2011 to 2015. The results suggest that a real-life intervention and a multi-method approach {\textendash} both of which are methodological characteristics of living lab projects {\textendash} increase the chance of generating actionable user contributions for the innovation under development. Moreover, the results also suggest that a living lab project yields maximal value when evolving from concept towards prototype. Besides these exploratory findings, this article also demonstrates that living lab projects are a perfect "playground" to test and validate assumptions from the open innovation literature.},
	keywords = {collaboration, distributed innovation, entrepreneur, Innovation management, living labs, Open innovation, SME, startup, user innovation, user involvement},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/956},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/956},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Lieven De Marez and Pieter Ballon}
}
@article {949,
	title = {Exploring the Benefits of Integrating Business Model Research within Living Lab Projects},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {12/2015},
	pages = {19-27},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Business model and living lab research both have similar objectives {\textendash} to maximize the probability of successful market introduction of innovative solutions {\textendash} be it through different means. Yet, there are still only few studies or reports discussing both, with those studies that do touch the subject staying at a high level. iMinds Living Labs has gained a lot of experience in combined living lab and business model innovation projects and, rather than being competing approaches, our results have shown that these two research methodologies can be complementary, where the combined approach turns out to be more powerful than each individual approach used alone. The goal of this article is to promote the inclusion of business model research in a model of "a living lab as a service" (and vice versa) by explaining the benefits and by introducing a practical framework to implement such combined research tracks based on the experience at iMinds Living Labs over the past few years.},
	keywords = {business model, collaboration, innovation, living labs, user research, value network, value proposition},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/949},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/949},
	author = {Olivier Rits and Dimitri Schuurman and Pieter Ballon}
}
@article {743,
	title = {Open Innovation Processes in Living Lab Innovation Systems: Insights from the LeYLab},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2013},
	month = {11/2013},
	pages = {28-36},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living labs have emerged on the crossroads of the open innovation and user innovation frameworks. As open innovation systems, living labs consist of various actors with each playing their specific role. Within this article, we will take an open innovation perspective by analyzing the knowledge spill-overs between living lab actors through three in-depth innovation case studies taking place within the LeYLab living lab in Kortrijk, Belgium. The results illustrate how living labs foster the three open innovation processes of exploration, exploitation, and retention. From our analysis, we conclude that living labs are particularly useful for exploration and, to a lesser extent, exploitation. In terms of retention, living labs seem to hold a large potential; however, the success and the nature of the innovation processes depend on the sustainability of living labs, the number of innovation cases, and the alignment of these cases with the living lab infrastructure. Based on these findings, a concrete set of guidelines is proposed for innovating in living labs and for setting up a living lab constellation.},
	keywords = {knowledge exchange, living labs, Open innovation, open innovation networks, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/743},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/743},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Lieven De Marez and Pieter Ballon}
}
