@article {1225,
	title = {Innovation Management in Living Lab Projects: The Innovatrix Framework},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {9},
	year = {2019},
	month = {03/2019},
	pages = {63-73},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Despite living labs being described as {\textquotedblleft}orchestrators{\textquotedblright} and innovation intermediaries, there is scant literature providing concrete guidelines and tools for living lab practitioners on the topic of project-related innovation management. To address this need, we propose Innovatrix, an innovation management framework built upon existing business model and innovation management tools and frameworks and iterated based on practical experience in living lab projects. In this article, we illustrate the added value of the proposed framework through three practical case studies that lead to three propositions regarding innovation management in living lab projects. First, Innovatrix helps to scope the user involvement activities, which leads to greater efficiency and faster decision making. Second, Innovatrix forces the project owner to focus on a limited number of customer segments, which increases the speed of learning as the scarce entrepreneurial resources are dedicated to a limited number of segments. Third, Innovatrix allows practitioners to capture the iterations and pivots that were made during an innovation project, which helps to link specific outcomes with certain living lab activities.},
	keywords = {assumption, business modelling, Innovation management, living labs, testing, user research, validation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1225},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1225},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Aron-Levi Herregodts and Annabel Georges and Olivier Rits}
}
@article {1045,
	title = {Innovation in the Public Sector: Exploring the Characteristics and Potential of Living Labs and Innovation Labs},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {7},
	year = {2017},
	month = {01/2017},
	pages = {7-14},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Living labs and innovation labs share many common traits and characteristics. Both concepts are linked to the public sector, and both concepts can be regarded as coping mechanisms to deal with contemporary changes in the innovation landscape and within society as a whole. Both build on past initiatives and practices, but are also struggling to find their own clear identity and {\textquotedblleft}raison d{\textquoteright}{\^e}tre{\textquotedblright}. Because both concepts are largely practice-driven, their theoretical underpinnings and foundations are mostly established after the fact: making sense of current practice rather than carefully researching and planning the further development. However, despite their similarities and common ground, most researchers treat living labs and innovation labs as separate literature streams. Here, starting from a review of the current issues and challenges with innovation in the public sector, we look for links between both concepts by analyzing the current definitions, the predecessors, and the {\textquotedblleft}state of the art{\textquotedblright} in terms of empirical research. Based on these findings, we summarize a set of similarities and differences between both concepts and propose a model towards more collaboration, mutual exchange, and integration of practices between innovation labs, which can be regarded as initiators of innovation, and living labs, which can be regarded as executors of innovation. Thus, we add to the conceptual development of both concepts and propose a roadmap for the further integration of both the theory and practice of living labs and innovation labs.},
	keywords = {collaborative innovation, innovation labs, living labs, Open innovation, public sector, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1045},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/1045},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Piret T{\~o}nurist}
}
@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}
}
