@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 {1204,
	title = {A Framework for Field Testing in Living Lab Innovation Projects},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {40-50},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Within innovation research and, more specifically, living lab projects, a crucial component is to test an innovation in a real-life context with potential end users. Such a field test can validate assumptions by combining insights on behaviour and attitudes towards the innovation. This allows for iterative tailoring of the innovation to the needs and wants of the potential end users. Moreover, relevant insights can be gathered to stop or rescope the innovation project before big investments are made. Although studies indicate that testing innovations (or prototypes) in real-life contexts improves the innovation process, there is no specific framework on how to conduct a field test for an innovation. This is important because, in living lab field tests, users are actively involved in co-creating the solutions, which impacts the operational side of setting up living lab projects. Therefore, within this article, we propose a framework for field testing based on the degree to which it reflects reality and the stage within the living lab process. We distinguish four types of field tests: concept, mock-up, pilot, and go2market field test. Based on this framework, we propose some practical guidelines for setting up living lab field tests.},
	keywords = {context research, field test, living labs, testing, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1204},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1204},
	author = {Lynn Coorevits and Annabel Georges and Dimitri Schuurman}
}
@article {1201,
	title = {Living Labs versus Lean Startups: An Empirical Investigation},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2018},
	month = {12/2018},
	pages = {7-16},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	abstract = {Although we seem to be living in an era where founding a startup has never been easier, studies point to the high mortality rates of these organizations. This {\textquotedblleft}startup hype{\textquotedblright} has also induced many practitioner-based innovation management approaches that lack empirical studies and validation. Moreover, a lot of these approaches have rather similar angles, but use different wordings. Therefore, in this article, we look into two of these {\textquotedblleft}hyped{\textquotedblright} concepts: the lean startup and living labs. We review the academic studies on these topics and explore a sample of 86 entrepreneurial projects based on project characteristics and outcomes. Our main finding is that the two approaches appear to be complementary. Living labs are powerful instruments to implement the principles of the lean startup, as the real-life testing and multi-disciplinary approach of living labs seem to generate more actionable outcomes. However, living labs also require the flexibility of a startup {\textendash} ideally a lean one {\textendash} to actually deliver this promise. Thus, rather than picking a winner in this comparison, we argue that combining the concepts{\textquoteright} different strengths can bring clear benefits.},
	keywords = {entrepreneurs, impact, Innovation management, lean startup, Living lab, Open innovation, testing, user innovation},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1201},
	url = {https://timreview.ca/article/1201},
	author = {Dimitri Schuurman and Sonja M. Protic}
}
@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 {953,
	title = {TIM Lecture Series {\textendash} When Are Software Systems Safe Enough?},
	journal = {Technology Innovation Management Review},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2015},
	month = {12/2015},
	pages = {56-58},
	publisher = {Talent First Network},
	address = {Ottawa},
	keywords = {risk, safety, safety-critical systems, security, software systems, standards, testing},
	issn = {1927-0321},
	doi = {http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/953},
	url = {http://timreview.ca/article/953},
	author = {Chris Hobbs}
}
