Factors affecting the attrition of test users during living lab field trials

Next to active user involvement and a multi-method approach, a third major principle within living lab research consists of capturing the real-life context in which an innovation is used by end users. Field trials are a method to study the interaction of test users with an innovation in the context of use. However, when conducting field trials, there are several reasons why users stop participating in research activities, a phenomenon labelled as attrition. In this article, we elaborate on drop-outs during field trials by analyzing three post-trial surveys of living lab field trials. Our results show that several factors related to the innovation, as well as related to the field trial setup, play a role in attrition, including the lack of added value of the innovation and the extent to which the innovation satisfies the needs and time restrictions of test users. Based on our findings, we provide practical guidelines for managers to reduce attrition during field trials

A framework for field testing in living lab innovation projects

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

Overcoming barriers to experimentation in business-to-business living labs

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

Living labs for in-situ open innovation: from idea to product validation and beyond

In this paper we present the Living Lab methodology as an overall framework for in-situ open innovation involving the end-user as equal participant in the innovation process. As a specific form of distributed innovation, relying on co-creation, we demonstrate the applicability of the Living Lab-approach for home ICT innovation by means of four innovation projects in different stages of maturity. We describe the used research methodologies and reflect on the role of the user

Field observations in a living lab context: constructing a framework for the observers' role based on a comparative case study analysis

When developing innovations, particularly media innovations, there is a growing interest in user involvement for innovation development processes (Bogers, Afuah, & Bastian, 2010). One way to structure and govern this user involvement for research and development processes is the Living Lab approach (Almirall, 2008). One of the key assets of Living Labs is the implementation of the innovation in an ‘everyday life’ and ‘real-world’ environment over a longer period of time, as opposed to a single exposure (Følstad, 2008). Observation research can be considered as an appropriate method to measure these contextual elements. Nevertheless, observations are under-exposed in Living Lab literature. Therefore, this paper elaborates on the theoretical foundations and practical use of observations during Living Lab field trials, integrating traditional ethnographic frameworks with long-term user-centric innovation research. This is studied by means of a multiple case study comparison, applied to four Living Lab projects. These cases are analyzed on multiple levels (practical organization and characteristics of Living Lab research). This allows an in-depth comparison, provides a deeper understanding of this method within a broader research process (Yin, 1984) and allows assessing the nature of observations within Living Lab research

Exploring entrepreneur-intermediary interactions regarding user orientation : evidence from Living-labs-as-a-service projects

Innovation intermediaries are confronted with different entrepreneurial types. Academic attention on the interactions between entrepreneurs and innovation intermediaries is limited. Four entrepreneurial types are discussed throughout this paper. These are based on the source of the entrepreneurial idea (Shah & Tripsas, 2007) and the (prime) motivation for entrepreneurial activities (Block, Sandner & Spiegel, 2015): enduser entrepreneurs, professional-user entrepreneurs, classic (opportunity-driven) entrepreneurs and forced entrepreneurs. Further, this paper proposes a conceptual entrepreneur-intermediary interaction process model, facilitating knowledge transfer, with 5 stages: alignment, learning activities, interpretation, sense-making and implementation. The process model is explored by means of a multi-dimensional case study of 8 projects with distinct entrepreneurial types. Evidence is sourced from the context of a Living-Lab-as-a-Service organization. The paper contributes to the understanding of entrepreneur-intermediary interactions in general, and interactions through Living-Labs-as-a-Service in particular

Co-creation in living labs: exploring the role of user characteristics on innovation contribution

Since the 1970s, the innovative potential of users has been recognized by von Hippel and his seminal works on the Customer Active Paradigm (CAP) and Lead Users. This fostered further research into the nature of user contribution in NPD and the characteristics of innovative and innovating users. This research stream has been labeled user innovation and looks at the utility gains for end-users when involved in innovation. More recently, open innovation approaches have been looking to integrate the insights and creative potential of users through various methods and tools. One of these approaches gaining ground are the so-called Living Labs, an innovation approach relying on intensive user involvement through co-creation, using real-life settings and a multi-stakeholder approach. Although user involvement is seen as key within these Living Labs, research integrating the insights from user innovation into ways of user selection and user contribution in Living Labs is scarce. Within this paper, we will explore some of the hypotheses from user innovation regarding user characteristics in three concrete Living Lab projects and assess whether these characteristics have an impact on the outcomes and on the user contribution. The results indicate that it is necessary to take into account domain-related as well as innovation-specific characteristics, otherwise this may lead to one-dimensional user contributions. Moreover, our research suggests that Living Labs are capable to facilitate a diversity of user contributions through a mix of self-selection and purposeful sampling

The potential of experimentation in business-to-business living labs

The demand for business-to-business (b-to-b) Living Lab projects is growing significantly within iMinds Living Labs. Real-life experimentation is a key requirement for Living Labs as it enables deeper insights in the potential success of the innovation. However, literature has not provided insights on whether the Living Lab methodology is an appropriate approach for real-life experimentation with b-to-b innovations and does not provide conditions where experimenting in b-to-b Living Lab projects is applicable. Within this paper we performed a cross-case analysis of eight b-to-b Living Lab cases. We conclude that real-life experimentation is possible in Living Lab projects but the possibilities vary on a case level. Three barriers have been identified that help to determine the possibility of real-life experimentation in a b-to-b Living Lab project: the technological complexity, the need for integration and the difficulty to identify testers. Finally, we also described how these blocking factors can be overcome. This can be interesting for the reader to identify whether real-life experimentation will be possible or not in a b-to-b context