Linking living lab characteristics and their outcomes : towards a conceptual framework

Despite almost a decade of living lab activity all over Europe, there still is a lack of empirical research into the practical implementation and the related outcomes of living labs. Therefore, this article proposes a framework to create a better understanding of the characteristics and outcomes of living labs. We investigate three living labs in Belgium and one in Finland to learn how the different building blocks of living lab environments contribute to the outputs of innovation projects launched within the lab. The findings imply that managers and researchers contemplating innovation in living labs need to consider the intended inputs and outcomes, and reframe their innovation activities accordingly. We formulate practical guidelines on how living labs should be managed on the levels of community interaction, stakeholder engagement, and methodological setup to succeed in implementing living lab projects and to create user-centred innovations. That way, living lab practitioners can work towards a more sustainable way of setting up living labs that can run innovation projects over a longer period of time. - See more at: http://timreview.ca/article/748#sthash.3xkJGgX9.dpu

Drivers for end-users' collaboration in participatory innovation development and living lab processes

Design for users often uses user-centered methods and methodologies. However, this requires an active participation of these users. In this article we explore the motivation and drivers for users to collaborate in innovation processes within a Living Lab environment and approach. We do this by means of data gathered during the course of four years of Living Lab-activity by iMinds-iLab.o on three levels: macro-level (general panel activity), meso-level (activity and motivation within a Living Lab), and micro-level (activity and motivation in a Living Lab-project)

From advanced omni-users to sporadic media users: a five-way segmentation of new media usage in Flanders' rapidly changing media environment

Media technology is becoming an ever more ubiquitous part of human life. To support the growing amount of research into new media and ICT, it is important to have some benchmarks regarding adoption and use diffusion of technologies and features regarding media consumption. This kind of research allows to fully grasp and understand the results of other studies and to put them into perspective. The current rapidly changing ICT and media environment makes it even more important to have the most recent understandings regarding current trends, habits and practices. To this end, a yearly survey, called Digimeter, is held amongst a representative sample (age, sex and province) of Flemish people age 16 and older. The segmentation presented in this paper is based on the latest Digimeter-data, collected in the period August 2012 - September 2012. In total 1.891 Flemish were surveyed ‘offline’ with CAPI-interviews and 785 respondents filled out the survey online. The total dataset consists of 2.676 respondents. The dimensions on which the K-means segmentation is based, are the intensity of use on the one hand and the amount of functionalities a media technology is used for on the other hand. This typology of use diffusion is based on the framework put forwards by Shih & Venkatesh (2004). The results of the segmentation distinguish between five different types of media users. The most advanced media usage is found in a smaller group of early birds with a high frequency and a high variety of media usage, the advanced omni-users. A second group of so called curious pleasure seekers also adopted a wide variety of media functionalities, but have a lower willingness to pay for the newest technologies. A large part of the Flemish population can be described as regular media users, but the largest part still consists of so called traditional media users. This group of people prefers to stick to the ‘traditional media’ and is not that much into new media at all. Finally, we distinguish the sporadic media users, a group with a very low media usage, knowledge and interest. Together with this segmentation, we will provide some general trends and tendencies with regards to current media technology adoption and usage. This way, this paper will provide a state-of-the-art insight into (new) media and ICT adoption and diffusion in Flanders

Why collaborate in long-term innovation research? An exploration of user motivations in Living Labs

One of the central elements of Living Labs is the focus on end user involvement in IT-product and service development processes (Ståhlbröst, 2008; Ståhlbröst et al., 2009). Whereas users definitely play a central role in Living Lab research, users’ motivations to participate in such long-term, rather intensive research and development tracks are nevertheless largely unexplored. The question is not any longer about why we should involve users, but rather how they should be involved in Living Lab research activities, and specifically in long-term collaboration initiatives. This article contributes to this gap in literature by providing an overview of current academic understandings and presenting the first results of our own research on this matter. So far, research on user motivations has been conducted from different academic disciplines and has been applied to different domains. Therefore, the concept of motivation has a rather complex nature. One of the most solid and cited academic theories that can be applied on innovation and user participation is the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988,1991). While this theory is rather broad, other authors specifically focus on user involvement in the development of innovations (e.g. Hassinger, 1959; Rogers, 2003). An important dimension in most of these theories is the end users’ need for certain solutions or specific products (e.g. Xu, 2007; Yang & Liu, 2011, Von Hippel, 2005). Current understandings of user motivations to become part of a Living Lab are limited, with exception of Leminen & Westerlund (2012) and Ståhlbröst (2012), but we can learn from findings on motivation in firm-hosted user communities. These studies show that end users are mainly driven by willingness to help, to support a good cause and to be part of a project realization (Berglin and Handberg, 2013). According to Lu and Wei (2011) personal interaction and exchanging information have the most positive effect on end user participation. Other authors such as Füller (2006) focus on the importance of intrinsic interest in the innovation activity and curiosity as the main motives for the consumers’ willingness to participate in new product developments. Participants in firm-hosted user communities are mostly hobbyists or people looking for firm recognition (Jeppesen & Frederiksen, 2006). In crowdsourcing literature, some of the main identified drivers of participation are idealistic reasons and career concerns (e.g. Hann et al., 2002) and building a meaningful product (Chandler & Kapelner, 2013). While intrinsic motivations seem to be very important (Kaufman, Veit and Schulz, 2011), Rogstadius et al. (2011) show that there also exists interaction between intrinsic motivations and extrinsic motivations, such as direct or indirect monetary compensation or recognition by others (Hars and Ou, 2002), for end users to participate in the innovation development process. Existing literature on motivations of user participation is rather diverse and uses different measures and point of views. On top of that, there is a clear gap in literature when it comes to user motivations to participate in Living Lab research. Therefore, the central research question in this paper is: “What drives users to participate in Living Labs and which parameters affect long-term or continuous participation?” Within this research question we also take into account the diversity of the different Living Lab stages in order to capture some of the complexity of this question. Besides assessing the global motivations, this article also elaborates on the differences between motivations to participate in a survey, an offline workshop and a field trial within a Living Lab context. Finally, an analysis is made of the phenomenon of repeated participation. The data for this research are collected in the Flemish Living Lab Platform, Mediatuin Living Lab and LeYLab. Measurements were conducted using a large scale survey (n:639), during nine co-creation sessions (n:63) and during a short survey after a field trial (n:26). The motivations to participate were being measured using binary variables measuring the following motivations: (1) collaboration with others (2) solving challenges (3) personal interest (4) being the first (5) contribute to society (6) curiosity (7) feeling part of a community (8) use of skills (9) learning (10) influence (11) fun (12) expanding the social network (13) expected professional benefit (14) financial or material incentive (15) doing friends a favor (16) peer influence and (17) duty. This article also compares these variables between three main Living Lab research activities: online surveys, co-creation sessions and field trials. The results of our explorative research show that for Living Lab participation collaboration with others is the most occurring motivation (83,3%), followed by solving challenges (81,2%) and personal interest (78,1%). Nevertheless, 56,5% also expects a financial/material reward. Only 39,1% expects to have an actual impact on the innovation. In face-to-face co-creation workshops, the motivation to have an influence is more occurring than in field trials and online surveys. Compared to co-creation sessions and field trials, curiosity is a less occurring motivation for participation in online surveys. Furthermore, co-creation sessions have the highest ratings for both the use of skills and the motivation to contribute to society. Overall, the main motivators to participate have an intrinsic nature, but our results show that for repeated participation, material incentives become more important and the motivation use of skills, decreases. These findings offer a deeper understanding of user motivations in Living Lab research. On a practical level, the most important dimensions should be central in the management of Living Lab user panels in order to reach maximum user engagement and to increase the quality of response. On a more theoretical level, these data are an exploration of user motivations, but should be the first step towards a theoretical model, which understands voluntary engagement in Living Lab research. Many future research questions exist on this largely unexplored domain, such as the relationship between motivations and panel drop-outs and a typology of different types of users in a Living Lab. These insights are important to assess the validity of Living Lab research as well

Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework

Despite almost a decade of living lab activity all over Europe, there still is a lack of empirical research into the practical implementation and the related outcomes of living labs. Therefore, this article proposes a framework to create a better understanding of the characteristics and outcomes of living labs. We investigate three living labs in Belgium and one in Finland to learn how the different building blocks of living lab environments contribute to the outputs of innovation projects launched within the lab. The findings imply that managers and researchers contemplating innovation in living labs need to consider the intended inputs and outcomes, and reframe their innovation activities accordingly. We formulate practical guidelines on how living labs should be managed on the levels of community interaction, stakeholder engagement, and methodological setup to succeed in implementing living lab projects and to create user-centred innovations. That way, living lab practitioners can work towards a more sustainable way of setting up living labs that can run innovation projects over a longer period of time

Uit passie of voor de poen? Een exploratie van gebruikersmotivaties voor deelname aan innovatie onderzoek in Living Labs

Innovatieonderzoek maakt vaak gebruik van methodes waarbij de gebruiker centraal staat. Het slagen van deze vorm van onderzoek is deels afhankelijk van een actieve participatie van deze gebruikers. In dit artikel verkennen we de motivaties van gebruikers om deel te nemen aan innovatieonderzoek binnen een Living Lab omgeving en benadering. We doen dit aan de hand van data verzameld tijdens de Living Lab activiteiten bij het iMinds-iLab.o panel van de afgelopen vier jaar. Enerzijds voeren we een comparatieve case studie uit bij 20 verschillende proeftuincases van iLab.o (2013), anderzijds werd over de verschillende projecten heen (2009-2013) op zoek gegaan naar alpha users, gebruikers die aan minstens 8 verschillende onderzoeksfasen deelnamen. Van deze alpha users werden 15 gebruikers geïnterviewd over hun activiteiten en motivaties binnen een Living Lab project