Innovation in the Public Sector: Exploring the Characteristics and Potential of Living Labs and Innovation Labs

Living Labs and innovation labs share a lot of common traits and characteristics and are both linked to the public sector, but appear in separated literature streams. Both concepts can be regarded as coping mechanisms to deal with contemporary changes in the innovation landscape and within society as a whole. Both also build further on past initiatives and practices, but both concepts are also struggling to find their own clear identity and raison d’etre. As they are largely practice-driven, the theoretical underpinnings and foundations are mostly established ‘post hoc’, making sense of current practice, rather than carefully researching and planning the further development. 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 state-of-the-art in terms of empirical research into both concepts. 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, that can be regarded as initiators of innovation, and Living Labs, that can be regarded as executors of innovation. By doing this, this paper adds to the conceptual development of both concepts and proposes a roadmap for the further integration of both theory and practice of Living Labs and innovation labs.

[1]  N. Null The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths , 2015 .

[2]  Krassimira Paskaleva,et al.  The smart city: A nexus for open innovation? , 2011 .

[3]  Laurie M. Anderson,et al.  Understanding evidence: a statewide survey to explore evidence-informed public health decision-making in a local government setting , 2014, Implementation Science.

[4]  Esteve Almirall,et al.  Mapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies , 2012 .

[5]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Innovation in Governance and Public Services: Past and Present , 2005 .

[6]  Brian Kahin,et al.  Democratizing Innovation: The Evolving Phenomenon of User Innovation , 2006 .

[7]  M. Westerlund,et al.  Living labs as open-innovation networks , 2012 .

[8]  Pieter Ballon,et al.  Test and Experimentation Platforms for Broadband Innovation: Examining European Practice , 2005 .

[9]  M. Sawhney,et al.  Communities of Creation: Managing Distributed Innovation in Turbulent Markets , 2000 .

[10]  Seppo Leminen,et al.  Coordination and Participation in Living Lab Networks , 2013 .

[11]  Pelle Ehn,et al.  The Art and Science of Designing Computer Artifacts , 1991, Scand. J. Inf. Syst..

[12]  Mark H. Moore,et al.  Break-Through Innovations and Continuous Improvement: Two Different Models of Innovative Processes in the Public Sector , 2005 .

[13]  Banny Banerjee,et al.  Tipping Toward Sustainability: Emerging Pathways of Transformation , 2011, AMBIO.

[14]  S. Borins,et al.  Leadership and innovation in the public sector , 2002 .

[15]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  A set of key principles to assess the impact of Living Labs , 2012 .

[16]  L. Kimbell Applying Design Approaches to Policy Making: Discovering Policy Lab , 2015 .

[17]  Veiko Lember,et al.  Can we measure public sector innovation? A literature review , 2013 .

[18]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  The Logic of Open Innovation: Managing Intellectual Property , 2003 .

[19]  Tim Kastelle,et al.  Public sector innovation research: What’s next? , 2010 .

[20]  V. Bekkers,et al.  Innovation in the Public Sector: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda , 2015 .