Living labs in health innovation: Critical factors in their application

The focus of this paper is on living labs for health innovation. Health care (cure) systems are under pressure as a consequence of the ageing population and fast increasing population with chronic conditions, in a situation of decreasing financial budgets. At the same time, the valorization of health inventions is stumbled by many blocks. Living labs as an innovation tool, whether conceived as delimited environments for co-creation and development or as local/regional platforms, may offer various solutions. The paper identifies factors that hamper the valorization of knowledge in general and it identifies critical factors in the application of medical living labs, using the literature and five case studies.

[1]  Marina van Geenhuizen,et al.  From Ivory Tower to Living Lab: Accelerating the Use of University Knowledge , 2013 .

[2]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Living Lab: an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation , 2009 .

[3]  Leif Hommen,et al.  The paradox of high R&D input and low innovation output: Sweden , 2008 .

[4]  B. Nooteboom.  A Cognitive Theory of the Firm , 2005 .

[5]  Rna Rudi Bekkers,et al.  Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? , 2008 .

[6]  Ian Robinson,et al.  Developing medical device technologies from users' perspectives: A theoretical framework for involving users in the development process , 2009, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[7]  Caroline Hussler,et al.  Taking the ivory from the tower to coat the economic world: Regional strategies to make science useful , 2010 .

[8]  Mike Wright,et al.  Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy , 2006 .

[9]  Rna Rudi Bekkers,et al.  The Performance of University-Industry Collaborations: Empirical evidence from the Netherlands , 2011 .

[10]  A. Salter,et al.  Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration , 2009 .

[11]  Bj⊘rn Asheim,et al.  Face-to-Face, Buzz, and Knowledge Bases: Sociospatial Implications for Learning, Innovation, and Innovation Policy , 2007 .

[12]  J. Marshall.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2004 .

[13]  W. Mensink,et al.  Unpacking European Living Labs: Analysing Innovation’s Social Dimensions , 2010 .

[14]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Services of living labs and their networks , 2007 .

[15]  Priya Nambisan,et al.  Models of consumer value cocreation in health care , 2009, Health care management review.

[16]  E. Hippel,et al.  Lead users: a source of novel product concepts , 1986 .

[17]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  A Cognitive Theory of the Firm: Learning, Governance and Dynamic Capabilities , 2009 .

[18]  A. Geuna,et al.  The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature , 2009 .

[19]  E. Hippel,et al.  Customers As Innovators: A New Way to Create Value , 2002 .

[20]  Toke Bjerregaard.  Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration , 2010 .

[21]  Asbjørn Følstad,et al.  Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Information and Communication Technology: A Literature Review , 2008 .

[22]  Marina van Geenhuizen,et al.  Social networks, university spin‐off growth and promises of ‘living labs’ , 2011 .

[23]  Van Geenhuizen,et al.  Critical Factors in ‘Livings Labs’ for New Health Concepts and Medical Technology , 2012 .

[24]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation , 1996 .

[25]  Anders Broström,et al.  The Triple Helix : University-industry-government innovation in action , 2011 .