Drop-out in Living Lab field Test: analysing Consequences and some Recommendations

Involving individual users in the process of information systems development is a key dimension of open innovation. Living Labs are socio-technical systems that facilitate information systems devel ...

[1]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems , 1987, MIS Q..

[2]  W. Neuman,et al.  Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 2002 .

[3]  Debby Hindus,et al.  The Importance of Homes in Technology Research , 1999, CoBuild.

[4]  Ian Alexander,et al.  An introduction to qualitative research , 2000, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[5]  Michael D. McNeese,et al.  Advancing Socio-Technical Systems Design Via the Living Laboratory , 2000 .

[6]  Benjamin B. M. Shao,et al.  The relationship between user participation and system success: a simultaneous contingency approach , 2000, Inf. Manag..

[7]  Richard Baskerville,et al.  Information Systems as a Reference Discipline , 2002, MIS Q..

[8]  A. Pietilä,et al.  Ethical issues in participatory action research. , 2004, Scandinavian journal of caring sciences.

[9]  Henry W. Chesbrough,et al.  Open innovation : ハーバード流イノベーション戦略のすべて , 2004 .

[10]  Froukje Sleeswijk Visser,et al.  Re-using users: co-create and co-evaluate , 2006, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[11]  Bonnie Kaplan,et al.  Qualitative Research Methods for Evaluating Computer Information Systems , 2005 .

[12]  Geir Kjetil Hanssen,et al.  Agile customer engagement: a longitudinal qualitative case study , 2006, ISESE '06.

[13]  Christopher L. Carr,et al.  Reciprocity , 2006, Commun. ACM.

[14]  Enid Mumford,et al.  The story of socio‐technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential , 2006, Inf. Syst. J..

[15]  Henrik Eriksson,et al.  Integrating the Rational Unified Process and participatory design for development of socio-technical systems: a user participative approach , 2007 .

[16]  Elaine Toms,et al.  What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[17]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Forming future IT: the living lab way of user involvement , 2008 .

[18]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Participatory design: one step back or two steps forward? , 2008, PDC.

[19]  Brian Whitworth,et al.  Systems Design with the Socio-Technical Walkthrough , 2009 .

[20]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  A milieu for innovation : defining living labs , 2009 .

[21]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Concept Design with a Living Lab Approach , 2009 .

[22]  Pieter Jan Stappers,et al.  Co-creating in practice: Results and challenges , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE).

[23]  Hans Schaffers,et al.  Living labs as instruments for business and social innovation in rural areas , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE).

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

[25]  Kristina Risom Jespersen,et al.  User-Involvement And Open Innovation: The Case Of Decision-Maker Openness , 2010 .

[26]  Radhika Jain.  Investigation of Governance Mechanisms for Crowdsourcing Initiatives , 2010, AMCIS.

[27]  Corinna Ogonowski,et al.  Steps toward a living lab for socialmedia concept evaluation and continuous user-involvement , 2010, EuroITV.

[28]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Exploring users motivation in innovation communities , 2011 .

[29]  Dahui Li,et al.  Task Design, Motivation, and Participation in Crowdsourcing Contests , 2011, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[30]  Rudy Hirschheim,et al.  A Glorious and Not-So-Short History of the Information Systems Field , 2012, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

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

[32]  M. Hossain,et al.  Users' motivation to participate in online crowdsourcing platforms , 2012, 2012 International Conference on Innovation Management and Technology Research.

[33]  Javier Barcenilla,et al.  Ethical issues raised by the new orientations in ergonomics and living labs. , 2012, Work.

[34]  Patrick Olivier,et al.  Configuring participation: on how we involve people in design , 2013, CHI.

[35]  Gert-Jan de Vreede,et al.  Conceptual Foundations of Crowdsourcing: A Review of IS Research , 2013, 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[36]  Volker Wulf,et al.  Designing for the living room: long-term user involvement in a living lab , 2013, CHI.

[37]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Using a Living Lab Methodology for Developing Energy Savings Solutions , 2013, AMCIS.

[38]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Voluntary Contributors in Open Innovation Processes , 2013 .

[39]  Fabio Pianesi,et al.  Exploring long-term participation within a living lab: satisfaction, motivations and expectations , 2014, NordiCHI.

[40]  Ignasi Capdevila,et al.  How Can Living Labs Enhance the Participants’ Motivation in Different Types of Innovation Activities? , 2014 .

[41]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Make way for the new wave : Living Labs as a DSR Approach , 2014 .

[42]  James R Cook.  Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research , 2014 .

[43]  Muneera Bano,et al.  A systematic review on the relationship between user involvement and system success , 2015, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[44]  Sandro Montresor,et al.  The open eco-innovation mode. An empirical investigation of eleven European countries , 2015 .

[45]  L. Bengtsson,et al.  Open to a Select Few? Matching Partners and Knowledge Content for Open Innovation Performance , 2015 .

[46]  Ward Ooms,et al.  Use of Social Media in Inbound Open Innovation: Building Capabilities for Absorptive Capacity , 2015 .

[47]  Volker Wulf,et al.  At Home with Users: A Comparative View of Living Labs , 2015, Interact. Comput..

[48]  Dimitri Schuurman,et al.  Bridging the gap between Open and User Innovation? : exploring the value of Living Labs as a means to structure user contribution and manage distributed innovation , 2015 .

[49]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  How to Sustain User Engagement over Time: A Research Agenda , 2016, AMCIS.

[50]  B. Bergvall-Kåreborn,et al.  Towards a User Engagement Process Model in Open Innovation , 2016 .

[51]  D. Schuurman,et al.  Factors Affecting the Attrition of Test Users During Living Lab Field Trials , 2016 .

[52]  Sophie Claude,et al.  The Living Lab methodology for complex environments: Insights from the thermal refurbishment of a historical district in the city of Cahors, France , 2017 .

[53]  Birgitta Bergvall-Kåreborn,et al.  Drop-out in Living Lab Field Tests : A Contribution to the Definition and the Taxonomy , 2017 .

[54]  M. Westerlund,et al.  Towards Third-Generation Living Lab Networks in Cities , 2017 .

[55]  E. V. Bueren,et al.  The Defining Characteristics of Urban Living Labs , 2017 .