Towards Third-Generation Living Lab Networks in Cities

Living labs are increasingly accepted as a prominent form of open innovation (e.g., Bergvall-Kåreborn et al., 2015; Brankaert et al., 2015; Guimont & Lapointe, 2016; Hakkarainen & Hyysalo, 2016). The roots of the concept may be traced back to Knight (1749), who referred to “living laboratory” as the elements and conditions of a body and an environment of an experiment. More recent studies apply living labs in heterogeneous fields and suggest that this phenomenon provides ample research opportunities (cf. Leminen, 2015). Following the definition of Westerlund and Leminen (2011), the present study views living labs as: “physical regions or virtual realities, or interaction spaces, in which stakeholders form public–private–people partnerships (4Ps) of companies, public agencies, universities, users, and other stakeholders, all collaborating for creation, prototyping, validating, and testing of new technologies, services, products, and systems in real-life contexts.” Although the literature on living lab is rich with various concepts, methodologies, research streams, and tools (Dutilleul et al., 2010; Følstad, 2008; Leminen & Westerlund, 2016, 2017), studies increasingly document the plurality of living labs using different conceptualizations (e.g., Leminen et al., 2012; Rits et al., 2015; Savelkoul & Peutz, 2017; Schuurman et al., 2016; Ståhlbröst & Lassinantti, 2015). Among them, Leminen and colleagues (2012) classify living labs as user-, enabler-, utilizer-, or provider-driven. Moreover, the outcomes of innovation activities are linked with the characteristics of the living lab, its driving party, and the selected strategy – and the living lab’s structure is that of an open innovation network (Leminen & Westerlund, 2013; Leminen et al., 2016; Steen & van Bueren, 2017; Veeckman et al., 2013). Similar to the notion of open innovation networks (Jarvenpaa & Wernick, 2012), living labs typically comprise different stakeholders, such as suppliers, customers and users, competitors, research units of universities, and other institutions and organizations, all of whom brings their interests to the collaboration and innovation. Many cities engage in diverse experimentation, innovation, and development activities with a broad variety of environments and stakeholders to the benefit of citizens, companies, municipalities, and other organizations. Hence, this article discusses such engagement in terms of next-generation living lab networks in the city context. In so doing, the study contributes to the discussion on living labs by introducing a framework of collaborative innovation networks in cities and suggesting a typology of third-generation living labs. Our framework is characterized by diverse platforms and participation approaches, resulting in four distinctive modes of collaborative innovation networks where the city is: i) a provider, ii) a neighbourhood participator, iii) a catalyst, or iv) a rapid experimenter. The typology is based on an analysis of 118 interviews with participants in six Finnish cities and reveals various ways to organize innovation activities in the city context. In particular, cities can benefit from innovation networks by simultaneously exploiting multiple platforms such as living labs for innovation. We conclude by discussing implications to theory and practice, and suggesting directions for future research. All the evolution we know of proceeds from the vague to the definite.

[1]  M. Patton Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd ed. , 1990 .

[2]  Carl W. Roberts,et al.  Text analysis for the social sciences : methods for drawing statistical inferences from texts and transcripts , 1997 .

[3]  Jason L. Jensen,et al.  Cumulating the Intellectual Gold of Case Study Research , 2001 .

[4]  Kimberly A. Neuendorf,et al.  The Content Analysis Guidebook , 2001 .

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

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

[7]  Esteve Almirall,et al.  Living Labs: arbiters of mid- and ground-level innovation , 2010, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[8]  Mika Westerlund,et al.  Managing the Challenges of Becoming an Open Innovation Company: Experiences from Living Labs , 2011 .

[9]  Andreas Menychtas,et al.  Is there a Need for a Cloud Platform for European Smart Cities , 2011 .

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

[11]  S. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Open Innovation Networks: The Evolution of Bureaucratic Control , 2012 .

[12]  Mika Westerlund,et al.  Towards innovation in Living Labs networks , 2012 .

[13]  Ingrid Mulder,et al.  Living Labbing the Rotterdam Way: Co-Creation as an Enabler for Urban Innovation , 2012 .

[14]  M. Westerlund,et al.  Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes : Towards a Conceptual Framework , 2013 .

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

[16]  Nils Walravens,et al.  Platform business models for smart cities: from control and value to governance and public value , 2013, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[17]  Users as content creators, aggregators and distributors at Citilab Living Lab , 2014 .

[18]  M. Westerlund,et al.  Actor roles and role patterns influencing innovation in living labs , 2014 .

[19]  Anna-Greta Nyström,et al.  On becoming creative consumers – user roles in living labs networks , 2014 .

[20]  Pia Helminen,et al.  Collaborative futuring with and by makers , 2014 .

[21]  C. Dell’Era,et al.  Living Lab: A Methodology between User‐Centred Design and Participatory Design , 2014 .

[22]  Mika Westerlund,et al.  Incremental and Radical Service Innovation in Living Labs , 2014 .

[23]  Mika Westerlund,et al.  The Grey Areas Between Open and Closed in Innovation Networks , 2015 .

[24]  Anna-Greta Nyström,et al.  A typology of creative consumers in living labs , 2015 .

[25]  Aarnout Brombacher,et al.  Innovate dementia: the development of a living lab protocol to evaluate interventions in context , 2015 .

[26]  Markku Markkula,et al.  Making Smart Regions Smarter: Smart Specialization and the Role of Universities in Regional Innovation Ecosystems , 2015 .

[27]  Pieter Ballon,et al.  Exploring the Benefits of Integrating Business Model Research within Living Lab Projects , 2015 .

[28]  Sampsa Hyysalo,et al.  Anticipated environmental sustainability of personal fabrication , 2015 .

[29]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Leveraging Living Lab Innovation Processes through Crowdsourcing , 2015 .

[30]  Anna Ståhlbröst,et al.  Places and Spaces within Living Labs , 2015 .

[31]  Mika Westerlund,et al.  Cities as Collaborative Innovation Platforms , 2015 .

[32]  Seppo Leminen Living Labs as Open Innovation Networks - Networks, Roles and Innovation Outcomes , 2015 .

[33]  E. Heiskanen,et al.  Diversity and Change of User Driven Innovation Modes in Companies , 2016, Managing Innovation.

[34]  Dimitri Schuurman,et al.  Innovation in the Public Sector: Exploring the Characteristics and Potential of Living Labs and Innovation Labs , 2017 .

[35]  Mohamed Reda Khomsi The Smart City Ecosystem as an Innovation Model: Lessons from Montreal , 2016 .

[36]  David Guimont,et al.  Empowering Local Tourism Providers to Innovate through a Living Lab Process: Does Scale Matter? , 2016 .

[37]  Mokter Hossain,et al.  Grassroots Innovation: A Systematic Review of Two Decades of Research , 2016 .

[38]  Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko,et al.  City-as-a-Platform: The Rise of Participatory Innovation Platforms in Finnish Cities , 2016 .

[39]  Mika Westerlund,et al.  A framework for understanding the different research avenues of living labs , 2016 .

[40]  P. Ballon,et al.  The Impact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contributions and Outcomes , 2016 .

[41]  Jukka Ojasalo,et al.  Collaborative Innovation with External Actors : An Empirical Study on Open Innovation Platforms in Smart Cities , 2016 .

[42]  Anna-Greta Nyström,et al.  The effect of network structure on radical innovation in living labs , 2016 .

[43]  S. Hyysalo,et al.  The Evolution of Intermediary Activities: Broadening the Concept of Facilitation in Living Labs , 2016 .

[44]  Tuija Hirvikoski,et al.  KYKY Living Lab handbook for co-creation by schools and companies , 2016 .

[45]  Enhancing Early Innovation in an Urban Living Lab : Lessons from Espoo, Finland , 2016 .

[46]  Jukka Ojasalo,et al.  Integrating Open Innovation Platforms in Public Sector Decision Making: Empirical Results from Smart City Research , 2016 .

[47]  Louise Savelkoul,et al.  Needsfinding in Living Labs: A Structured Research Approach , 2017 .

[48]  S. Hyysalo,et al.  Organisational adoption of the lead user method: a follow-up study on intentions versus actions , 2017 .

[49]  Mika Westerlund,et al.  Categorization of Innovation Tools in Living Labs , 2017 .

[50]  Anne L. J. Ter Wal,et al.  The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis , 2016 .

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

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