Content uploaded by Anna Ståhlbröst
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anna Ståhlbröst
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Carina Ihlström Eriksson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Carina Ihlström Eriksson
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Milieu for Innovation – Defining Living Labs
Birgitta Bergvall-Kåreborn
Luleå University of Technology, 971 87 Luleå, Sweden
E-mail: birgitta.bergvall-kareborn@ltu.se
Carina Ihlström Eriksson
Halmstad University, P.O. Box 823, 301 18 Halmstad, Sweden
E-mail: carina.ihlstrom_eriksson@hh.se
Anna Ståhlbröst
Luleå University of Technology, 971 87 Luleå, Sweden
E-mail: anna.stahlbrost@ltu.se
Jesper Svensson
Halmstad University, P.O. Box 823, 301 18 Halmstad, Sweden
E-mail: jesper.svensson@hh.se
*Authors in alphabetical order
Abstract: A new trend of user involvement in open innovation processes has
emerged. Concurring with this trend the Living Lab concept has been re-
vitalized. This concept has attracted attention lately, but there exist no coherent
view. In this paper we discuss and define the concept and propose five key
components and five key principles for Living Labs based on experiences from
over 30 development and research projects within two Living Labs, Botnia
Living Lab and Halmstad Living Lab. The key components are: ICT &
Infrastructure; Management; Partners & Users; Research; and Approach. The
key principles are: Openness; Influence; Realism; Value; and Sustainability.
Our proposed definition of a Living Lab is: A Living Lab is a user-centric
innovation milieu built on every-day practice and research, with an approach
that facilitates user influence in open and distributed innovation processes
engaging all relevant partners in real-life contexts, aiming to create sustainable
values.
Keywords: open innovation; living lab; definition; principles; openness;
influence; realism; value; sustainability; users
1 Introduction
Open innovation has attracted a lot of interest among scholars from different disciplines.
Research on open innovation argues that making use of external as well as internal
resources increases firms’ ability to innovate (Chesbrough, 2006). In contrast, closed
innovation represents a paradigm that primary merely uses internal resources within a
firm’s innovation processes. Open innovation is a paradigm that transcends the
boundaries of the firm in creating customer value (Chesbrough, 2006).
Adding to this movement there is a trend to involve end-users in the innovation
processes to ensure useful and usable products and services. There are different
approaches to how this can be achieved; two of the more well-known approaches are the
“lead user” concept by von Hippel (von Hippel, 2005) and “crowdsourcing” by Howe
(Howe, 2008). Lead users are defined as users that are ahead of the majority of the
general market with respect to a specific trend and are expected to gain relatively high
benefits from a solution to the needs they have encountered (von Hippel 2005). As such,
they could be very useful to involve in firms’ innovation processes. Crowdsourcing
represents the act of a company or institution taking a function once performed by
employees or suppliers and outsourcing it to an undefined (and generally large) network
of people in the form of an open call (Howe, 2008).
Lately, a new phenomenon is emerging, called Living Lab (Eriksson et al., 2006;
Bergvall-Kåreborn & Ståhlbröst, 2009; Svensson & Ihlström Eriksson, 2009a).
Concurring with the open innovation paradigm, Living Labs draw on the notion of
external ideas as a resource in innovation. Such an approach primarily aims at supporting
innovation processes that lead to usable products and services. In a Living Lab approach
e.g. researchers, firms, users, public partners and stakeholders of emerging technology
collaborate in innovation processes in real-world settings.
Comparing Living Lab with open innovation we identify three differences (Table 1):
Table 1 Living Lab compared to open innovation
Business to consumer with a clear focus on user Business to business (Chesbrough, 2006)
involvement (Ståhlbröst & Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2008;
Svensson et al ., 2010)
Focus on the product/service (Eriksson et al., 2006) Focus on the business model (Chesbrough &
Appleyard, 2007)
External input in the whole innovation process External input focuses on ideas and technology
(Svensson & Ihlström Eriksson, 2009a; Ståhlbröst, (Smith, 2004)
2008)
Living Lab Open Innovation
Due to the newness of the Living Lab concept, there is a need for clarification. Therefore,
the aim of this paper is to add to the existing literature on open innovation by describing
and defining the Living Lab concept. Botnia Living Lab is situated in the north and
Halmstad Living Lab is situated in the south of Sweden. Together the Living Labs have
experience from over 30 research and development projects.
2 Defining Living Lab
The concept of Living Labs originates from Professor William Mitchell at MIT, where it
initially was used to observe the living patterns of users in a smart/future home for a
period of time. Today, there is an ongoing trend in Europe to tailor a Living Lab concept
in wider use to “enhance innovation, inclusion, usefulness and usability of ICT and its
applications in the society” (Eriksson, et al., 2005, p. 5). In order to join forces,
coordinate activities and share learning experiences, a European Network of Living Labs
(ENOLL) [1] has developed. Today, the network consists of 129 Living Labs after the
third recruitment wave have finished. Both Botnia Living Lab and Halmstad Living Lab
are members of ENOLL.
There exists no coherent definition of Living Labs, although several actors have
expressed their own definitions. Below we will exemplify with several definitions to
show the diversity in the field and argue for our proposed definition.
There exists definitions from networks, EU-projects and funders of research:
according to the European Network of Living Labs [1] a Living Lab is “both a
methodology for User Driven Innovation (UDI) and the organizations that primarily use
it” while the European project CoreLabs [2] defines Living Labs as “a system enabling
people, users/consumers of services and product, to take active roles as contributors and
co-creators in the research, development, and innovation process”. Furthermore, Living
Lab can be viewed as “an arena for innovation. It is a structure and a long-term societal
resource rather than related to a certain project. Within this structural framework,
experiences, routines and conditions are built to develop ideas into innovations”
(VINNOVA, 2009).
Several scholars have also presented definitions: Eriksson et al., (2005) defined
Living Lab as “a user-centric research methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating
and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real life contexts” (p. 4). Ballon
et al., (2005) define Living Lab as an experimentation environment in which technology
is given shape in real-life contexts and in which (end) users are considered ‘co-
producers’. Moreover, Feurstein et al., (2008) describes Living Lab as a systemic
innovation approach in which all stakeholders in a product, service or application
participate directly in the development process.
Hence, the concept of Living Labs can be seen as a methodology, an organization, a
system, an arena, environment and/or a systemic innovation approach. Based on our
experience in the area we argue that a Living Lab is both a milieu (environment, arena)
and an approach (methodology, innovation approach). Furthermore, we base our
definition on the components and principles that characterize Living Labs (see below).
Therefore, our definition is as follows:
A Living Lab is a user-centric innovation milieu built on every-day practice
and research, with an approach that facilitates user influence in open and
distributed innovation processes engaging all relevant partners in real-life
contexts, aiming to create sustainable values.
Since Living Lab is a rather new phenomenon that emerges in such diverse areas as e.g.
ICT-development, health services, and rural development, it is a hard concept to describe.
Due to this, different suggestions for key elements and characteristic have been suggested
(see for example Eriksson et al., 2006; Feurstein et al., 2008; Mulder et al., 2007). To
coordinate the on-going activities around Europe towards the establishment of a
European Network of Living Labs, a Coordination Action project called CoreLabs was
developed and carried out between 2006 and 2007. From this project a number of reports
were delivered with the aim to gain insights into the Living Lab phenomena. Based on
these reports, but modified according to our own experience (Bergvall-Kåreborn et al.,
2009; Bergvall-Kåreborn & Ståhlbröst, 2009; Ståhlbröst, 2008; Ståhlbröst & Bergvall-
Kåreborn, 2008, Svensson et al., 2010, Ihlström et al., 2009), we have defined five key
components of a Living Lab milieu and five key principles for the Living Lab approach.
These are presented in the two following subsections.
2.1 Living Lab Key Components
The key components of Living Labs are illustrated in figure 1. The ICT & Infrastructure
component outlines the role that new and existing ICT technology can play to facilitate
new ways of cooperating and co-creating new innovations among stakeholders.
Management represent the ownership, organization, and policy aspects of a Living Lab, a
Living Lab can be managed by e.g. consultants, companies or researchers. The Living
Lab Partners & Users bring their own specific wealth of knowledge and expertise to the
collective, helping to achieve boundary spanning knowledge transfer. Research
symbolizes the collective learning and reflection that take place in the Living Lab, and
should result in contributions to both theory and practice. Technological research partners
can also provide direct access to research which can benefit the outcome of a
technological innovation. Finally, Approach stand for methods and techniques that
emerge as best practice within the Living Labs environment.
Figure1 Living Lab Key Components
Botnia Living Lab is hosted by the Centre for Distance-spanning Technology (CDT) at
Luleå University of Technology. A board of directors with industrial majority sets the
strategic direction for the Living Lab while CDT provides the technical infrastructure,
manages the partnerships, and is responsible for tactical planning and daily operations.
The research carried out at Botina centers around ICT products and services and includes
areas such as technical infrastructure; user centered and context aware applications;
business models; and new methods and tools suitable for Living Lab.
Halmstad Living Lab is hosted by Halmstad University, which also provides the
infrastructure and ICT, and is managed by researchers. The partners are e.g. SMEs in the
health technology sector, NGOs, municipalities and media companies with different user
groups such as seniors or media users. The research conducted in the Living Lab
concerns open digital innovation processes and methods and tools for multi stakeholder
involvement processes. Special attention is given to the Living Lab approach and how to
find methods and tools for involving stakeholders in distributed activities.
2.2 Living Lab Key Principles
The five key principles for Living Labs are illustrated in figure 2. Below we describe the
five key principles: Openness, Influence, Realism, Value and Sustainability. As the
Living Lab concept is multi-disciplinary, we will discuss these principles with reference
to literature from related areas such as economy, innovation, organization, information
systems, participatory design and human-computer interaction.
Figure 2 Living Lab Key Principles
Openness
In open innovation literature (Chesbrough, 2006) the perspective of openness is of
concerns firms driving innovation processes to reach for example new products, services
or new markets. However, openness can also be discussed based on e.g. an individual,
team or firm level. In these cases openness concern how to support open mindsets on an
individual or team level or openness and knowledge transfer between different levels in
an organization. Openness can also be seen as an overarching philosophy that is being
used as the basis of how various groups and organizations operate.
In a Living Lab, digital innovations are created and validated in collaborative multi-
contextual empirical real-world environments. Openness is crucial for the innovation
process in a Living Lab, where it is essential to gather a multitude of perspectives that
might lead to faster and more successful development, new ideas and unexpected
business openings in markets. However, to be able to co-operate and share in a multi-
stakeholder milieu, different levels of openness between the stakeholders seems to be a
requirement. To stimulate creativity and create new ideas that can be turned into
applications and bring value through use, Eriksson et al. (2005) suggest open
collaboration between people of different backgrounds, with different perspectives that
have different knowledge and experiences. More people, including consumers, need to be
involved in the innovation process. This is argued by Thomke and von Hippel (2002)
who claim that users are often the source of innovations. The concept of user driven
innovation (von Hippel, 1988) suggests that users are capable innovators. Thereby it can
be argued that involvement of end users or consumers in the innovation process is
important, hence they should be vital part of an innovation system.
It could be expected from a business and innovation perspective that smaller
enterprises might have strong incentives to be involved in Living Lab processes. Small
and micro enterprises often lack the resources and knowledge that larger organizations
have. One way to strengthen smaller enterprises’ innovation capacity is by collaborating
with other actors such as academia, the public sector and other enterprises (Eriksson et
al., 2005). Living Lab and similar innovation milieus might thereby strengthen the
innovation capacity due to cross-fertilization and open collaboration between different
actors. The Living Lab may also provide an arena where different stakeholders are
needed to in order to commercialize and bring products and services to market, either
support existing relations between business stakeholders or as a milieu where new
partners get the chance to meet and collaborate.
In our projects we have experienced openness on different levels, but we have also
experienced when processes close up due to e.g. IPR issues. The challenge is to create a
milieu where stakeholders are motivated to and have incitement to share knowledge.
Specifically business stakeholders might need economically tangible incitement whereas
user groups often are driven by other motives. These motives need to be identified and
acted upon. Furthermore, the motives for engagement might also differ quite radically
depending on the specific Living Lab context.
Influence
A key aspect of the influence principle is to view "users" as active and competent
partners and domain experts. As such their involvement and influence in innovation and
development processes shaping society is essential. Equally important is to base these
innovations on the needs and desires of potential users, and to realize that these users
often represent a heterogeneous group. This means utilizing the creative power of Living
Lab partners, whilst facilitating their right to influence these innovations. By stressing the
decision making power of potential users and domain experts the principle differs from
related concepts such as participation, involvement, and engagement which instead focus
on the activities carried out by users and users' psychological state (Barki & Hartwick,
1989; Baroudi et al., 1986).
In order to reduce the diversity and ambiguity related to the principle of influence,
and to increase its positive impact in practical studies, it is prudent to define and explain
the concept as clearly as possible. To manage this we propose three dimensions linked to
influence: why, who, and how. When it comes to the why of influence, two motivations
can be identified in the literature: a political and a technical perspective. The political
perspective is based on the central tenet that users have a moral right to influence
technological decisions affecting their private and professional life. The technical
perspective is founded on the notion that the effective participation of skilled users can
contribute to high quality products as well as system acceptance. The who of influence is
related to making reflective choices on who to involve in a particular study while the how
refers to the process of participation and on different degrees of participation and
influence linked to different partners.
Based on our experience the meaning assigned to the principle of influence differs
quite a lot among different partners and users. However, to take the step from
participation or involvement to influence, domain experts' and users' needs and ideas
should be clearly traceable in concepts, prototypes, and the finished product. In all our
projects users have exercised influence over the design of the final systems; their needs
and suggestions have influenced the design and been implemented as functions and
features in the prototypes and final systems. However, in most projects they have been
given this influence because the partners kept open minds and wanted to base the solution
on user needs rather than on their own predetermined view on what users like.
However, there is a reoccurring difference between how users and domain experts are
portrayed and the actual roles, activities and responsibilities assigned to them (Beath &
Orlikowski, 1994). While users often are described as drivers and shapers of technology
they still very often are treated as a homogeneous and passive group that carry out
activities assigned to them. Hence, one important issue that Living Labs need to manage
is how to assure that participation, influence and responsibility among different partners
harmonizes with each other and with the ideology of the user influence of the project.
Realism
One of the cornerstones for the Living Lab approach is that innovation activities should
be carried out in a realistic, natural, real life setting. Orchestrating realistic use situation
and user behavior is seen as one way to generate results that are valid for real markets in
Living Lab operations (CoreLabs 2007). However, the aim to create and facilitate realism
is an endeavor that needs to be grappled with on different levels and in correlation to
different elements such as contexts, users, use situations, technologies, and partners. The
principle does not separate between the physical and the online world. Instead we argue
that activities carried out in both worlds are as real and realistic to its actors. Being
inspired by the online reality we argue that IT based tools and methodologies can
function as twin-world mediators (Attasiriluk, et al., 2009) which facilitate the
interconnection between real-world devices and their virtual counterparts. Following
Mingers and Willcocks (2004) we also argue that ideas, concepts, meanings, and
categories are equally real as physical objects. These are emergent from, but irreducible
to, the physical world and have causal effects both on the physical world and the social
world. This means that to understand roles, behavior, and relationships related to the
innovation process we need to go beneath the surface and not only focus on what is
observable.
Relating realism to Checkland’s real-world concept (Checkland, 1999), means that
the “real-world” situation reflects people’s interpretation of their current situation.
People’s interpretations and how they perceive the situation is related to people’s
worldview, or what they view as important for them; hence, what is viewed as the reality
for one person does not necessarily mean the same for another person. This means that
what is important and motivating for one partner, is not necessarily important to another
partner, which is a rationale for why it is crucial to involve a diversity of perspectives in
the innovation process.
When it comes to facilitating as realistic use situations as possible two different
approaches can be observed in relation to Living Labs. In the first approach,
environments for test and evaluation of products or services are created in ways that are
similar to the real world (Markopoulos & Rauterberg 2000), while in the second approach
products and services are tested and evaluated in users’ real world environments
(Schumacher & Niitamo 2008).
Another important aspect related to the principle of realism, but not specifically
addressed by the principle, is the fact that different stakeholders face different realities.
This means that what is important and motivating for one stakeholder, is not necessarily
important to another stakeholder. For example, as a researcher, the reality can be focused
on producing scientific results, while SMEs’ reality can be to earn money by developing
a new IT system. Different perspectives and views on the reality are also often mentioned
reasons for why it is crucial to involve users as well as many different stakeholders in the
development process. The reality aspect is also considered by focusing on involving real
users, not using personas or other user representative theories.
Value
The notion of value and value creation in a Living Lab concerns several different aspects
such as economical value, business value and consumer/user value. Economical value is
highly tangible and can be viewed from different stakeholder perspectives. Living Lab
activities or outcomes in the shape of innovations can often be transformed into
economical value. Therefore these activities or outcomes can be assessed and evaluated
from an economical value perspective.
Business value is a somewhat more intangible term that includes all forms of value
that determine the health and well-being of a firm in the long-run. Business value
expands the concept of economical value to include other forms of value such as e.g.
employee value, customer value, supplier value, managerial value and societal value.
Business value also often embraces intangible assets not necessarily attributable to any
stakeholder group such as intellectual capital and a firm's business model.
There is a growing recognition that providing superior value for users is a key aspect
for business success (Boztepe, 2007). One way to mitigate competition and open up
entirely new markets is by focusing on creating advances in customer value (Kim &
Mauborgne 2005). One key attribute that distinguishes breakthrough products from their
closest followers, is according to Cagan and Vogel (2002), the significant value they
provide for users.
According to Kuusisto (2008) the concept of value adding services or products imply
that value is contained in the product or the service. The value is created and offered by
the producer. Another perspective is the value-in use concept that focuses on the
experience perceived by a user interacting with products or services in use situations.
This concept implies that the customer is always a co-creator of the value. According to
this concept, the customers experience and perception are essential to be able to
determinate user value (Kuusisto, 2008).
Consumer value can also be defined in terms of the monetary sacrifice people are
willing to make for a product. The primary focus here is on the point of exchange where
money is seen as an index of value. According to this perspective, the assumption is that
at the moment of purchase, the consumer makes a calculation and evaluation of what is
given (value) in respect to what is taken in terms of money (Boztepe, 2007). Consumer
value and consumer needs are also important aspects of adoption and diffusion theory.
Based on our experience, a Living Lab has the opportunity to create value based on
all aspects of the value term. However, a Living Lab might also provide insights about
how users perceive value. These insights can guide the innovation process to be able to
deliver innovations that are perceived as valuable from both an economical, business, and
a consumer perspective.
Sustainability
Sustainability refers both to the viability of a Living Lab and to its responsibility to the
wider community in which it operates. Focusing on the viability of the Living Lab
highlights aspects such as continuous learning and development over time. Here, the
research component of each Lab plays a vital role in transforming the everyday
knowledge generation into models, methods and theories. Other important aspects related
to the sustainability of a Living Lab is the partnership and its related networks since good
cross-border collaboration, which strengthens creativity and innovation, builds on trust,
and this takes time to build up. In order to succeed with new innovations, it is important
to inspire usage, meet personal desires, and fit and contribute to societal and social needs.
However, in line with the general sustainability and environmental trends in society it
is of equal importance that Living Labs also take responsibility of its environmental,
social, and economic effects.
Based on our experience, but also judging by the overall position of existing Living
Labs we argue that there is a need to develop methods that help labs to take care of the
learning generated and to transform this learning into scientifically sound models and
methods. When it comes to the partnership and its related networks different Living Labs
have different constellations, often with a weight on either public or private
organizations. Here, it is important to learn more about how this affects the development
and viability of a Living Lab.
3 Summary
In this paper we have argued for five key components and five key principles of Living
Labs based on our experiences from over 30 research projects within two Swedish Living
Labs. As the Living Lab concept by nature is multidisciplinary we have based our
descriptions of the key principles on literature from several different fields. Furthermore,
as there is no coherent definition of Living Labs available, we have also proposed a
definition of Living Labs, after careful reviewing of existing definitions. In our definition
we argue that a Living Lab is both an innovation milieu and an approach for innovation.
Our definition is therefore as follows: A Living Lab is a user-centric innovation milieu
built on every-day practice and research, with an approach that facilitates user influence
in open and distributed innovation processes engaging all relevant partners in real-life
contexts, aiming to create sustainable values.
The five key components of a Living Lab milieu are:
• ICT & Infrastructure
• Management
• Partners & Users
• Research
• Approach
The five principles for a Living Lab approach are:
• Openness
• Influence
• Realism
• Value
• Sustainability
Comparing Living Lab with the Lead user and Crowdsourcing concepts, which are well-
known approaches to user involvement in innovation processes, reveals some differences,
which are presented in table 2.
Table 2 Living Lab compared to the lead user and crowdsourcing concepts
CompaniesoutsourcetheinnovationCompanydriveninnovationproc ess Companydriveninnovationproc ess
proc esstotheLivingLab,butparticipatein
theproce ss
BothaninnovationmilieuandanAnapproac htoinnovation Anapproachtoinnova tio n
approachtoinnovation
Face‐to ‐faceandIT‐basedapproach IT‐basedapproach
Supportthewholeinnovationproc ess Suppo rtpa rtsoforthewholeinnovationSupportparts oftheinnovationproce ss
proc ess
R&Dandindependentresearchers R&D Noresea rch
LivingLab Leaduser Crowdsourcing
Our contribution to the field of open innovation is an illustration of a new concept, Living
Lab, which combines an innovation milieu with a user-centered approach to innovation.
References
Attasiriluk, S., Nakasone, A., Hantanong, W., Prada, R., Kanongchaiyos, P., and
Prendinger, H. Co-presence, collaboration, and control in environmental studies. Virtual
Reality, 13, 2009, pp. 195-204.
Ballon, P., Pierson, J. and S. Delaere. Open Innovation Platforms for Broadband
Services: Benchmarking European Practices. Proceedings of 16th European Regional
Conference, Porto, Portugal, September 4-6, 2005.
Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. Rethinking the Concept of User Involvement. MIS Quarterly,
13(1), 1989, pp. 52-63.
Baroudi, J. J., Olson, M. H., Ives, B. and Davis, G. B. An Empirical Study of the Impact
of User Involvement on System Usage and Information Satisfaction. Communications of
the ACM, 29(3), 1986, pp. 232-238.
Beath, C. M. and Orlikowski, W. J. The Contradictory Structure of Systems Development
Methodologies: Deconstructing the IS-User Relationship in Information Engineering.
Information Systems Research, 5(4), 1994, pp. 350-377.
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., and A. Ståhlbröst. Living Lab: an open and citizen-centric
approach for innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development,
1(4) 2009, pp. 356-370.
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Holst, M. and Ståhlbröst, A. Concept Design with a Living Lab
Approach. Proceedings of Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science
(HICSS´42), Big Island, Hawaii, January 5-8, 2009.
Boztepe, S. User value: Competing theories and models. International Journal of Design,
1(2), 2007, pp. 55-63.
Cagan, J. and Vogel, C. M. Creating breakthrough products: Innovation from product
planning to program approval. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002.
Checkland, P. B., and Scholes, J. Soft Systems Methodology in Action; A 30-year
Retrospective. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
Chesbrough, H. “Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial
Innovation”. In Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, eds. H. Chesbrough, W.
Vanhaverbeke and J. West. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 1-12.
Chesbrough, H., and M. Appleyard. Open Innovation and Strategy. California
Management Review, 50(1), 2007, pp. 57-76.
CoreLabs. Building Sustainable Competiveness - Living Labs Roadmap 2007-2010,
Luleå University of Technology - Centre for Distancespanning Technology, 2007.
Eriksson, M., V. P. Niitamo, and S. Kulkki. (2005). State-of-the-Art in Utilizing Living
Labs Approach to User-centric ICT innovation – a European approach. CDT at Luleå
University of Technology, Sweden, Nokia Oy, Centre for Knowledge and Innovation
Research at Helsinki Scholl of Economics, Finland, 2005.
Eriksson, M., V. P. Niitamo, S. Kulkki, and K. A. Hribernik. State-of-the-art and Good
Practice in the Field of Living Labs. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and Services through Collaborative
Networks, Milan, Italy, June 26-28, 2006.
Feurstein, K., K. A Hesmer, K-D Hribernik, and J. Schumacher. Living Labs: A New
Development Strategy. In European Living Labs – A new approach for human centric
regional innovation, Eds. J. Schumacher & V-P Niitamo. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher
Verlag Berlin, 2008, pp. 1-14.
Howe, J. Crowdsourcing – Why the power of the crowd is driving the future of business.
New York: Crown Publishing Group, 2008.
Ihlström Eriksson, C., Åkesson, M., and Svensson, J. Setting up a Living Lab – a
researcher view. Proceedings of eChallenges 2009, Istanbul, Turkey, October 21-23,
2009.
Kim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R. A. Blue ocean strategy: From theory to practice.
California Management Review, 47(3), 2005, pp. 105-121
Kuusisto, A. Customer roles in business service production - implications for involving
the customer in service innovation. Research report 195. Lappeenranta: Lappeenranta
University of Technology, 2008.
Markopoulos, P. and Rauterberg, G. W. M. Living Lab: A White Paper. IPO Annual
Progress Report: 53-65, 2000.
Mingers, J., & Willcocks, L. Social theory and philosophy for information systems.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2004.
Mulder, I., Fahy, C., Hribernik, K. A., Velthausz, D., Feurstein, K., Garcia, M.,
Schaffers, H., Mirijamdotter, A. and Ståhlbröst, A. Towards Harmonized Methods and
Tools for Living Labs Proceedings of eChallenge2007, Hauge, The Netherlands, October
24-26, 2007.
Schumacher, J. and Niitamo, V. P., (Eds.) European Living Labs - A New Approach for
Human Centric Regional Innovation. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2008.
Smith, P G. “Book Review: Open Innovation - The New Imperative for Creating and
Profiting from Technology”. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21, 2004, pp.
223-224.
Ståhlbröst, A. Forming Future IT - The Living Lab Way of User Involvement. PhD
thesis. Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Luleå University of
Technology, Luleå, 2008.
Ståhlbröst, A. & B. Bergvall-Kåreborn. FormIT – An Approach to User Involvement. In
European Living Labs - A new approach for human centric regional innovation, Eds. J.
Schumacher and V.P Niitamo. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin, 2008, pp. 63-76.
Svensson, J. and C. Ihlström Eriksson. Open Innovations in Small Enterprises - A Living
Lab Approach. Proceedings of ISPIM 2009, Vienna, Austria, June 21-24, 2009(a).
Svensson, J., C. Ihlström Eriksson, and E. Ebbesson. User Contribution in Innovation
Processes - Reflections from a Living Lab Perspective. Forthcoming in Proceedings of
HICSS'43, Kauai, Hawaii, January 5-8, 2010.
Thomke, S., and von Hippel, E. Customers as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value.
Harvard Business Review, 80(4), 2002, pp. 74-81.
von Hippel, E. The Sources of Innovation. NY: Oxford University Press, 1988.
von Hippel, E. Democratizing Innovation. Boston: MIT Press, 2005.
[1] European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). Available at:
http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/
[2] CoreLabs. Available at: http://www.ami-communities.net/wiki/CORELABS
[3] VINNOVA. Available at: http://www.vinnova.se
