PhD presentation for the public defense of the dissertation entitled '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.' This was a joint PhD between Ghent University and the VUB. Promotors:Prof. dr. Lieven De Marez, Universiteit Gent, Faculteit Politieke & Sociale Wetenschappen, vakgroep Communicatiewetenschappen and Prof. dr. Pieter Ballon, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economische en Sociale Wetenschappen, vakgroep Communicatiewetenschappen President of the jury: Prof. dr. Gino Verleye, Universiteit Gent Jury: Prof. dr. Pieter Verdegem, Universiteit Gent Prof. dr. Marcel Bogers, Associate Professorat Mads Clausen Institute, Faculty of Engineering, University of Southern Denmark Prof. dr. Esteve Almirall, Profesor Asociado at ESADE Business & Law School Prof. dr. Seppo Leminen, Principal lecturer at Laurea University of Applied Sciences & Adjunct Professor at Aalto University School of Economics

1. 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
Dimitri Schuurman
Dissertation in order to obtain the title of Doctor in the Communication Sciences
Promoters: Prof. dr. Lieven De Marez – Ghent University
Prof. dr. Pieter Ballon – VUB
Jury: Prof. dr. Marcel Bogers
Prof. dr. Esteve Almirall
Prof. dr. Seppo Leminen
Prof. dr. Pieter Verdegem
Prof. dr. Gino Verleye

2. What are Living Labs?
Approach to innovation charaterized by…
Multi-method
Real-life experimentation
Active user involvement (co-creation)
Multi-stakeholder (PPP-organization)
European Commission policy support
European Paradox: exploration (research) vs. exploitation (market success)
2006: ‘big bang’ with the establishment of

3. However…
 Statistics from 2013: EU Paradox is still a reality!
 Asia outperforms Europe in terms of patents filed in ICT industry

4. 19
32
68
93
62
46
33
24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1st - 2007 2nd - 2008 3rd - 2009 4th - 2010 5th - 2011 6th - 2012 7th - 2013 8th - 2014
Figure 2 : Evolution of ENoLL Living Labs entries
First problem: LL practice

5. 19
32
68
93
62
46
33
24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1st - 2007 2nd - 2008 3rd - 2009 4th - 2010 5th - 2011 6th - 2012 7th - 2013 8th - 2014
Figure 2 : Evolution of ENoLL Living Labs entries
First problem: LL practice
At least 40% currently inactive (N:345)
Impact?

6. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Until
2005
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Scholar total
Scholar +10 cit
WoS total
Figure 3: Evolution of Living Labs papers
Second problem: LL theory

7. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Until
2005
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Scholar total
Scholar +10 cit
WoS total
Figure 3: Evolution of Living Labs papers
Second problem: LL theory
Connection to innovation theories?

8. I. Explore the emergence and current state-of-the-art within the field of Living Labs practice
II. Investigate whether Living Labs relate to established innovation theories
III. Compose a general Living Lab framework that allows to clearly define Living Labs
IV. assess the (potential) value for:
1. solving the ‘European Paradox’;
2. governing and structuring user involvement and contribution for innovation;
3. closing the gap between Open and User Innovation.
Research goals

9. MethodologyRG I: PRACTICE
Sample/data Research steps Methods
Open and User
Innovation
papers
abstracted in
WoS
Literature
review Open and
User Innovation
papers
Gather relevant concepts and frameworks from
Open and User Innovation based on extensive
screening of WoS papers containing ‘open
innovation’ or ‘user innovation’
All Living Labs
papers with 10+
references in
Google Scholar
Literature review
and content
analysis Living
Labs papers
Assess whether Open and User Innovation are
already used within the current state-of-the-art
in the field of Living Labs and how the gathered
key concepts and frameworks occur in the
Living Labs papers
None Inductive theory
building
Construct an overarching theoretical model that
incorporates and allows to differentiate the
different conceptualizations of Living Labs and
the key concepts and frameworks from Open
and User Innovation
Sample / cases Methods Data
All 345 ENoLL Living Labs Content analysis URLs on ENoLL website
64 active ICT Living Labs Coding & k-means
clustering
ENoLL Living Lab
descriptions + personal
interviews
4 Flemish ICT Living Labs Case study analysis
In-depth interviews
Project proposals
Steerco meeting minutes
21 Living Lab projects Case study analysis
In-depth interviews
instigators
Interview transcripts
Data of closed questions
Project deliverables (ppt)
107 research steps Case study analysis
In-depth interviews
instigators & researchers
Interview transcripts
Data of closed questions
Project deliverables (ppt)
BOTTOM-UP
SENSEMAKING

10. Predecessors & types of LL
Cooperative
Design (70’s)
Social
Experiments (80’s)
Digital
Cities (90’s)
American
living labs (00’s)
User-centered + +/- - -
Real-life + + +/- +/-
Multi-actor (PPPP) +/- + + -
Multi-method +/- + - +/-
Co-creation + +/- - -
RG I
Living Labs for collaboration and knowledge
support activities
Living Labs supporting context research and
co-creation – cf. Social experiments
Living Labs as extension to
testbeds – cf. Digital Cities
Original ‘American’ Living
Labs
Schaffers et al. (2007), Coetzee et al. (2012),
Buitendag et al. (2012),
Thiesen Winthereik et al. (2009), Ståhlbröst &
Bergvall-Kåreborn (2008)
Ponce de Leon et al. (2006), Zhong et
al. (2006)
Abowd et al. (2002), Intille et al.
(2005)
Multi-stakeholder collaboration, focus on
collaborative platforms, knowledge sharing and
community development
Environments aimed to support innovation
processes focusing on the early development
phases of needs analysis and early design
Test environments within which users
and stakeholders can collaborate in the
creation and validation of ICT services
Laboratory made to resemble
the real-world, aimed at data
capturing

11. Predecessors & types of LL
Cooperative
Design (70’s)
Social
Experiments (80’s)
Digital
Cities (90’s)
American
living labs (00’s)
User-centered + +/- - -
Real-life + + +/- +/-
Multi-actor (PPPP) +/- + + -
Multi-method +/- + - +/-
Co-creation + +/- - -
RG I
Living Labs for collaboration and knowledge
support activities
Living Labs supporting context research and
co-creation – cf. Social experiments
Living Labs as extension to
testbeds – cf. Digital Cities
Original ‘American’ Living
Labs
Schaffers et al. (2007), Coetzee et al. (2012),
Buitendag et al. (2012),
Thiesen Winthereik et al. (2009), Ståhlbröst &
Bergvall-Kåreborn (2008)
Ponce de Leon et al. (2006), Zhong et
al. (2006)
Abowd et al. (2002), Intille et al.
(2005)
Multi-stakeholder collaboration, focus on
collaborative platforms, knowledge sharing and
community development
Environments aimed to support innovation
processes focusing on the early development
phases of needs analysis and early design
Test environments within which users
and stakeholders can collaborate in the
creation and validation of ICT services
Laboratory made to resemble
the real-world, aimed at data
capturing

12. LL segmentation
K-Means
Clustering
Dimensions
Følstad Living
Lab
Characteristics
Cluster 1:
Small scale real-
world user co-
creation
Cluster 2:
Long term
knowledge sharing
& collaboration
Cluster 3:
Large scale & long term
with moderate user
involvement
Cluster 4:
Long term user studies in
small scale lab context
User Contribution Unexpected use 2.79 1.71 2.05 1.88
User co-creation 3.37 1.86 2.52 1.94
User validation 3.53 1.86 2.48 2.12
Contextual Reality Familiar context 3.58 1.71 3.38 2.59
Real-world context 3.21 1.14 2.62 1.88
Large user sample 1.28 2.17 3.71 1.88
Use context 2.95 2.71 2.00 1.41
Technical testing 3.21 1.86 1.95 2.88
Long-term duration 3.11 3.50 3.95 3.81
Sample N = 64 19 7 21 17
RG I

13. LL segmentation
K-Means
Clustering
Dimensions
Følstad Living
Lab
Characteristics
Cluster 1:
Small scale real-
world user co-
creation
Cluster 2:
Long term
knowledge sharing
& collaboration
Cluster 3:
Large scale & long term
with moderate user
involvement
Cluster 4:
Long term user studies in
small scale lab context
User Contribution Unexpected use 2.79 1.71 2.05 1.88
User co-creation 3.37 1.86 2.52 1.94
User validation 3.53 1.86 2.48 2.12
Contextual Reality Familiar context 3.58 1.71 3.38 2.59
Real-world context 3.21 1.14 2.62 1.88
Large user sample 1.28 2.17 3.71 1.88
Use context 2.95 2.71 2.00 1.41
Technical testing 3.21 1.86 1.95 2.88
Long-term duration 3.11 3.50 3.95 3.81
Sample N = 64 19 7 21 17
RG I

14. MethodologyRG I: PRACTICE RG II: THEORY
Sample/data Research steps Methods
Open and User
Innovation
papers
abstracted in
WoS
Literature
review Open and
User Innovation
papers
Gather relevant concepts and frameworks from
Open and User Innovation based on extensive
screening of WoS papers containing ‘open
innovation’ or ‘user innovation’
All Living Labs
papers with 10+
references in
Google Scholar
Literature review
and content
analysis Living
Labs papers
Assess whether Open and User Innovation are
already used within the current state-of-the-art
in the field of Living Labs and how the gathered
key concepts and frameworks occur in the
Living Labs papers
None Inductive theory
building
Construct an overarching theoretical model that
incorporates and allows to differentiate the
different conceptualizations of Living Labs and
the key concepts and frameworks from Open
and User Innovation
Sample / cases Methods Data
All 345 ENoLL Living Labs Content analysis URLs on ENoLL website
64 active ICT Living Labs Coding & k-means
clustering
ENoLL Living Lab
descriptions + personal
interviews
4 Flemish ICT Living Labs Case study analysis
In-depth interviews
Project proposals
Steerco meeting minutes
21 Living Lab projects Case study analysis
In-depth interviews
instigators
Interview transcripts
Data of closed questions
Project deliverables (ppt)
107 research steps Case study analysis
In-depth interviews
instigators & researchers
Interview transcripts
Data of closed questions
Project deliverables (ppt)
TOP-DOWN
SENSEMAKING

15. Open Innovation
 Main idea: Organizations benefit by opening up their innovation processes to
exchange knowledge & technologies – Company perspective
 Key concepts:
 Research gaps: blind spots prevent an easy-to-use and one-size-fits-all
innovation management approach
 OI processes in LL literature: Proces N
Exploration 45
Exploitation 15
Retention 7
OI processes
(Lichtenthaler & Lichtenthaler, 2009; van de Vrande et al., 2009)
Exploration Exploitation Retention
Internal capabilities (Lichtenthaler, 2011) Inventive cap Innovative cap Transformative cap
External capabilities (Lichtenthaler, 2011) Absorptive cap Desorptive cap Connective cap
RG II

16.  Main idea: Given certain circumstances, users start innovating themselves or
make valuable contributions to innovation processes – User perspective
 Key concepts:
 Research gaps: barriers to and management of user contribution
 User Innovation in LL literature:
User Innovation
Design… N
For users 11
With users 34
By users 0
Voice-of-the-
Customer
User co-creation
Lead User
methods
MAP
Shared locus of
innovation
CAP
Design for users
(evaluation)
Design with users
(incremental)
Design by users
(substantial)
RG II

17. Bridging the gap?
Paradigm N
Open Innovation 11
User Innovation 17
UCD / Participatory design 19
None 18

18. MethodologyRG I: PRACTICE RG II: THEORY
Sample/data Research steps Methods
Open and User
Innovation
papers
abstracted in
WoS
Literature
review Open and
User Innovation
papers
Gather relevant concepts and frameworks from
Open and User Innovation based on extensive
screening of WoS papers containing ‘open
innovation’ or ‘user innovation’
All Living Labs
papers with 10+
references in
Google Scholar
Literature review
and content
analysis Living
Labs papers
Assess whether Open and User Innovation are
already used within the current state-of-the-art
in the field of Living Labs and how the gathered
key concepts and frameworks occur in the
Living Labs papers
None Inductive theory
building
Construct an overarching theoretical model that
incorporates and allows to differentiate the
different conceptualizations of Living Labs and
the key concepts and frameworks from Open
and User Innovation
Sample / cases Methods Data
All 345 ENoLL Living Labs Content analysis URLs on ENoLL website
64 active ICT Living Labs Coding & k-means
clustering
ENoLL Living Lab
descriptions + personal
interviews
4 Flemish ICT Living Labs Case study analysis
In-depth interviews
Project proposals
Steerco meeting minutes
21 Living Lab projects Case study analysis
In-depth interviews
instigators
Interview transcripts
Data of closed questions
Project deliverables (ppt)
107 research steps Case study analysis
In-depth interviews
instigators & researchers
Interview transcripts
Data of closed questions
Project deliverables (ppt)
RG III: MODEL

19. 3-way model for LL
RG III
Level Definition Research paradigm
Macro
Living Lab constellation consisting of
organized stakeholders (PPP-partnership)
Open Innovation: knowledge transfers
between organizations
Meso Living Lab innovation project
Open & User Innovation: real-life
experimentation, active user
involvement, multi-method and multi-
stakeholder
Micro
Living Lab methodology consisting of
different research steps
User Innovation: user involvement &
contribution for innovation

20. 3-way model for LL
RG III
Level Definition Research paradigm
Macro
Living Lab constellation consisting of
organized stakeholders (PPP-partnership)
Open Innovation: knowledge transfers
between organizations
Meso Living Lab innovation project
Open & User Innovation: real-life
experimentation, active user involvement,
multi-method and multi-stakeholder
Micro
Living Lab methodology consisting of
different research steps
User Innovation: user involvement &
contribution for innovation
Level N
Macro 29
Meso 15
Micro 20
Paradigm N
Open Innovation 11
User Innovation 17
UCD / Participatory design 19
None 18

21. MethodologyRG I: PRACTICE RG II: THEORY
Sample/data Research steps Methods
Open and User
Innovation
papers
abstracted in
WoS
Literature
review Open and
User Innovation
papers
Gather relevant concepts and frameworks from
Open and User Innovation based on extensive
screening of WoS papers containing ‘open
innovation’ or ‘user innovation’
All Living Labs
papers with 10+
references in
Google Scholar
Literature review
and content
analysis Living
Labs papers
Assess whether Open and User Innovation are
already used within the current state-of-the-art
in the field of Living Labs and how the gathered
key concepts and frameworks occur in the
Living Labs papers
None Inductive theory
building
Construct an overarching theoretical model that
incorporates and allows to differentiate the
different conceptualizations of Living Labs and
the key concepts and frameworks from Open
and User Innovation
Sample / cases Methods Data
All 345 ENoLL Living Labs Content analysis URLs on ENoLL website
64 active ICT Living Labs Coding & k-means
clustering
ENoLL Living Lab
descriptions + personal
interviews
4 Flemish ICT Living Labs Case study analysis
In-depth interviews
Project proposals
Steerco meeting minutes
21 Living Lab projects Case study analysis
In-depth interviews
instigators
Interview transcripts
Data of closed questions
Project deliverables (ppt)
107 research steps Case study analysis
In-depth interviews
instigators & researchers
Interview transcripts
Data of closed questions
Project deliverables (ppt)
RG III: MODELRG IV: VALUE

22. °2004 - 2008
2.500 PDAs
100 Hotspots
150 Alphas
No external projects
°2010 - 2013
2.015 Panel members
3DTVs, tablets, sensors
3 external projects
°2010 - 2013
>2.015 Panel members
>7.000 thematic dataset
>15 external projects
°2010 - 2013
115 connected homes
FttH network, tablets,
MiniPCs
3 external projects
Wadify
Smart Seats
Webinos
Coxo
Twikey
Ceonav
Veltion
Planza
Qwison
SonicAngel
Hoaxland
La Mosca
Future Legends
JukeBox21
Streemr
Kianos
OnCloud
Poppidups
Fietsnet
Fifth Play
MuFoLive
°2005
Founding member &
secretary
>20.000 Panel members
>50 projects
In-depth case study:
5 years of Living Labs

23. Case Research steps Duration
Future
Legends
SotA
ecosystem
& user
Expert
interviews
Survey
Workshops
with
observation
Media diary
study
Cultural probe
research
Closing
event with
observation
09/11 - 06/12
SonicAngel
SotA
market &
user
Segmentation
users
Co-creation
users
Interviews
users
Stakeholder
interviews
10/11 – 12/11
FifthPlay
Survey
end-users
Long term field
trial
Surveys Focus group Post-survey 10/11 - 12/12
Fietsnet
Survey
end-users
Co-creation
with end-users
Persona
segmentation
12/11 - 04/12
Streemr
SotA
market &
user
Survey
Field trial
with logging
Co-creation
with testers 01/12 - 04/12
Jukebox21
SotA
market &
user
Survey
Co-creation
users
Business
model
analysis
02/12 - 06/12
Wadify SotA user Survey
Field trial
with logging
Interviews
with testers
02/12 - 04/13
OnCloud Survey Field trial
Online
feedback
forum
Co-creation
with testers
Post survey
03/12 – 07/12
Qwison
SotA
market &
user
Survey users
Survey
stakeholders
Expert
interviews
Stakeholder
co-creation
Co-design session
Business
model
workshop
09/12 - 12/12
La Mosca
SotA
market &
user
Survey
Co-design
users
Usability
labtest
Co-creation
users
Field trial with
observation
Interviews
with testers
Business
model
workshop
09/12 -
02/13
Poppidups
Survey
user
Usability expert
review
Co-creation
session
Field trial
users
Co-creation
testers
Post assessment
testers
Field trial
school
Co-
creation
school
10/12 -
02/13
Planza
SotA
market &
user
Survey
Co-design
session
Closed field
trial
Open field
trial with
logging &
feedback
Post-survey
10/12 - 09/13
Kianos
SotA
market &
user
Survey Co-design
11/12 - 04/13
MuFoLive Survey
One time field
trial with
observation
Focus group
Closing
event with
stakeholders
12/12 - 04/13
Hoaxland
SotA
market &
user
Expert
interviews
Survey
teachers &
parents
Co-design
teachers
Business
model
workshop
12/12 - 09/13
Veltion
SotA
market &
user
Co-creation
with users
Field trial in
company
Co-creation
with testers
Business
model
workshop
01/13 - 10/13
Webinos
Persona
building
User
experience lab
testing
Interviews
with testers 01/13 - 12/13
Ceonav
SotA
market &
user
CEO interviews Steercos
Business
model
workshop
01/13 - 12/13
Twikey
SotA
market &
user
Survey
Co-design
session
Expert
Usability
review
Usability
labtest
04/13 - 08/13
Coxo
SotA &
competitor
analysis
Expert
interviews
Survey
Stakeholder
co-creation
Stakeholder
interviews
04/13 - 12/13
SmartSeats
Field trial 1
sport
SotA market &
user
Field trial 2
Sport
Survey sport
& music
Co-creation
music
events
Field trial 3
sport
Interviews
with testers 12/13 - 03/14

24. Main findingsMACRO LEVEL:
67% success (39) (61% exploitation)
23 SMEs: 65% success (36% exploitation)
MESO LEVEL:
Progress in NPD: 81% (17)
Perceived value: 52% (11)
Market introduction: 29% (6)
MICRO LEVEL:
Input for innovation development: 67% (14)
Increase of internal knowledge: 43% (9)
Pivots during project: 38% (8)
RG IV
LL stakeholders are able to exploit knowledge
Less exploitation at the meso level
SMEs are less successful in exploiting knowledge
Organized constellation enhances project success
LL projects are able to foster market introduction and
progress in the NPD process
LL characteristics & methods are able to provide
actionable user contributions:
Real-life experience & multi-method

25. LL as structural approach to DI
RG IV
Coupled Interactive Open Innovation:
Organization & characteristics

26. Contributions
1. Development of theoretical model and lens to…
 analyze and denominate different aspects of Living Labs more consistently
 assess (added) value for the three different levels
 bridge the gap between LL theory & practice by connecting to innovation paradigms
2. To other innovation theories
 LL characteristics provide structure & governance to co-creation on the meso level
 advance theory regarding coupled, interactive Open Innovation
3. Managerial contributions

27. Future research
Research questions Research
How can Living Lab networks yield value for all involved actors?
How can the different stakeholders be managed?
How to cope with knowledge retention?
Open
Innovation
researchers
Overall methodology
Managing the knowledge transfers between the levels
Living Lab
researchers
Development of user innovation methods for real-life
Insight in user motivation
Relation between characteristics and value of the contribution
User
Innovation
researchers
Validate LL model and first findings with a larger data set, broader set of evaluation & success
criteria, develop insights on three levels

28. www.iminds.be/livinglab
@DimiSchuurman
Dimitri.Schuurman@iminds.be