The emergence of Living Labs is increasingly calling the attention of practitioners, researchers and policymakers, springing as collaborative spaces and social innovation experiments around the world. They are usually characterized by the active involvement of users (citizens and communities) as co-creators of knowledge in innovation processes. This paper critically reviews literature on Living Labs and analyzes narratives on users’ and communities participation in a sample of 120 LLs obtained from the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) from 2006 to 2012. Our findings show that LL is an ‘umbrella’ concept which includes a diversity of cross-sector societal experiments which favour systemic and boundary-spanning collaboration between private, public, and people partnership. Different discourses on the role of users were identified, covering many approaches to their participation in innovation processes. In most of LLs users are considered as source of information for detecting needs, with much focus on end-customer validation in testing and experimentation and a very limited user’s participation as co-creators in innovation processes. Although the widely accepted discourses on ‘co-creation’ and ‘co-production’ with users and communities in LLs, their contribution as part of a broader social development or social change agenda from the perspective of social innovation remains unclear

1. Do systemic collaboration and
network governance matter?
Living Labs beyond user-centric
innovation
Edwards-Schachter1, M.; Tams2, S. & Moreno Valdés3, M. T.
1INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Spain
2School of Management, University of Bath, UK
2TECNALIA, Parque Tecnológico de Álava , Spain
14th March 2013

3. Outline
 Interest & motivation
 Research questions
 Theoretical approaches
 Methodoloy
 Some preliminar results
 Conclusion

4. 4

6. Interest & Motivation
 LL is an expanding phenomenon that increasingly attracts
the attention of practitioners, researchers and
policymakers
 LL are promoted by the European Policy Agenda as new
forms of support for open and user-driven innovation
management
 Limits/constraints of the multilevel innovation system
approach
 Knowledge generation, Innovation complexity and
interactions between users and producers
 Emergence of new innovation organisational model/s?

7. The ENoLL waves
7th.
Wave
2013

8. Research Questions
 What is the meaning of the term LL and what distinguishes it from
other ‘innovation labs’, such as Test and Experimentation
Platforms (TEPs), SSRI (Social Spaces of Research and Innovation)
and ‘Change Labs’?
 Which are the roles of people (users) in LL? Can LL be ‘incubators’
for community-driven innovation?
 How do LLs enact systemic collaboration and network
governance?

9. Theoretical approaches
 Open Innovation: the collaborative innovation paradigm
(Chesbrough, 2003, 2006)
 Democratization of innovation & user innovation roles
(customer, ‘lead’ , used-centred, user-driven, user-
investor … (Von Hippel, 1986, 2005; Thomke & Von Hippel, 2002; Mirijamdotter et al.,
2006; Edvardsson et al., 2006; Bergvall-Kåreborn & Ståhlbröst, 2009)

10. Theoretical approaches
 LL= Change Lab? New ‘modes of organizing’ innovation? The
transition management scope (Frössler et al., 2007)
 Empowerment capabilities perspectives (Heiskala, 2007; Cunningham et al.,
2012; Franz et al., 2012)
 LLs as territorial development instruments (the open innovation
functional region) (Santoro & Conte, 2009)

11. KNOWLEDGE
Agents,
roles,
interaccions
New modes ‘TO ORGANISE’ the
innovation process?
Process of Schumpeterian ‘creative destruction’ and learning
- Other agentes?
e.g.: social groups
- New roles
e.g.: user-investor
(Howe, 2005)
(NEW/RECOMBINED
KNOWLEDGE
INNNOVATION

12.  social innovation
(Mulgan, 2006; Franz et al., 2012; Loogma et al., 2012)
 grassroots innovation
(Gupta et al., 2003; Seyfang & Smith, 2007; Smith et al., 2013)
 green innovation and eco-innovation (Rennings, 2000)
 frugal innovation (Prahalad, 2005; Bhatti & Ventresca,
2013)
 inclusive innovation (Johnson & Dahl, 2012)
More visibility of an extended ‘nature’ (socio-technical view)
of innovation and ‘hidden innovations’ ?
Theoretical approaches

13. LL & users’ roles
 Normal or passive’ users
 User integration (‘consumer view’)
 User integration for detection of needs
 User lead (sources of new product and/or
service ideas with high commercial potential)
‘

14. LL & users’ roles
 User as o-producer (working with producers in jointly
generation of value)
 Consumer/user as co-creators (jointly knowledge
generation, sharing knowledge within a community of
practice)
 Users as investors
 … in all cases users are citizens!

15. INSTITUTEOFINNOVATIONANDKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT
Methodoloy & Sample
 Search of scholarly publications between 2001-2012
considering scientific journals, conference papers
proceedings, project and policy reports and books
 Database elaboration (compilation of N=120 case
study). Source: ENoLL and LL’s webs
 Qualitative methodology (content analysis)

16. http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/livinglabs
The ENoLL network
> 300 LL

17. INSTITUTEOFINNOVATIONANDKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT
LL definitions
Definition Authors
‘experimentation environments in which technology is given shape in real life contexts and
in which (end) users are considered ‘co-producers’. They are at the core of current new
concepts for open innovation platforms.
Ballon et al., 2005, p.
15
‘research methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating and refining complex solutions
in multiple and evolving real-life contexts’
Pierson
and Lievens, 2005,
‘The Living Lab concept refers to a R&D methodology where innovations, such as
services, products and application enhancements, are created and validated in
collaborative, multi-contextual empirical real-world settings’
Eriksson et al. 2005
‘naturalistic environment instrumented with sensing and observational technologies and
used for experimental evaluation’
Intille et al., 2006,
p.350
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’.
Bergvall-Kåreborn et
al. (2009)
‘innovation projects based on open and user-centric innovation methodologies, can
form collaboration networks to support small firms and other actors to engage in cross-
border collaboration and to accelerate the development and acceptance of innovations’
Schaffers & Turkama

18. INSTITUTEOFINNOVATIONANDKNOWLEDGEMANAGEMENT
LL definitions
‘a system based on a business-citizens-government partnership which enables users to take
active part in the research, development and innovation process. Products and services are
developed in a real-life environment in a human centric and co-creative way, based on continuous
feedback mechanisms between the developers and the users’ (ALTEC, 2009, p. 6).
ALTEC, 2009, p. 6
The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL, see www.openlivinglabs.eu) defines a Living Lab as
“an open innovation environment in real-life settings in which user-driven innovation is fully
integrated within the cocreation process for new services, products and societal
infrastructures”.
ENoLL (2011)
‘we understand living labs as constituting a setting for collaborative innovation by offering a
collaborative platform for research, development, and experimentation with product and service
innovations in real-life contexts, based on specific methodologies and tools, and implemented
through concrete innovation projects and community-building activities. The focus is on mature
technologies and operating close to market, which indicates that acceptance and integration of the
developed technologies and services are major research topics’.
Schaffers and Turkama,
2012, p. 26
‘are open innovation environments in real-life settings, in which user-driven innovation is
fully integrated within the co-creation process of new services, products and societal
infrastructures in a regional harmonized context (the “Open Innovation Functional Region”)
catalyzing the synergy of SMEs Collaborative Networks and Virtual Professional Communities in a
Public, Private, People Partnership’
Santoro & Conte, 2009,
p. 1

19. Test and Experimentation Platform typology
(Ballon et al., 2005, p. 3)
• Openess
• Public
involvement
• Commercial
maturity
• Vertical scope
• Scale
What a LL is?

20. What a Living Lab (LL) is?
A. Space (laboratory) where designers and researchers
can observe and experiment with users
B. Methodoloy for developing products and services
with user collaboration
C. Platform for collaborative innovation
(environment/milieu to experiment innovation with
participation of diverse agents)
D. Instrument for R&D and innovation policies
E. Territorial development model

21. What a LL is? The EC definition
A LL is a real-life test and experimentation environment where users and
producers co-create innovations. LLs have been characterised by the
European Commission as Public-Private-People Partnerships (PPPP) for
user-driven open innovation.
Co-Creation: co-design by users and producers
Exploration: discovering emerging usages, behaviours and market
opportunities
Experimentation: implementing live scenarios within communities of users
Evaluation: assessment of concepts, products and services according to
socio-ergonomic, socio-cognitive and socio-economic criteria.
Fuente: ENoLL (2011)

22. %
0
20
40
60
80
100
user-centred
(detection needs)
user-centred
(testing)
user-driven (co-
create)
community-driven
72.5
66.2
28.3
13.2
Users roles

23. Exploring governance structure
0
20
40
60
80
100
25.8 34.2
18.3 21.7
%

24. Context
Leadership
(the host institution?)
%
%
Some exploratory results (N=120)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
22.1
14.7
35.3
13.2 14.7

25. Conclusion
 There is no consensus in the LL definition, existing
several approaches to the LL concept, from testbeds to
open functional regions and ‘change’ living experiments
 LLs are models of innovation that include a wider range
of participants / wider constituencies, traditionally
excluded from the innovation process
 Much focus on end-customer validation in testing and
experimentation and participation of users to detect
needs … but not using the full potential of user
collaboration in other stages of the innovation process .

26. Conclusion
 Systemic collaboration , governance structures
and mechanism and the role of users as co-
creators are unclear and seem very limited
 The potential role of LL as part of a broader
social development or social change agenda
remains largely unexplored

27. User- producer relationship,
Knowledge co-management and co-creation
Conclusion: open questions about …
‘innovation’ Labs’
raise questions
about ‘networks’
‘boundaries’,
‘practice’,
‘learning’
... But also
‘identity’,
‘culture’,
‘ethics’
...

28. Thank
you!