MAP OF LIVING LAB NETWORK AND THE VISUALIZATION OF FOCUS AREAS OF LIVING LABS

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 194 - 207, 01.06.2020

Ceyda Ovacı

https://doi.org/10.14514/byk.m.26515393.2020.8/1.194-207

Öz

Innovation is one of the fundamental concerns of companies, societies and countries due to changing economic and social conditions of the world. Companies or countries seize the opportunity of collaborating with stakeholders to harvest innovative ideas through open innovation. Living labs create strategic innovation partnership with municipalities, industrial, commercial and financial organizations, universities, non-government organizations and foundations. In this paper, the main focus areas of living labs around the world mapped and the network of living labs (country based) visualized in global innovation ecosystem with social network analysis. The research data were generated from the website of European Network of Living Labs. Health & Wellbeing and Smart Cities & Regions were found the emerging innovation trends created by living labs and in global network. While the majority of these Living Labs are located in Europe, Taiwan, Nigeria, India, Senegal, Canada, Japan and China have also invested on living labs.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Living Labs, Open Innovation, Innovation Trends, Network Map, European Network of Living Labs

Kaynakça

• Almirall, E., Lee, M. & Wareham, J. (2012). Mapping living labs in the landscape of innovation methodologies. Technology Innovation Management Review.
• Baltes, G. & Gard, J. (2010). Living labs as intermediary in open innovation: On the role of entrepreneurial support. International ICE Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation. 17.
• Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Eriksson, C.I, Ståhlbröst,A. & Svensson, J. (2009). A Milieu for Innovation-defining living labs. 2nd ISPIM Innovation Sysposium, New York City, USA.
• Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. & Ståhlbröst,A. 2009. Living Lab: An open citizen-centric approach for innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development,1(4), 356-370.
• Chesbrough, H. (2006) Open business models how to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Edwards-Schachter, M.E., Matti, C.E. & Alcantara, E. (2012). Fostering quality of life through social innovation: A living lab methodology study case. Review of Policy Research. January, 672-691.
• Dekker, R. Contreras, J.F & Meijer, A. (2019): The Living Lab as a Methodology for Public Administration Research: a Systematic Literature Review of its Applications in the Social Sciences, International Journal of Public Administration.
• Dutilleul, B., Birrer, F.A.J. & Mensink, W.(2010). Unpacking European living labs: Analysing innovation’s social dimensions. Central European Journal of Public Policy. 4(1), 60-85.
• Ferronato, P., Mercer, L., Roberts-Smith & J. Ruecker,S. (2019). Living labs and the DH Centre: Lessons for each from the other. KULA: knowledge creation, dissemination and preservation studies, 3(1).
• Freeman, L. C. (2004). The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.
• Friedman, T. (2016). Thank You for Being Late: An Optimist’s Guide to Thriving in the Age of Accelerations. Macmillan USA.
• Gascó, M. (2017). Living labs: Implementing open innovationin the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 90–98.
• Gualandi, E. & Romme, G. (2019). How to make living labs more financially sustainable? Case Studies in Italy and The Netherlands. Engineering Management Research, 8(1), 11-19.
• Hecklau, F., M. Galeitzke. M, Flachs, S. & Kohl, H. (2016). Holistic Approach for Human Resource Management in Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP 54: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.102
• Huws, U. (2014). Labor in the Global Digital Economy: The Cybertariat Comes of Age. NYU Press. Retrieved January 20, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1287j8b
• Issa, A., Schumacher, S., Hatiboglu, B., Groß, E. & Baurnhansl, T. (2018). Open innovation in the workplace: Future work lab as a living lab. 51st CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems, 629-634.
• Kviselius, N.Z., Ozan, H., Edenius, M. & Andersson, P. (2008). The evolution of living labs- propositions for improved design and further research. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Innovation and Management, Maastricht, 842-856.
• Leminen, S. Nystörm, A.G. & Westurland, M. (2019). Change Process in open innovation networks-Exploring living labs. Article in press Industrial Marketing Management.
• Leminen, S., Westerlund, M. & Nystörm, A.G. (2012). Living labs as open-innovation network. Technology Innovation Management Review, September, 6-11.
• Leminen,S. , Rajahonka, M. & Westurland, M. (2017). Towards third-generation living lab network cities. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(11),21-35
• Levén,P. & Holmström, J. (2008). Consumer co-creation and the ecology of innovation: a living lab approach. IRIS 31, The 31st Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia.
• Martino,F. & Spoto,A. (2006). Social network analysis: A brief theoretical review and further perspectives in the study of information technology. PsychNology Journal, 4(1), 53-86.
• Mirijamdotter, A., Ståhlbröst, A., Sällström,A.,Niitamo,V.,P, & Kulkki,S. (2006). The European network of living labs for CWE: User-centric co-creation and innovation. In: Integrating Visions of Technology: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Working Conference of CPTS / [ed] Andrew Basden; Anita Mirijamdotter; Sytse Strijbos, CPTS, 2006, p. 79-90.
• Mulder, I. Velthausz, D. & Kriens, M. (2008). The living labs harmonization cube: communicating living labs’ essentials. The Electronic Journal of Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10.
• Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R. & Sanders, B. (2007) Social Innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship.
• Nystrøm, A-G, Leminen, S, Westerlund, M. (2014) Actor roles and role patterns influencing innovation in living labs. Industrial Marketing Management 43(3): 483–495.
• Ogonowski,C., Ley, B., Hess, J., Wan, L. and Wulf, V. (2013). Designing for the living room: Long-term user involvement in a living lab. CHI Changing Perspective Paris France ( https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2470654.2466205)
• Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Senach, B., Scapin, D. (2010). Living Lab Research Landscape: From User Centred Design and User Experience towards User Cocreation. First European Summer School ”Living Labs”, Inria (ICT Usage Lab), Userlab, EsoceNet, Universcience, Paris, France.
• Pitkänen, O., & Lehto, H. (2012). Legal aspects of living labs. International Journal of Product Development, 17(1/2), 8-22.
• Salminen, J., Konsti-Laakso, S., Pallot, M., Trousse, B. & Senach, B. (2011). Evaluating user involvement within living labs through the use of a domain landscape. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising.
• Santoro, R. & Conte, R. (2009). Living labs in open innovation functional Regions. 15th International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, Leiden, The Netherlands, 22-24 June 2009.
• Schaffers, H. Cordoba, M.G., Hongisto, P. Kallai,, T., Merz, C. & Van Rensburg, J. (2007). Exploring business model for open innovation in rural living labs. 2007 IEEE International Technology Management Conference.
• Schuurman, D. , Coorevits, L. , Logghe, S. , Vandenbroucke, K., Georges, A. & Baccarne, B. (2015). Co-creation in living labs: Exploring the role of user characteristics on innovation contribution. International Journal of Services Sciences,5,(3-4),199-219.
• Schuurman, D., Herregodts, A.L, Georges & A., Rits, O. (2019). Innovation management in living lab projects: The innovatrix framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(3),63-73
• Schuurman, D. Lievens, B., De Marez,L. & Ballon, P. (2012). Towards optimal user involvement in innovation process: A panel-centered Living Lab approach. 2012 Proceedings of PICMET: Technology Management for Emerging Technology.
• Schuurman, D., De Marez, L. & Ballon, P. (2016). The impact of living lab methodology on open innovation contributions and outcomes. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(1), 7-13.
• Ståhlbröst, A. & Holst, M. (2012). The Living Lab Methodology Handbook. (https://www.ltu.se/cms_fs/1.101555!/file/LivingLabsMethodologyBook_web.pdf)
• Ståhlbröst, A & Host, M (2016) Reflecting on actions in living lab research. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(2): 27–34.
• Ståhlbröst, A. (2008). Forming Future IT- The Living Lab Way of User Involvement. Doctoral Thesis: Uleå University of TechnologyDepartment of Business Administration and Social Sciences Division of Informatics. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:999816/FULLTEXT01.pdf ,
• Svensson, J., Ihlström Eriksson,C. & Ebbesson, E.(2010). User contribution in innovation process-Reflections from a living lab perspective. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
• Van Geenhuizen, M. (2018). A framework for the evaluation of living labs as boundary spanners in innovation. Environment and Planin C: Politics and Space, 36(7), 1280-1298.
• Veeckman, C. , Schuurman, D. , Leminen, S. & Westurland, M.(2013). Linking living lab characteristics and their outcomes: Towards a conteptual framework. Technology Innovation Management Review. December, 6-15.
• Westerlund, M. & Leminen S. (2011). Managing the challenges of becoming an open innovation company: Experiences from Living Labs. Technology Innovation and Management Review, 1(1),9-25.
• https://enoll.org/about-us/
• https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/userfiles/file/reportpdf/GII2019-keyfinding-E-Web3.pdf
• https://www.oecd.org/health/health-data.htm