The document provides summaries of research conducted on Innovation Labs participants and teams' products from 2015-2018. It includes: - An analysis of how teams described their products, finding focus areas like improving daily routines, interactions, and disrupting existing markets. - A comparison of Innovation Labs participants to a control group of students, finding participants had more professional connections, endorsements, and roles in leadership. - A survey of Innovation Labs participants finding most were students and employees, with more identifying as entrepreneurs at the final Demo Day. Locations varied in participants' previous experiences.

1. Research Summary:
Teams’ vocabularies of innovation
Participants’ trajectories
Feedback survey

2. TEAMS’ VOCABULARIES OF INNOVATION,
2015-2018
Content analysis
Innovation Labs 2018

3. Methods
• The content analysis is based on an
emergent thematic coding which was
manually performed in order to
explore the discourse through which
teams describe the products
developed at Innovation Labs.
• The coding validity is ensured by
applying an intra-rater reliability
procedure.
• The types of variables resulted in the
analysis are not mutually exclusive,
so that a single product could fit in
multiple categories.
• The results are based on a content
analysis of 131 product
descriptions, as included in the
Demo Day brochures (2015-2018).
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary

4. Teams’ focus of innovation
• Practice innovation: products change
how people realize activities & daily
routines
• (Dis)comfortable innovation: makes a
distressful experience an enjoyable
one
• Personal interaction: products change
how users interact with other humans
• Tech choice: really cool tech goes into
that product!
• Method & process: changing
organization
• Enhancing social systems: better
communities, societies
• Disrupting existing markets, networks
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
5%
8%
20% 21%
12%
22%
45%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%

5. What matters?
Core values in product pitches
Safety & trustworthiness
➢ Some products help users manage
risks and offer protection from
threats
➢ Others cultivate relationships of
trust and transparency, preventing
fraud
Rationality
➢ Products aim to enhance efficiency
and accuracy
Social wellbeing, safety & equity
➢ Products may create a level
playground, create safe
communities and distribute wealth
across boundaries
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
5%
12%
12%
14%
18%
7%
22%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Social equity & equal access
Social well-being
Collective security
Accuracy
Efficiency
Transaction trustworthiness
Individual safety

6. Faster! Faster!
Re-shaping real time into “no time”
Many products aim to pursue goals
faster and reach targets…“in no time”:
➢ Apps offer users rich information
in real time
➢ Users are kept informed & up-to-
date through real-time
notifications
➢ Products help users save time
from unwanted tasks
➢ Different tasks may be fulfilled at
the same time
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
7%
21%
17%
27%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Simultaneity & multi-tasking
Time saving practices
Real-time notification and
alerts
Real-time rich information

7. Knowledge is power...
... ignorance is bliss?
Teams seek ways to re-allocate the
efforts and the benefits of
knowledge:
➢ Products enhance our awareness of
the natural, social and built
environment – from agritech to
social networks and smart city apps
➢ Products offer personalized
knowledge of topics of interest &
assist with decision making
➢ Products mediate our self-knowledge
and knowledge of others
➢ Apps make learning easier & faster
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
8%
9%
13%
22%
36%
38%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Novel learning practices
Inisghts for self-knowledge
Better knowledge of the others
Information for decision making
Personalized, user-tailored knowledge
Enhanced awareness of the
environment

8. How does technology
matter in teams’ products?
• Technology as a resource that
might be used to improve various
processes or aspects in the world.
• Technology enhances effectiveness
and enrich various types of
experience.
• Products are presented as tools
that might act as definitive
solutions to various problems.
• Technology is plays a role in self-
making practices
• Technology as a resource that
create a more controllable and
predictable word
• Technology as a tool of identity
formation and empowerment of
the self.
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
10%
8%
18%
17%
21%
33%
34%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Cost effective solution
Individualization and identity formation
Empowerment of the self
Alignment of multiple interests in a single
solution
Technology as a problem-solving tool
Technology as a resource to (re)gain
control over the immediate world
Digitalization of the society

9. PROFESSIONAL TRAJECTORY OF INNOVATION
LABS PARTICIPANTS, 2013-2017
Comparative Design
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary

10. Methods
• The study took into consideration 921
persons, out of whom 656 persons had an
identifiable LinkedIn public profile. Their
LinkedIn profile was subject to a content
analysis on the following indicators:
• Professional reputation: number of
endorsements, number of connections,
number of organizations whom the person is
affiliated with;
• Professional position: type of current role in
the professional field (technical role,
leadership role);
• Entrepreneurial identity: display of
entrepreneurial markers (assuming a co-
founder identity, assuming a freelancing
identity).
• A total of 656 persons were
classified in two groups: the
experimental group (formed by 363
Innovation Labs participants) and
the control group (formed by 293
master students in computer
science randomly selected based
on the UPB admission lists for each
year).
• The proportion of students in the
control group by admission year is
similar to the proportion of
Innovation Labs by edition.
• The control group was selected to
include persons similar to
Innovation Labs participants in
terms of age and formal
educational experience.
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary

11. Social capital among control and experimental group (average number of connections)
Innovation Labs participants have more professional connections in
comparison with the control group formed by master students
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
327
374
332
404
344
372
296
276
190
235
285
314
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total

12. Reputation indicators among control and experimental group (average number of
endorsements)
Innovation Labs participants rate higher on reputation indicators in
comparison with the group of master students
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
123
191
79
139
106
115
70
88
33
65
76
108
0
50
100
150
200
250
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total

13. Professional position and collaborative networks (average number of organizations
whom the person is affiliated with)
On average, Innovation Labs participants belong to multiple groups and
professional communities in comparison with the control group formed by
master students
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
3.62
4.79
3.06
4.62
2.99
4.41
2.76
3.8
3.37 3.24 3.13
3.96
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total

14. Professional status among control and experimental group
(% of persons who occupy a technical and leadership position)
Innovation Labs participants tend to occupy leadership positions in a
higher degree than the average master students in Computer Sciences.
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
85%
10%
84%
10%
96%
0%
77%
4%
71%
5%
82%
5%
76%
33%
79%
13%
80%
12%
66%
13%
56%
11%
69%
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Technical
position
Leadership
position
Technical
position
Leadership
position
Technical
position
Leadership
position
Technical
position
Leadership
position
Technical
position
Leadership
position
Technical
position
Leadership
position
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
Master students IL Participants

15. Status of (co)founder as identity device among control and experimental group
(% of persons who describe themselves as cofounders)
A significant percent of Innovation Labs participants assumes a public
entrepreneurial identity .
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
0%
37%
0%
32%
0%
27%
4%
23%
1%
31%
1%
28%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
Master
Students
IL
Participants
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total

16. Reputation, social capital and professional engagement by
type of educational experience
Innovation Labs participants have competitive advantages in the professional
field both in comparison with students enrolled in an entrepreneurial master
program and with students enrolled in a technical master program
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
Technical Master
Program
Entrepreneurial
Master Program
Innovation Labs
Program
Average number of endorsements 56 87 108
Average number of connections 246 307 314
Average number of organizations
whom the person is affiliated with 3.30 3.04 3.96
N 103 190 363

17. Identity display by type of educational experience
(% of persons who publicly assumes a particular identity or position)
Innovation Labs strengthens both the entrepreneurial and the
intrapreneurial identity of its participants.
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
Technical Master
Program
Entrepreneurial
Master Program
Innovation Labs
Program
Cofounder identity 1% 2% 28%
Freelancer identity 1% 3% 8%
Leadership position 2% 6% 14%
N 103 190 363

18. Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
• Data suggest that Innovation Labs has a significant contribution to
entrepreneurial education: the entrepreneurial position of
Innovation Labs participants is better than that of students
enrolled to an entrepreneurial master program.
• Moreover, Innovation Labs might be understood as a source of
professional competitive advantage: Innovation Labs participants
rate higher on reputation and leadership indicators in comparison
with the the group of master students seen as their counterparts.

19. INNOVATION LABS FEEDBACK REPORT,
2018
Survey-based research
Innovation Labs 2018

20. Methods
Participants
in Bucharest
Participants in
other
locations
Total
Inception Survey 109 105 214
Feedback Survey 92 54 146
Demo Day Survey 65 52 117
Total number of collected questionnaires 477
• A total number of 477
questionnaires were applied in
Bucharest, Cluj, Iași and
Timișoara: 214 questionnaires
were applied at the beginning
of the Hackathon event and
146 were applied at the end of
the Hackathon event. In
addition, 117 questionnaires
were applied at the beginning
of the Demo Day event.
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary

21. Identity configuration across
levels of participation
Registered
participants
Participants in
Hackathon
Participants in
Demo Day
Students 81% 87% 85%
Employees 35% 33% 50%
Entrepreneurs 16% 14% 41%
Volunteers 20% 21% 39%
Women 23% 25% 20%
28+ years 22% 15% 29%
Participants who assume the identity of
entrepreneurs are more likely to belong
to the Demo Day group of finalists. This
might also illustrate that participants
experience a change in their identity as
entrepreneurs during the program
especially since the same percent of
persons who define themselves as
entrepreneurs could be found both at
the registration stage and at the end of
the Hackathon event.
Innovation Labs 2018 – Write your title here

22. Previous relevant experience of registered participants across locations
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
31%
0%
15%
46%
38%
38%
77%
62%
26%
0%
7%
37%
30%
11%
56%
52%
21%
13%
15%
51%
71%
65%
67%
76%
3%
23%
31%
32%
47%
53%
57%
60%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Respondents who participated in Idea Jam event
Respondents who participated in the previous editions of Innovation
Labs Hackathon
Respondents who participated in Treasure Hunt event
Respondents who participated in other entepreneurial competitions
for students and young professionals after highshool graduation
Respondents who participated in other competition with the actual
team members
Respondents who participated in other Hackathons
Respondents who have spoken to an audience of over 50 people
before participation in Innovation Labs Hackathon
Respondents who have built a prototyope for their own idea before
participation in Innovation Labs Hackathon
Bucharest Cluj Iași Timișoara

23. Other competitions and events in which registered persons participated
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
ACB Accelerator, Accenture Hackathon, ASAIH Invention Competition, Be An Innovator,
Beazley and Endava Hackathon, Bestem, Bitcoin to Business Bruxelles 2014, Blockchain
Hackathon, Define School, DEVHacks, EESTEC Olympics, GIS DAY@UTCB, Global Legal
Hackathon, Good to Go, Fintech, Google Hashcode, Hackathon Future Dev, Hacking
Health, HackItAll, Hacking Health, Hacking for Humanity, HackSociety, Hack@Time,
Hermes Hackathon, HackItAll, Infoeducație, iSpheric Accelerator, Invent for the planet,
Itfest, Itprenor, JSHacks, Leaders for the future, Megahack, MindCoding, Microsoft
Imgine Cup, MobilePro, NASA Space Apps, Night of Sleeping DEVS, Pirate summit, Prix
CFA, PoliHack, Prix CFA, P&G European Hackathon, Rotahack, Securithon, Smart Home,
START, Startup Weekend, Startarium, Startup Weekend, Techsylvania, UpGrader,
Timisoara iTec, T-Me Studios, Twitter Jam, Upgrader, ustart, Yahoo Hackathon

24. Sources of information about Innovation Labs (Question: Where did you
find out about Innovation Labs? – open answer)
Results indicate a high level of popularity of Innovation Labs among students: colleagues and friends
are the main source of information about Innovation Labs in Bucharest, Cluj, Iași and Timișoara. Also,
Facebook and the network of professors are efficient means in communicating the value of Innovation
Labs
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
Bucharest
(number of
mentions)
Cluj
(number of
mentions)
Iași
(number of
mentions)
Timișoara
(number of
mentions)
Colleagues / Friends 45 29 5 4
Professors 25 1 5 1
Social networks / Facebook 21 26 4 4
University Courses / University (in general) 13 2 5 1
Partnerships between academia and industry 6 0 1 0
Internet (different websites) 6 5 4 1
Posters / Print Ads 3 1 0 1
Student organizations 3 0 1 0
Other competitions or events 3 3 7 2
Others 2 1 0 0
(out of 109) (out of 63) (out of 27) (out of 13)

25. Sources of information about Innovation Labs (Question: What / Who
convinced you to participate in Innovation Labs? – open answer)
A considerable number of registered persons declared that they are self
determined to participate in Innovation Labs. This indicates a high level of
motivation among participants.
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
Bucharest
(number of
mentions)
Cluj
(number of
mentions)
Iași
(number of
mentions)
Timișoara
(number of
mentions)
Self-determination 50 24 14 5
Colleagues / Friends 23 19 10 4
Professors 23 3 8 2
Persons from industry 3 1 0 3
Student organizations 0 0 1 0
Others 2 0 0 0
(out of 109) (out of 63) (out of 27) (out of 13)

26. Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
Bucharest
(n=92)
Cluj
(n=30)
Iași
(n=16)
Timișoara
(n=8)
Percent Frecquency
Brainstorming – to develop an innovative idea for a product or service 60% 70% 8 5
To identify end-users' needs for a product or service 76% 90% 11 6
To design a product or service that will satisfy users' needs and expectations 48% 67% 7 3
To build a working prototype 49% 54% 7 7
To estimate the market size for a new product or service (number of users
and potential customers)
55% 60% 7 5
To estimate the amount and types of capital necessary to start my business 21% 30% 5 2
To design an effective marketing campaign for a new product and service 27% 40% 3 3
To persuade others to believe in my idea of business 65% 77% 5 8
Networking - establish business relationships with other people 72% 80% 14 8
To explain my business idea clearly and concisely 72% 73% 11 8
To work effectively in a team with members of different personalities 82% 63% 11 6
To improve my communication skills with business people 66% 70% 9 8
Evaluation of different components of Innovation Labs Hackathon (% of participants who mentioned that Innovation Labs Hackathon helped them
achieve in a high or very high degree the respective skill)

27. Evaluation of the mentoring sessions (Question: “In what degree did Innovation Labs
help you improve/increase the following aspects?”)
The Innovation Labs experience is mostly appreciated for its networking component. Also, a significant
percent of participants consider that the mentoring sessions helped them improve product and team
visibility, while increasing their interest in entrepreneurship. Noteworthy is that 68% of participants
mentioned that Innovation Labs improved their team efficiency
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
22%
37%
30%
41%
57%
49%
62%
31%
28%
38%
39%
25%
33%
27%
27%
18%
20%
12%
13%
14%
10%
13%
14%
9%
3%
2%
4%
1%
7%
3%
3%
5%
3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Technical development
Marketing positioning strategy
Team efficiency
Product concept
Entrepreneurial interest
Product and team visibility
Networking
To a very high degree
To a high degree
Somehow
To a low degree
To a very low degree

28. Association between recurrent participation in Innovation Labs and the assessment of Innovation Labs as a resource for
reputation building (Question: “To what degree do you think that Innovation Labs has improved your reputation in a
professional community?”
Multiple-time participants are more likely than first-time participants to evaluate Innovation Labs as a resource for
reputation building in their professional community. Accordingly, data illustrate that recurrent participation in
Innovation Labs is understood in terms of a valuable and enhancing experience by students and young professionals.
Innovation Labs 2018 – Research Summary
40% 37%
48%
40%
8%
16%
4% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Recurrent participation First-time participation
To a very low degree
To a low degree
Somehow
To a high degree
To a very high degree