Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Bridging the gap between Open
and User Innovation?
Exploring the value of Living Labs as a means to structure
user contrib...
What are Living Labs?
Approach to innovation charaterized by…
Multi-method
Real-life experimentation
Active user involveme...
However…
 Statistics from 2013: EU Paradox is still a reality!
 Asia outperforms Europe in terms of patents filed in ICT...
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...
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...
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...
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...
I. Explore the emergence and current state-of-the-art within the field of Living Labs practice
II. Investigate whether Liv...
MethodologyRG I: PRACTICE
Sample/data Research steps Methods
Open and User
Innovation
papers
abstracted in
WoS
Literature
...
Predecessors & types of LL
Cooperative
Design (70’s)
Social
Experiments (80’s)
Digital
Cities (90’s)
American
living labs ...
Predecessors & types of LL
Cooperative
Design (70’s)
Social
Experiments (80’s)
Digital
Cities (90’s)
American
living labs ...
LL segmentation
K-Means
Clustering
Dimensions
Følstad Living
Lab
Characteristics
Cluster 1:
Small scale real-
world user c...
LL segmentation
K-Means
Clustering
Dimensions
Følstad Living
Lab
Characteristics
Cluster 1:
Small scale real-
world user c...
MethodologyRG I: PRACTICE RG II: THEORY
Sample/data Research steps Methods
Open and User
Innovation
papers
abstracted in
W...
Open Innovation
 Main idea: Organizations benefit by opening up their innovation processes to
exchange knowledge & techno...
 Main idea: Given certain circumstances, users start innovating themselves or
make valuable contributions to innovation p...
Bridging the gap?
Paradigm N
Open Innovation 11
User Innovation 17
UCD / Participatory design 19
None 18
MethodologyRG I: PRACTICE RG II: THEORY
Sample/data Research steps Methods
Open and User
Innovation
papers
abstracted in
W...
3-way model for LL
RG III
Level Definition Research paradigm
Macro
Living Lab constellation consisting of
organized stakeh...
3-way model for LL
RG III
Level Definition Research paradigm
Macro
Living Lab constellation consisting of
organized stakeh...
MethodologyRG I: PRACTICE RG II: THEORY
Sample/data Research steps Methods
Open and User
Innovation
papers
abstracted in
W...
°2004 - 2008
2.500 PDAs
100 Hotspots
150 Alphas
No external projects
°2010 - 2013
2.015 Panel members
3DTVs, tablets, sens...
Case Research steps Duration
Future
Legends
SotA
ecosystem
& user
Expert
interviews
Survey
Workshops
with
observation
Medi...
Main findingsMACRO LEVEL:
67% success (39) (61% exploitation)
23 SMEs: 65% success (36% exploitation)
MESO LEVEL:
Progress...
LL as structural approach to DI
RG IV
Coupled Interactive Open Innovation:
Organization & characteristics
Contributions
1. Development of theoretical model and lens to…
 analyze and denominate different aspects of Living Labs m...
Future research
Research questions Research
How can Living Lab networks yield value for all involved actors?
How can the d...
www.iminds.be/livinglab
@DimiSchuurman
Dimitri.Schuurman@iminds.be
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Schuurman phd presentation 2015 02 27

1,002 views

Published on

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

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Schuurman phd presentation 2015 02 27

  1. 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. 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. 3. However…  Statistics from 2013: EU Paradox is still a reality!  Asia outperforms Europe in terms of patents filed in ICT industry
  4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 17. Bridging the gap? Paradigm N Open Innovation 11 User Innovation 17 UCD / Participatory design 19 None 18
  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 25. LL as structural approach to DI RG IV Coupled Interactive Open Innovation: Organization & characteristics
  26. 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. 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. 28. www.iminds.be/livinglab @DimiSchuurman Dimitri.Schuurman@iminds.be

×