Innovation intermediaries play an important role in open innovation endeavors. Our longitudinal case study captures the variety and evolution of work tasks and roles of user-side innovation intermediaries during and after a four-year technology project in a living lab.
Two recent papers are presented: Collaborative futuring with and by makers, What difference does a living lab make? Comparing two health technology innovation projects
This paper reports on a rare opportunity to compare two unusually similar innovation projects, one of which relied on a living lab and the other that did not. Contrary to what one might have predicted, the living lab collaboration did not make the development paths very different, and the key challenges regarding design collaboration remained closely similar.
Here we conducted a meta-review of five longstanding case studies that highlighted a key topic deserving attention: practitioners’ method mixes should be taken seriously. Single-method use by a project, professional, or company happens rarely (in this data, never).
The presentation focuses on two specific challenges that can be faced in a living lab project: power issues between the actors and end-user reluctance to participate in the development of new technology.
Living lab environments are often promoted as a way to engage private companies, citizens, researchers, and public organizations in mutually beneficial learning. Based on an in-depth case study of a four-year living lab collaboration in gerontechnology, we agree that successful living lab development hinges on learning between the parties, yet its emergence cannot be presumed or taken for granted.