Living Labs as boundary-spanners between Triple Helix actors

DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

van Geenhuizen, Marina

  • 발행 : 2016.05.31

초록

Living labs are an increasingly popular methodology to enhance innovation. Living labs aim to span boundaries between different organizations, among others Triple helix actors, by acting as a network organization typically in a real-life environment to foster co-creation by user-groups. This paper presents critical factors of Living labs in boundary-spanning between Triple Helix actors. Derived from a mixed-method approach and applications in the healthcare sector, the three main critical factors turn out to be 1) an adequate user-group selection and involvement, specifically a rich interaction and absorption of its results, 2) a balanced involvement of all relevant actors, and 3) a sufficient (early) attention for values, both values of user-groups and values of the management. People-oriented Living labs tend to differ from institution-oriented Living labs regarding these critical factors. Further, universities tend to take on diverse roles and strength of involvement, while the business sector tends to be actively involved only if this has been set as an explicit aim at start. The paper closes with a summary and future research paths.

키워드

triple helix;living labs;boundary-spanning;user-groups;co-creation

참고문헌

  1. Almirall, E. and Wareham, J. (2008). Living Labs and Open Innovation: Roles and Applicability. The Electronical Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks 10, 21-46.
  2. Almirall, E. and Wareham, J. (2011) Living Labs: Arbiters of Mid and Ground-Level Innovation, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 23(1), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2011.537110
  3. Almirall, E., Lee, M., and Wareham, J. (2012) Mapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies. Technology Innovation Management Review, September 2012, 12-18.
  4. Amsterdam Region Care & ICT (2013) Innovating in care in collaboration with the end-user. Amsterdam.
  5. Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P. and Piirainen, T. (2010) Exploring Quadruple Helix. Outlining user-oriented innovation models. University of Tampere, Institute of Social Research.
  6. Bretznitz, S.M. and Feldman, M.P. (2012) The Engaged University. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37 (2), 139-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9183-6
  7. Batty, M., Axhausen, K., Gianotti, F. et al. (2012) Smart cities of the future, The European Physical Journal – Special Topics, 214, 481-518. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2012-01703-3
  8. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. and A. Ståhlbröst (2009). Living lab – an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. Int. Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1(4), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2009.022727
  9. Bjerregaard, T. (2010) Industry and academia in convergence. Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration, Technovation 30 (2), 100-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.11.002
  10. Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., Salter, A. (2010) Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university, industry collaboration, Research Policy, 39, 858-868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006
  11. Bruijn, H. de, Heuvelhof, E. and R. in 't Veld (2010) Process Management: Why Project Management Fails in Complex Decision-Making Processes, 2nd edition. Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer.
  12. Chesbrough, H. (2003) Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Cambridge: Harvard Business School.
  13. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (2006) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. New York: Oxford University Press.
  14. DFKI (German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence) (2014) Living Labs, www.dfki.de, accessed January 15, 2015).
  15. Dubé, P., Sarrailh, J. and I. Kostecki (2013) Introduction to living labs. Montréal inVibo (in French), Quebec, Umvelt.
  16. Dutilleul, B., F. A. J. Birrer and W. Mensink, (2010). Unpacking European Living Labs: Analysing Innovation’s Social Dimension. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 4, 60-85.
  17. EC (European Commission) (2012) Digital Agenda for Europe. A Europe 2020 Initiative. Brussels. http://ec.europe.eu/digital-agenda/en/about-smart-cities (accessed June 15 2014).
  18. EC (European Commission) (2009) Living Labs for user-driven open innovation. Luxembourg.
  19. EC (European Commission) (2011) Horizon 2020. The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Communication from the Commission. Brussels.
  20. EC (European Commission) (2012) eHealth Action Plan 2012-2020 - Innovative healthcare for the 21st century. Brussels.
  21. Eisenhardt, K. and Graebner, M. (2007) Theory-building from cases: opportunities and challenges, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 25-32. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888
  22. Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., and Chesbrough, H.W. (2009) Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R & D Management, 39 (4), 311–316 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00570.x
  23. ENoll (European Network of Living Labs) (2014) About us. www.openlivinglabs.eu/aboutus (accessed April 15 2014).
  24. Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V.P. and Kulkki, S. (2005) State-of-the art in utilizing Living Labs to user-centric ICT innovation – a European approach. Lulea University of Technology.
  25. D’Este, P. and Patel, P. (2007) University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36, 1295-1313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.05.002
  26. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (1998) The endless transition: a “triple helix” of university-industry-government relations, Minerva, 36, 203-208. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017159001649
  27. Etzkowitz, H. (2008) The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. London: Routledge.
  28. Füzi, A. (2013) Quadruple Helix and its types of user-driven innovation. 13the Triple Helix Conference, London.
  29. Fahy, C., M. Ponce de Leon, A. Ståhlbröst and Schaffers, H. (eds) (2007) Services of living labs and their networks. Expanding the Knowledge Economy. Amsterdam, IOS Press.
  30. Flyvbjerg, B., M. K. S. Holm and S.L. Buhl (2005). How (in) accurate are demand forecasts in public works projects? The case of transportation. Journal of the American Planning Association 71(2), 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976688
  31. Følstad, A. (2008). Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Communication Technology: A Literature Review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks 10, 99-131.
  32. Geenhuizen, M. van (2013) From Ivory Tower to Living Lab. Accelerating the Use of University Knowledge, Environment & Planning C (Government and Policy) 31 (6), 1115-1132. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1175b
  33. Geenhuizen, M. van (2014) Critical Factors in Health Innovation in Cities: From Ivory Tower to Living Lab. Int. Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 13 (2-4), 258-280. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGENVI.2014.064508
  34. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London, Sage.
  35. Goddard, J. and Vallance, P. (2013) The university and the city, Routledge.
  36. Guldemond, N. and Geenhuizen, M. van (2012) Critical Factors in ‘Livings Labs’ for New Health Concepts and Medical Technology, CESUN Int. Engineering Systems Symposium, Delft, NL, 18-20 June 2012 (www.cesun2012.tudelft.nl).
  37. Harvey, S., Peterson, R.S. and Anand, N. (2014) The Process of Team Boundary Spanning in Multi-Organizational Contexts, Small Group Research, 45 (5), 506-538. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496414534474
  38. Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005) Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind. (revised.2nd edition) New York: McGraw Hill.
  39. HICD (2013) Healthcare Innovation Centre Denmark, http://www.regionh.dk/HealthcareInnovationCentre/Menu/. (accessed September 13 2013)
  40. Hippel, E. von (1986) Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791
  41. Hippel, E. von (2005) Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  42. Howells, J. (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35(5): 715-728 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
  43. Jehn, K.A and Mannix, E.A. (2001) The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intra-group conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238-251. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069453
  44. Katzy, B.R., Pawar, K.S. and K-D Thoben (2012) Editorial: A Living Lab Research Agenda, Int. J. Product Development, 17(1/2), 1-7.
  45. Kehayia, E., Swaine, B. et al. (2014) Creating a rehabilitation living lab to optimize participation and inclusion for persons with physical disabilities, ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research, 8, 151-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2014.03.006
  46. König, A. (2013) Regenerative Sustainable Development of Universities and Cities, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  47. Kop, W. (2011). User guide: Smart Care and participation by specific user groups. Eindhoven, P. Advisors.
  48. Kuhlmann, S. (2003) Evaluation of research and innovation policies: a discussion of trends with examples from Germany. Int. Journal of Technology Management, 26 (2/3/4), 131-149. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2003.003366
  49. Leminen, S. and Westerlund, M. (2012) Towards Innovation in Living Labs Network. International Journal of Product Development, 17 (1/2), 43-59. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2012.051161
  50. Marrone, J.A., Tesluk, P.E., and Carson, J.B. (2007) A Multilevel Investigation of Antecedents and Consequences of Team Members Boundary Spanning Behavior, Academy of Management Journal, 50 (6), 1423-1439. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.28225967
  51. Leminen, S. (2013) Coordination and Participation in Living Lab Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, November 2013, 1-12.
  52. Leminen, S. Westerlund, M. and Nystrøm, A-G (2014) On Becoming Creative Consumers – User Roles in Living Labs Networks. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 9 (1), 33-52. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTMKT.2014.058082
  53. Leydesdorff, L. and Meyer, M. (2007) The scientometrics of a Triple Helix of university, industry, government relations (Introduction to the topical issue), Scientometrics 70 (2), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0200-y
  54. Meyer, M. and Kearnes, M. (2013) Introduction to special section: Intermediaries between science, policy and market. Science and Public Policy, 40, 423-429. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct051
  55. Moor, K. de, Berte, K., De Marez, L. and Joseph, W. (2010) User-driven innovation? Challenges of user-involvement in future technology analysis. Science and Public Policy, 37 (1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X484775
  56. Mørk, B.E., Hoholm, T., Maaninen-Olsson, E, and Aanestad, M. (2012) Changing practice through boundary-organizing: a case from medical R&D. Human Relations, 65 (2): 263-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711429192
  57. Nambisan, P. and S. Nambisan (2009). Models of consumer value co-creation in health care. Health Care Management Review 34(4), 344-354. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e3181abd528
  58. Nembhard (2012) All technology, all learn, all improve? Health Care Management Review 37 (2), 154-164. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e31822af831
  59. Nooteboom, B. (2009) A Cognitive Theory of the Firm. Learning, Governance and Dynamic Capabilities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  60. Ranga, M. and Etzkowitz, H. (2013) Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry & Higher Education, 27 (3), 237-262. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0165
  61. Nystrøm, A-G, Leminen, S., Westerlund, M. and Kortelainen, M. (2014) Actor Roles and Role Patterns Influencing Innovation in Living Labs. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 483-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.016
  62. Philips, F. (2014) Triple Helix and the Circle of Innovation, Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 13 (1), 57-68.
  63. Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004) Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (3), 6-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20003
  64. Ruff, S.A. and Jacobsen, E. (2012) Healthcare Innovation Lab. Copenhagen: Healthcare Innovation Centre.
  65. Saad, M. and Zawdie, G. (eds) (2011) Theory and Practice of the Triple Helix System in Developing Countries. Issues and Challenges. New York: Routledge.
  66. Sauer, S. (2013) User Innovativeness in Living Laboratories. Enschede: Center for Telematics and Information Technology (CTIT) (PhD thesis).
  67. Schot, J. and Geels, F.W. (2008) Strategic niche management and sustainability innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20 (5), 537-554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651
  68. Shah, S. G. S., I. Robinson and S. AIShawi (2009). Developing medical device technologies from users' perspectives: A theoretical framework for involving users in the development process. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 25(4), 514-521. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309990328
  69. Ståhlbröst, A. (2008). Forming Future IT - The Living Lab Way of User Involvement. Dept. of Business Administration and Social Sciences. Luleå University of Technology.
  70. Trencher, G.P., Yarime, M. and Kharrazi, A. (2013) Co-creating sustainability: cross-sector university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 40-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.047
  71. Ståhlbröst, A. (2012) A set of key principles to assess the impact of Living labs. International Journal of Product Development, 17 (1/2), 60-75. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2012.051154
  72. Tidd, J., and Bessant, J. (2009) Managing Innovations. Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, 4th edition, John Wiley.
  73. Todeva E (2013) Governance of innovation and intermediation in Triple Helix interactions. Industry & Higher Education 27(4), 263-278. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0161
  74. Vloed, G.A., van der, and Sadowkski, B. (2013) Final Report TU/e for Living lab Eindhoven. Eindhoven: TU/e.
  75. Williams, P. (2002) The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80 (1), 103-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00296
  76. Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. and Perrone, V. (1998) Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9, 141-159. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.141

피인용 문헌

  1. 1. Quintuple helix structure of Sino-Korean research collaboration in science vol.113, pp.1, 2017, doi:10.17477/jcea.2016.15.1.078
  2. 2. Uncovering stakeholders in public–private relations on social media: a case study of the 2015 Volkswagen scandal vol.51, pp.3, 2017, doi:10.17477/jcea.2016.15.1.078