Living Labs as boundary-spanners between Triple Helix actors



van Geenhuizen, Marina

  • 발행 : 2016.05.31


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.


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


  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.
  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.
  7. Batty, M., Axhausen, K., Gianotti, F. et al. (2012) Smart cities of the future, The European Physical Journal – Special Topics, 214, 481-518.
  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.
  9. Bjerregaard, T. (2010) Industry and academia in convergence. Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration, Technovation 30 (2), 100-108.
  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.
  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,, 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. (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.
  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
  23. ENoll (European Network of Living Labs) (2014) About us. (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.
  26. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (1998) The endless transition: a “triple helix” of university-industry-government relations, Minerva, 36, 203-208.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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 (
  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.
  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, (accessed September 13 2013)
  40. Hippel, E. von (1986) Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 791–805.
  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
  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.
  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.
  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.
  49. Leminen, S. and Westerlund, M. (2012) Towards Innovation in Living Labs Network. International Journal of Product Development, 17 (1/2), 43-59.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  54. Meyer, M. and Kearnes, M. (2013) Introduction to special section: Intermediaries between science, policy and market. Science and Public Policy, 40, 423-429.
  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.
  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.
  57. Nambisan, P. and S. Nambisan (2009). Models of consumer value co-creation in health care. Health Care Management Review 34(4), 344-354.
  58. Nembhard (2012) All technology, all learn, all improve? Health Care Management Review 37 (2), 154-164.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.

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