Living Labs As a Tool for Open Innovation: a Systematic Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND March 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926 Living Labs as a Tool for Open Innovation: a Systematic Review Ali Yazdizadeh1,*, Ali Tavasoli2 Institute for Management and Planning Studies (IMPS), [email protected] Allameh Tabataba'i University, [email protected] Abstract In recent years, one of the important issues in open innovation is the concept of “Living Lab”. While developing innovation, there is a growing interest in users partnership for innovation development processes. One way to structure and conduct this partnership for R&D processes is a living lab. Since it is rather new in different fields such as ICT developments, rural improvements, and health services, the living lab is difficult to illustrate. Nowadays living labs are confronted with lack of a common concept in open innovation. This paper presents a systematic review of the living lab in order to gain a complete understanding of it and its ability to innovate and development. The results show that living lab can improve production, and communication industry, academia, government and increasing national economy. Keywords: Open Innovation, Living Lab, User-centered innovation. 1,*- MA Student, public administration 2 - Candidate of PhD, Technology Management http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1681 Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND March 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926 1- Introduction Innovations resulted from reclusive companies. The most positive effect on innovation generated from networks of different kinds of colleagues (Nieto & Santamaria, 2007; Zeng, Xie, & Tam, 2010). Innovative networks need various resources to be effective, Also the ability to generate different relationships to develop a company's innovation capacity which is so important (Calia, Guerrini, & Moura, 2007). So, innovation networks has an increasing orientation to use an open innovation model that includes more factors and activities in a comparison with a traditional model (Van de Vrande, de Jong, Vanhaverbeke, & de Rochemont, 2009). Open innovation provides a substitution for a usual development (Chesbrough, 2006) & its advantages are users value improvement (Almirall & Casadesus-Masanell, 2010), better innovative performance (Chiaroni, Chiasa, & Frattini, 2010). Living labs, are innovative networks based on open innovation philosophy .They found on this base that companies should consider the ideas from foreign resources for develop and commercialize the innovation, (Almirall & Casadesus-Masanell, 2010; Gassmann, 2006).Despite observing the life lab as a new form of It and communication innovation (Følstad, 2008; Herzog, Boronowsky, Rugge, Glotzbach, & Lawo, 2007), open innovation development tool (Almirall & Wareham, 2008; Kviselius, Andersson, Ozan, & Edenius, 2009), or open innovation network (Leminen, Westerlund, & Nyström, 2012; Romero & Molina, 2012(, the researchers are agree about the main role of user in innovation process (Almirall &Wareham, 2008; Følstad, 2008; Leminen et al., 2012; Schuurman, De Moor, De Marez, & Evens, 2011). Also, users are participating in living lab equally by using different factors in networks (Edvarsson, Gustafsson, Kristensson, &Witell, 2010). Also the living lab can be known as physical are as or virtual realities that all beneficiaries of public-private-people partnerships (4ps) and co-operators from companies, public organizations ,universities, institutions and users who cooperate with each other to generate the basic form and its credit. Also the technology, services, products and modern systems evaluation, can be part of this definition in real life text (Westerlund & Leminen, 2011). In living labs, users, form & use the innovation in daily life environments, though it will see in traditional innovation networks or labs, or users and their views will use and interpret by knowledgeable people (Almirall, 2009). Users are acting not only as information resources, but they act as innovation examiner, developer and designer based on equal to others in living labs (Nyström, Leminen, Westerlund, & Kortelainen, 2014). 2- Research Methodology: (Systematic Review) In this article the systematic Review method has been used. The systematic history has four steps as the following: http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1682 Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND March 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926 2-1 Question Design Recent article wants to know the answer of this question "what is the meaning/ concept of living lab? or can its complete comprehension and ability to innovation and develop lead to product and manufacture's progress and finally national economy? This systematic Review is by using history investigation of this topic in scientific articles. 2-2 Recognizing related articles and publications For finding English articles about living labs, keywords such as open innovation ,living labs user-oriented innovation, co-creation value were searched in database Google scholars which includes many publications and more than 200 related articles found, then after using protocols (from magazine & Journals validity & time setting) and investigating the article's abstract generally 48 articles were investigated. 2-3 Evaluating the quality of Researches In this step search protocols were used based on this for selecting the most authenticated articles: - Choosing articles among valid databases and referring above. - The articles which are published between years 2005-2016. 2-4 Findings report In this step the researchers try to gather the topics about concept of living lab and select subjects that has the most sharing and importance in articles and finally to express the living lab concepts and other key words &related variables and answer to the study's question. 3- Theoretical base Henry Chesberu introduced the open innovation theory in Berkeli California university for the first time. Chesberu present open innovation as an important factor to reach benefit in technology and expressed that how organizations invest in research & development, for a long time in recent era, use people with high abilities that able them to develop their innovation ideas and support them by though ownership strategies and invest the resulted profit again in research& development living lab (Chesbrough, 2006). The concept introduced by professor William Michel in 1995 from Media lab of MIT university and architecture college and city programming .At first explains the living sample observation from users in an intellectual condition for a period of time (Eriksson et al., 2005). (Media Lab is a cross-disciplinary research lab in MIT university that allocates to technology, multimedia, science, art & design convergence project). Its employees & student have different fields from electrical engineering, computer science to sociology & music (media university site, MIT University). The main idea of living lab was structuring the environment like house by around available and intellectual IT such as wireless technologies and sensitive sensors and first design &confirming the complicated solutions of communication & information technology (Ståhlbröst, 2008(. Samples are living labs includes Gorgia technology institution and local lab in MIT (Intille et al., 2005). After that this concept develops to a general axis of a user open innovation approach (Ståhlbröst, 2008). Today, in Europe, a continuous procedure is doing that try to proportionate the living lab in extensive usage to increase innovation, capacity profitability and usibility of http://www.ijhcs.com/index.php/ijhcs/index Page 1683 Special Issue INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES AND March 2016 CULTURAL STUDIES ISSN 2356-5926 information and communication technology and its application in society (Eriksson et al, 2005) .There isn’t any cohesive definition about living Lab, although some people have expressed their own definitions. Continuously, some samples of these definitions are expressing for high diversity presentation, and finally a suggestive definition has expressed There are many different definitions about networks. The European union projects and financial providers of research projects are a methodology for user-oriented innovation and organizations that use it in first level based on ENOLL, though, European project core labs define it as a system to able people, user & service/product users to have an active role as a co-creators in an innovative procedure, development, research (Bergvall- Kåreborn et al, 2009). Living lab is a long term social structure or resource instead of contacts to a special project. In this structural the framework, experiences, procedures and conditions are made for developing the innovative idea, Some researchers present some other definition: From methodology view, Erikson et al (2005) believe that living lab points to a development and research method that the innovations like services, products or programs in multidimensional and real life environments (Eriksson et al, 2005). Although they present a good & comprehensive from living lab but their definition flaw is in lack of methodology steps descript description of living lab. Ballon et al (2005) define the living lab as a test environment that from the technology in different fields of real life and users are as "coproducers". In addition, Feurstein et al (2008) describe the living lab as a systematic innovation view that all beneficiaries are cooperating in one product or program in a development