Abstract
The Impact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contributions and Outcomes
Highlights
In academic theory, open innovation has been regarded as the norm for studying innovation management ever since Chesbrough’s seminal and widely cited Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (2003)
We assist in addressing the need for impact assessment and measurement systems of open innovation approaches, and we demonstrate the viability of a living lab project as a "playground" to test and validate assumptions from the open innovation literature
Nineteen out of 27 projects contain a real-life intervention (70%), and only 13 out of 27 (48%) include a post-assessment. These methodological elements can be regarded as forms of user contextualization, which is proposed as a means to overcome barriers related to user involvement, or the so-called "real-life experience" of living labs (Frissen, 2000)
Summary
Open innovation has been regarded as the norm for studying innovation management ever since Chesbrough’s seminal and widely cited Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (2003). In practice, a balance should be found between open and closed innovation, which calls for innovation management approaches that deal with finding this balance (Lakhani & Panetta, 2007). Most of the principles and research relating to open innovation are tailored to large companies with abundant resources (van de Vrande et al, 2006), despite the fact that SMEs are usually more flexible, less formalized, and quicker to make decisions – meaning that they present many opportunities for the implementation of open innovation (Lee et al, 2010)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
