Iakovleva, John Bessant

Research In Progress Paper

Exploring Methods for Co-creation in Living Labs

Authors

Judy Hong Huang1 , Tatiana A. Iakovleva1, John Bessant2

1 Business School, University of Stavanger, Norway 2 University of Exeter, United Kingdom

Abstract

Living labs adopt different methodological approaches for implementing their cocreation process. In this research in progress, we aim to understand how living lab methods, tools, and other enabling devices, are used to facilitate user involvement and particularly the roles of users during different stages of the innovation process. We interview living labs from different sectors and countries to draw the landscape of practices and the emergence of methods for user involvement within their contextual environment. It shows that living labs use a combination of methods while users iteratively play multiple roles during the innovation process. These collaborative activities take place in a fluid environment, emphasizing the “living” part of labs. Living labs have also learned and adapted to hybrid methods (physical and digital) in recent times.

Keywords

Living lab, co-creation, methodology, user involvement.

Introduction

Users are playing increasingly important roles during the innovation process (Bogers, Afuah, & Bastian, 2010). From giving input to product development to being the source of innovation, their roles are shifting, and users have become a focal point in the field of innovation studies (von Hippel, 1976, 1998, 2005). Innovators from firms and organizations are actively reaching out to users, seeking to exchange values and co-create innovative solutions (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). The living lab has been recognized as an inclusive environment and mechanism for innovators to effectively attract and engage users (Almirall, Lee, & Wareham, 2012; Westerlund & Leminen, 2011). Inside the living labs, activities are conducted around co-creation with users in real-life settings to develop solutions that can fulfill their needs (Leminen, Nyström, & Westerlund, 2015).

Users have different needs and participate in living lab activities differently, hence the existence of a spectrum of user involvement and methods for collecting their insights (Almirall et al., 2012). Studies also show the plurality of methods for implementing the co-creatin process (Almirall et al., 2012). Meanwhile, in-depth knowledge about the implementation of co-creation and methodological approaches is still scant. This study aims to explore the methods for user involvement in living labs and draw a landscape of current practices and the emergence within their innovation contexts. Our research questions are as follows: How do living labs implement their co-creation processes with users? What are user roles and the methods used during this innovation process?

Literature

Though user innovation is now a well-established aspect of innovation, there are still ongoing discussions about the extent of user involvement and approaches for articulating and deploying their contribution (von Hippel, 2005). It connects with a research and practice tradition around living labs, which is an open approach and environment for engaging multiple players particularly users during the innovation process (Westerlund & Leminen, 2011). Living labs provide the ground for user involvement, as in methodological approaches and real-world settings/facilitations (Almirall et al., 2012), by uncovering user needs and enabling their influence on the development of innovative solutions (Ballon, Van Hoed, & Schuurman, 2018). The essential parts of this concept are early engagement and real-life experimentation for facilitating user participation participation (Almirall & Wareham, 2008; Hossain, Leminen, & Westerlund, 2019).

The literature has identified four categories of living labs according to the driving actor of the innovation activities: utilizer-driven, enabler-driven, provider-driven, and user-driven (Leminen, Westerlund, & Nyström, 2012). Utilizer-driven living labs are

established by firms for developing their innovative solutions. Enabler-driven living labs are founded by public or non-governmental organizations for regional or societal development goals. Provider-driven living labs are initiated by organizations like institutes or consultants for developing, promoting knowledge, and improving people’s daily lives. User-driven living labs are initiated by a group of users with shared interests and to solve specific problems (Leminen et al., 2012). Knowing the types of living labs help scholars develop further studies for evaluating their methodologies and supporting innovators in adopting suitable approaches for innovation. It is also the starting point for mapping living labs in this research.

Living labs generally follow a linear or iterative innovation process, and they also adopt standardized and customized methods and tools inside their innovation contexts (Leminen & Westerlund, 2017). There is no single methodology for user involvement in living labs (Almirall & Casadesus-Masanell, 2010). Prior studies have also examined different approaches for engaging users at various stages of the innovation process (Beutel, Jonas, & Moeslein, 2017; Feurstein, Hesmer, Hribernik, Thoben, & Schumacher, 2008). Although the actual implementation varies, living labs help uncover users’ needs and enable the co-creation of innovative solutions (Ballon et al., 2018). Recent studies have contributed to establishing a comprehensive understanding of the importance of co-creation with users in achieving sustainable outcomes (Compagnucci, Spigarelli, Coelho, & Duarte, 2021), as well as developing a framework of user engagement (Habibipour, 2022). Given the relatively short development period of this entire living lab phenomenon, further evidence is still needed to support the claimed user roles and intended levels of involvement within living labs.

Method

Following a qualitative research approach, we interview members of the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), an international cluster of living labs. These are established living labs in their fields across countries. Informants are living lab managers, project leaders, or people holding similar positions, those who have been actively involved in their activities with users. We followed a snowball sampling procedure, a wide-adopted method in qualitative research by starting from a small pool of samples (Given, 2008). We began with several known informants, asking them to recommend one or more potential referrals towards the end of the interview. We then contacted the referrals asking for interviews. During the semi-structured interview, questions move around their reflections on user involvement methods and user roles through the innovation process. Interviews are carried out digitally (or physically if possible). Each interview lasts for around 60-90 minutes. Interviews are recorded and transcribed for analysis. For privacy protection purposes, we have anonymized the identities of informants and their organizations. We had a trial run with one living lab in October 2021 to test the interview questions and make

necessary adjustments. The official data collection started in March 2022 and expects to complete by October 2022. We have an envisioned sample of 20 and have interviewed 14 so far.

Preliminary Findings

The 14 living labs are from 12 different countries and multiple disciplines, including public service, health & welling, ICT, and urban. Interviews are still ongoing, and we have not started the full-scale analysis yet at this moment.

Nevertheless, here are some preliminary findings:

1. Living labs customize their methods for co-creation depending on the project/product and user groups. There is a wide range of combinations, including traditional ones like meetings, surveys, testing, interviews, training, and workshops and emerging ones such as gamification, interactive mobile/computer applications, social media platforms etc.

2. Living labs generally claim that users are involved throughout the innovation process. By taking a closer look at each stage of the innovation process, we found that users have different roles at different stages and the situation varies from lab to lab. Instead of following a linear process, users iteratively have multiple roles during the process where living labs shape and assign these roles depending on the project/task. In some living labs, users play more passive roles like informants and testers, while in some other labs, they take more active roles supported by methods and tools.

3. There is increasing attention on the “living” part, which emphasizes the creation of an inclusive and “fluid” environment in contrast to a more conventional physical environment. More flexible forms are suggested, such as a library, a community, a neighbourhood, or a mall, where users and other actors can find and join. Living labs move closer to users, anchoring their “real-life” key characteristic.

4. Some living labs have highlighted the importance of establishing an extensive and active user base with effective communication channels. There are different approaches among living labs. Some have built a user base/community on various platforms, while some don’t have a base of their own but rely on their network for recruitment for each project. The informant from Labs 3 mentioned: “We do have a database of different kinds of users. And the municipality has a large database of citizens’ information”. While the informant from Lab 8 said: “We don't give any financial incentives, so that is something that we cannot do. And because of the GDPR and so on, we cannot really have a kind of a pool of endusers. So, we have to recruit them for every project. We have quite good connections and experiences, but it's a challenge every time to have them on

board”.

5. Living labs have experienced a significant shift toward using digital methods during the COVID-19 pandemic. Labs that heavily relies on physical activities have been impacted the most, with many activities postponed or cancelled. After the initial shock, living labs learned to embrace the “new normal” by trying out new ways for user engagement, such as digital methods and tools. This transition has accelerated their adaptation process. Although physical interactions are still considered the primary method, digital formats have been recognized for their advantages in creating new opportunities to reach a broader network, and the ease of use.

“We haven't been able to attend senior homes for example. So, basically those things would have been impossible, and the project had just had to change.” (Lab 8) “I think there's a great value in being able to have it online. Actually, I would say that your user engagement went up when we hit the pandemic, and everything moved online.” (Lab 4)

Conclusion

This study, when completed, aims to identify the difference among the living labs in terms of their type, patterns of customization (of methods and tools), and possible outcomes from using these methods and tools. It intends to offer a holistic view of methods for co-creation with users and their implementation in living labs. We hope to contribute by deepening the understanding of user roles at varying stages of the innovation process and mapping the corresponding methods employed. The results would inform relevant research and in particular, help move this on from the question of whether users can play an active role in innovation to exploring how that could be accomplished. For practitioners, it also offers valuable lessons and inspiration about how to arrange their collaborative activities.

References

1. Almirall, E., & Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010). Open versus closed innovation: A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 27-47. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.1.zok27 2. Almirall, E., Lee, M., & Wareham, J. (2012). Mapping living labs in the landscape of innovation methodologies. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9), 12-18. doi:http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/603 3. Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2008). Living Labs and Open Innovation: Roles and

Applicability. The Electronic Journal for for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10, 21-46. 4. Ballon, P., Van Hoed, M., & Schuurman, D. (2018). The effectiveness of involving users in digital innovation: Measuring the impact of living labs. Telematics and Informatics, 35(5), 1201-1214. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.02.003 5. Beutel, T., Jonas, J. M., & Moeslein, K. M. (2017). Co-creation and user involvement in a living lab: an evaluation of applied methods. Paper presented at the Proceedings der. 6. Bogers, M., Afuah, A., & Bastian, B. (2010). Users as innovators: a review, critique, and future research directions. Journal of Management, 36(4), 857-875. 7. Compagnucci, L., Spigarelli, F., Coelho, J., & Duarte, C. (2021). Living Labs and user engagement for innovation and sustainability. Journal of cleaner production, 289, 125721. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125721 8. Feurstein, K., Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K. A., Thoben, K., & Schumacher, J. (2008). Living

Labs: a new development strategy. In European Living Labs-a new approach for human centric regional innovation (pp. 1-14). 9. Given, L. M. (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods: Sage publications. 10. Habibipour, A. (2022). Towards a sustainable user engagement framework in Living Labs.

Paper presented at the XXXIII ISPIM Innovation Conference" Innovating in a Digital World",

Copenhagen, Denmark, June 5-8, 2022. 11. Hossain, M., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2019). A systematic review of living lab literature. Journal of cleaner production, 213, 976-988. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.257 12. Leminen, S., Nyström, A.-G., & Westerlund, M. (2015). A typology of creative consumers in living labs. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 37, 6-20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.08.008 13. Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2017). Categorization of Innovation Tools in Living Labs.

Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(1), 15-25. doi:http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1046 14. Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A.-G. (2012). Living Labs as Open-Innovation

Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2, 6-11. doi:http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/602 15. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015 16. von Hippel, E. (1976). The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy, 5(3), 212-239. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(76)90028-7 17. von Hippel, E. (1998). Economics of product development by users: The impact of “sticky” local information. Management science, 44(5), 629-644. 18. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm 19. Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. (2011). Managing the Challenges of Becoming an Open

Innovation Company: Experiences from Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management

Review, 1(1), 19-25. doi:http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/489