Why collaborate in long-term innovation research? An exploration of user motivations in Living Labs
Why collaborate in long-term innovation research? An exploration of user motivations in Living Labs
复制标题
为什么要在长期创新研究中进行合作？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Schuurman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bastiaan Baccarne;S. Logghe;Carina Veeckman;D. Schuurman
Living Labs 的核心要素之一是关注最终用户参与 IT 产品和服务开发流程（Stahlbrost，2008 年；Stahlbrost 等人，2009 年）。尽管用户在 Living Lab 研究中确实发挥着核心作用，但用户参与如此长期、相当密集的研究和开发轨道的动机仍然很大程度上未被探索。问题不再是我们为什么应该让用户参与，而是他们应该如何参与生活实验室的研究活动，特别是长期合作计划。本文通过概述当前的学术理解并介绍我们自己对此问题的研究的初步结果，为这一文献空白做出了贡献。迄今为止，用户动机的研究已经从不同的学科领域进行，并应用于不同的领域。因此，动机的概念具有相当复杂的性质。可应用于创新和用户参与的最可靠、最被引用的学术理论之一是计划行为理论（Ajzen，1988，1991）。虽然这一理论相当广泛，但其他作者特别关注用户参与创新开发（例如 Hassinger，1959；Rogers，2003）。大多数这些理论的一个重要维度是最终用户对某些解决方案或特定产品的需求（例如 Xu，2007；Yang & Liu，2011；Von Hippel，2005）。目前对用户成为生活实验室一部分的动机的理解是有限的，除了 Leminen & Westerlund (2012) 和 Stahlbrost (2012) 之外，但我们可以从公司托管的用户社区的动机研究结果中学习。这些研究表明，最终用户主要是出于愿意提供帮助、支持公益事业以及参与项目实现的意愿（Berglin 和 Handberg，2013 年）。根据 Lu 和 Wei (2011) 的说法，个人互动和信息交换对最终用户的参与具有最积极的影响。 Fuller（2006）等其他作者重点关注对创新活动的内在兴趣和好奇心作为消费者愿意参与新产品开发的主要动机的重要性。公司托管的用户社区的参与者大多是业余爱好者或寻求公司认可的人（Jeppesen & Frederiksen，2006）。在众包文献中，一些主要的参与驱动因素是理想主义原因和职业担忧（例如 Hann 等人，2002 年）以及构建有意义的产品（Chandler 和 Kapelner，2013 年）。虽然内在动机似乎非常重要（Kaufman、Veit 和 Schulz，2011），但 Rogstadius 等人。 （2011）表明，最终用户参与创新发展过程的内在动机和外在动机之间也存在相互作用，例如直接或间接的金钱补偿或他人的认可（Hars和Ou，2002）。关于用户参与动机的现有文献相当多样化，并且使用不同的衡量标准和观点。最重要的是，在涉及用户参与 Living Lab 研究的动机方面，文献中存在明显的差距。因此，本文的中心研究问题是：“是什么驱动用户参与Living Labs，哪些参数影响长期或持续参与？”在这个研究问题中，我们还考虑了不同生活实验室阶段的多样性，以便捕捉这个问题的一些复杂性。除了评估全球动机之外，本文还详细阐述了参与调查、线下研讨会和生活实验室背景下的现场试验的动机之间的差异。最后对重复参与现象进行了分析。这项研究的数据收集在 Flemish Living Lab Platform、Mediatuin Living Lab 和 LeYLab 中。测量是通过大规模调查（n：639）、九次共同创造会议（n：63）和现场试验后的短期调查（n：26）进行的。使用衡量以下动机的二元变量来衡量参与动机：（1）与他人合作（2）解决挑战（3）个人兴趣（4）成为第一（5）为社会做出贡献（6）好奇心（7）感觉自己是社区的一部分（8）使用技能（9）学习（10）影响力（11）乐趣（12）扩大社交网络（13）预期职业利益（14）经济或物质激励（15）帮助朋友（16）同伴影响力和(17)职责。本文还比较了生活实验室三项主要研究活动之间的这些变量：在线调查、共同创造会议和现场试验。我们的探索性研究结果表明，对于 Living Lab 而言，参与与他人合作是最常见的动机 (83.3%)，其次是解决挑战 (81.2%) 和个人兴趣 (78.1%)。尽管如此，56.5% 的人还期望获得财务/物质奖励。只有 39.1% 的人预计会对创新产生实际影响。在面对面的共创研讨会中，比现场试验和在线调查更能产生影响力。与共同创造会议和现场试验相比，好奇心是参与在线调查的较少动机。此外，共同创造课程在技能的使用和为社会做出贡献的动机方面都获得了最高的评价。总体而言，参与的主要动机具有内在性质，但我们的结果表明，对于重复参与，物质激励变得更加重要，而使用技能的动机则减少。这些发现让人们更深入地了解 Living Lab 研究中的用户动机。在实践层面上，最重要的维度应该集中在 Living Lab 用户小组的管理中，以达到最大的用户参与度并提高响应质量。在更理论的层面上，这些数据是对用户动机的探索，但应该是迈向理论模型的第一步，该模型了解自愿参与生活实验室研究。在这个很大程度上尚未探索的领域中存在着许多未来的研究问题，例如动机和小组退出之间的关系以及生活实验室中不同类型用户的类型学。这些见解对于评估生活实验室研究的有效性也很重要。
One of the central elements of Living Labs is the focus on end user involvement in IT-product and service development processes (Stahlbrost, 2008; Stahlbrost et al., 2009). Whereas users definitely play a central role in Living Lab research, users’ motivations to participate in such long-term, rather intensive research and development tracks are nevertheless largely unexplored. The question is not any longer about why we should involve users, but rather how they should be involved in Living Lab research activities, and specifically in long-term collaboration initiatives. This article contributes to this gap in literature by providing an overview of current academic understandings and presenting the first results of our own research on this matter. So far, research on user motivations has been conducted from different academic disciplines and has been applied to different domains. Therefore, the concept of motivation has a rather complex nature. One of the most solid and cited academic theories that can be applied on innovation and user participation is the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988,1991). While this theory is rather broad, other authors specifically focus on user involvement in the development of innovations (e.g. Hassinger, 1959; Rogers, 2003). An important dimension in most of these theories is the end users’ need for certain solutions or specific products (e.g. Xu, 2007; Yang & Liu, 2011, Von Hippel, 2005). Current understandings of user motivations to become part of a Living Lab are limited, with exception of Leminen & Westerlund (2012) and Stahlbrost (2012), but we can learn from findings on motivation in firm-hosted user communities. These studies show that end users are mainly driven by willingness to help, to support a good cause and to be part of a project realization (Berglin and Handberg, 2013). According to Lu and Wei (2011) personal interaction and exchanging information have the most positive effect on end user participation. Other authors such as Fuller (2006) focus on the importance of intrinsic interest in the innovation activity and curiosity as the main motives for the consumers’ willingness to participate in new product developments. Participants in firm-hosted user communities are mostly hobbyists or people looking for firm recognition (Jeppesen & Frederiksen, 2006). In crowdsourcing literature, some of the main identified drivers of participation are idealistic reasons and career concerns (e.g. Hann et al., 2002) and building a meaningful product (Chandler & Kapelner, 2013). While intrinsic motivations seem to be very important (Kaufman, Veit and Schulz, 2011), Rogstadius et al. (2011) show that there also exists interaction between intrinsic motivations and extrinsic motivations, such as direct or indirect monetary compensation or recognition by others (Hars and Ou, 2002), for end users to participate in the innovation development process. Existing literature on motivations of user participation is rather diverse and uses different measures and point of views. On top of that, there is a clear gap in literature when it comes to user motivations to participate in Living Lab research. Therefore, the central research question in this paper is: “What drives users to participate in Living Labs and which parameters affect long-term or continuous participation?” Within this research question we also take into account the diversity of the different Living Lab stages in order to capture some of the complexity of this question. Besides assessing the global motivations, this article also elaborates on the differences between motivations to participate in a survey, an offline workshop and a field trial within a Living Lab context. Finally, an analysis is made of the phenomenon of repeated participation. The data for this research are collected in the Flemish Living Lab Platform, Mediatuin Living Lab and LeYLab. Measurements were conducted using a large scale survey (n:639), during nine co-creation sessions (n:63) and during a short survey after a field trial (n:26). The motivations to participate were being measured using binary variables measuring the following motivations: (1) collaboration with others (2) solving challenges (3) personal interest (4) being the first (5) contribute to society (6) curiosity (7) feeling part of a community (8) use of skills (9) learning (10) influence (11) fun (12) expanding the social network (13) expected professional benefit (14) financial or material incentive (15) doing friends a favor (16) peer influence and (17) duty. This article also compares these variables between three main Living Lab research activities: online surveys, co-creation sessions and field trials. The results of our explorative research show that for Living Lab participation collaboration with others is the most occurring motivation (83,3%), followed by solving challenges (81,2%) and personal interest (78,1%). Nevertheless, 56,5% also expects a financial/material reward. Only 39,1% expects to have an actual impact on the innovation. In face-to-face co-creation workshops, the motivation to have an influence is more occurring than in field trials and online surveys. Compared to co-creation sessions and field trials, curiosity is a less occurring motivation for participation in online surveys. Furthermore, co-creation sessions have the highest ratings for both the use of skills and the motivation to contribute to society. Overall, the main motivators to participate have an intrinsic nature, but our results show that for repeated participation, material incentives become more important and the motivation use of skills, decreases. These findings offer a deeper understanding of user motivations in Living Lab research. On a practical level, the most important dimensions should be central in the management of Living Lab user panels in order to reach maximum user engagement and to increase the quality of response. On a more theoretical level, these data are an exploration of user motivations, but should be the first step towards a theoretical model, which understands voluntary engagement in Living Lab research. Many future research questions exist on this largely unexplored domain, such as the relationship between motivations and panel drop-outs and a typology of different types of users in a Living Lab. These insights are important to assess the validity of Living Lab research as well.