Bridging the gap between Open and User Innovation? : exploring the value of Living Labs as a means to structure user contribution and manage distributed innovation
Bridging the gap between Open and User Innovation? : exploring the value of Living Labs as a means to structure user contribution and manage distributed innovation
复制标题
缩小开放和用户创新之间的差距？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Schuurman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Schuurman
在当今社会，组织正在努力解决“分布式创新”的实际实施问题，或者组织需要超越其界限，利用分布式知识源来增强其创新过程。在本博士课程中，我们将研究一种由欧盟委员会推广和支持的具体方法，该方法试图通过公私合作伙伴关系促进和管理分布式创新流程，其中最终用户发挥核心作用：生活实验室。继 Almirall & Wareham (2011) 和 Leminen 等人之后。 (2014)，我们将生活实验室定义为一种有组织的创新方法（而不是临时方法），包括现实生活中的实验和用户通过涉及多个利益相关者的不同方法积极参与，正如生活实验室的公私合作特征所暗示的那样。
然而，这些生活实验室存在两个主要问题。第一个问题，就生活实验室的实践和活动而言，似乎有太多的举措，但没有足够明显的结果或影响。这与第二个问题有关，即处理生活实验室理论。迄今为止，Living Lab的出版物已经很多，但在与更大的研究范式和框架的联系方面缺乏一致性，缺乏具有重大学术影响的论文以及清楚说明其价值的研究。
因此，从理论角度来看，我们研究了开放范式和用户创新范式，并证明生活实验室是两者的体现，尽管当前生活实验室文献中对这些文献流的引用很少。从实践的角度来看，我们已经说明生活实验室植根于各种欧洲前身，例如合作设计、社会实验和“数字城市”，但在欧洲生活实验室网络的 345 个附属成员中，至少 40% 目前处于不活跃状态。
为了进一步发展生活实验室这一概念并实现更好的概念化，我们开发了一个三层模型，包括宏观层面（生活实验室星座）、中观层面（由生活实验室创新项目组成）和微观层面（由不同的方法研究步骤组成）。此外，在对 4 个生活实验室星座、21 个生活实验室创新项目和 107 个方法研究步骤的多个案例研究分析中，我们已经能够证明，从开放创新文献中收集的概念可以用于分析宏观层面，而从用户创新文献中收集的概念可以用于微观层面。通过共同创造，两个层面在中观层面上融合，为发展创新做出有益贡献。因此，我们得出的结论是，生活实验室能够管理创新网络并构建用户对具体创新项目的参与。
In nowadays society, organizations are struggling with the practical implementation of ‘distributed innovation’, or the fact that organizations need to reach outside their boundaries to tap into distributed sources of knowledge to enhance their innovation processes. Within this PhD, we will look at a specific approach, promoted and supported by the European Commission, that tries to facilitate and manage distributed innovation processes through a Public-Private-People partnership with a central role for the end-user: Living Labs. Following Almirall & Wareham (2011) and Leminen et al. (2014), we define Living Labs as an organized approach (as opposed to an ad hoc approach) to innovation consisting of real-life experimentation and active user involvement by means of different methods involving multiple stakeholders, as is implied in the Public-Private-People character of Living Labs.
However, there are two main problems associated with these Living Labs. First problem, in terms of Living Lab practice and activity, is that there seem to be too many initiatives, without enough noticeable results or impact. This is linked to the second problem, dealing with Living Labs theory. To this date, there have been a lot of Living Lab publications, but there is no consistency in terms of connection to larger research paradigms and frameworks, and there is a lack of papers with a significant academic impact as well as research clearly illustrating their value.
Therefore, from a theoretical perspective, we have investigated both the Open and User Innovation paradigms and demonstrated that Living Labs are an embodiment of both, although there are only few references to these literature streams in the current Living Labs literature. From a practice perspective, we have illustrated that Living Labs are rooted within various European predecessors such as cooperative design, social experiments and ‘digital cities’, but that out of the 345 affiliated members to the European Network of Living Labs, at least 40% is currently inactive.
In order to further evolve Living Labs as a concept and to allow a better conceptualization, we developed a three layered model, consisting of a macro level (the Living Lab constellation), the meso level (consisting of a Living Lab innovation project) and the micro level (consisting of the different methodological research steps). Moreover, within a multiple case study analysis of 4 Living Lab constellation, 21 Living Lab innovation projects and 107 methodological research steps, we have been able to demonstrate that the concepts gathered from the Open Innovation literature could be used to analyze the macro level, whereas the concepts from the User Innovation literature could be used on the micro level. Through co-creation, both levels merge on the meso level, resulting in useful contributions to the innovation in development. Therefore, we concluded that Living Labs are able to govern innovation networks and to structure user participation in concrete innovation projects.
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Hamaoka;Yutaka;濱岡豊
通讯作者：
濱岡豊