IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v36y2018i7p1280-1298.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A framework for the evaluation of living labs as boundary spanners in innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Marina van Geenhuizen

Abstract

Living labs, as a methodology to enhance user-centric innovation, have large potentials in bringing inventions to the marketplace, but their performance can benefit more from evaluation. This article develops a novel framework for evaluation of living labs, including (1) a system approach providing an analytical view on living labs’ performance and results; (2) a focus on actor-complexity and boundary-spanning needs; (3) a set of questions concerning, e.g. absorption of user-feedback, satisfaction among actors, and openness and connecting with larger networks; (4) a list of key performance factors; and (5) a focus on participatory evaluation. The design of this evaluation framework rests on a comprehensive literature search and case studies representing different actor complexity, namely home-solutions in healthcare, reconstruction of large (multi)functional buildings, and multiple combinations of activity (university campuses). Key performance factors are found to be: an early involvement of adequately skilled users in multiple learning processes, including absorption of feedback, and a broader but balanced set of actors connecting with upscaling and acceptance in the market. Also, boundaries need to be better bridged by learning how to handle conflicts and deal with intermediation, while respecting shared goals and interests. Specifically, university living labs call for maintaining a solid relation with cities and their actors. Overall, an explicitly designed evaluation framework is a key part of the working plan of living labs. The results also indicate a need for stronger attention for boundary-spanning in evaluation, because living labs are increasingly applied in comprehensive multi-activity settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Marina van Geenhuizen, 2018. "A framework for the evaluation of living labs as boundary spanners in innovation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(7), pages 1280-1298, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:36:y:2018:i:7:p:1280-1298
    DOI: 10.1177/2399654417753623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2399654417753623
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2399654417753623?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    2. Howells, Jeremy, 2006. "Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 715-728, June.
    3. Taheri, Mozhdeh & van Geenhuizen, Marina, 2016. "Teams' boundary-spanning capacity at university: Performance of technology projects in commercialization," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 31-43.
    4. Bruneel, Johan & D'Este, Pablo & Salter, Ammon, 2010. "Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 858-868, September.
    5. Bart Nooteboom, 2009. "A Cognitive Theory of the Firm," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13348.
    6. Shiri Breznitz & Maryann Feldman, 2012. "The engaged university," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 139-157, April.
    7. Morgan Meyer & Matthew Kearnes, 2013. "Introduction to special section: Intermediaries between science, policy and the market," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 423-429, July.
    8. D'Este, P. & Patel, P., 2007. "University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 1295-1313, November.
    9. Kaufmann, Alexander & Todtling, Franz, 2001. "Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: the importance of boundary-crossing between systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 791-804, May.
    10. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2007. "The scientometrics of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations (Introduction to the topical issue)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 207-222, February.
    11. Morgan Meyer & Matthew Kearnes, 2013. "Introduction to special section: Intermediaries between science, policy and the market," Post-Print hal-00850565, HAL.
    12. Todeva, Emanuela, 2013. "Governance of Innovation and Intermediation in Triple Helix Interactions," MPRA Paper 67612, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Walker, Warren E. & Rahman, S. Adnan & Cave, Jonathan, 2001. "Adaptive policies, policy analysis, and policy-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 282-289, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marina Van Geenhuizen, 2019. "Applying an RRI Filter in Key Learning on Urban Living Labs’ Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Marcin Dąbrowski & Viktor Varjú & Libera Amenta, 2019. "Transferring Circular Economy Solutions across Differentiated Territories: Understanding and Overcoming the Barriers for Knowledge Transfer," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(3), pages 52-62.
    3. Marina Knickel & Karlheinz Knickel & Francesca Galli & Damian Maye & Johannes S. C. Wiskerke, 2019. "Towards a Reflexive Framework for Fostering Co—Learning and Improvement of Transdisciplinary Collaboration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Taheri, Mozhdeh & van Geenhuizen, Marina, 2016. "Teams' boundary-spanning capacity at university: Performance of technology projects in commercialization," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 31-43.
    2. Albats, Ekaterina & Alexander, Allen T. & Cunningham, James A., 2022. "Traditional, virtual, and digital intermediaries in university-industry collaboration: exploring institutional logics and bounded rationality," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    3. Xie Kaiji & Antonio Crupi & Alberto Minin & Fabrizio Cesaroni, 2022. "Team boundary-spanning activities and performance of technology transfer organizations: evidence from China," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 33-62, February.
    4. Marina van Geenhuizen, 2013. "From Ivory Tower to Living Lab: Accelerating the Use of University Knowledge," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(6), pages 1115-1132, December.
    5. Nicola Francesco Dotti & André Spithoven, 2017. "Spatial perspectives on knowledge brokers: Evidence from Brussels," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(10), pages 2203-2222, October.
    6. Hoppmann, Joern, 2021. "Hand in hand to Nowhereland? How the resource dependence of research institutes influences their co-evolution with industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    7. Mónica Ramos-Mejía & Alejandro Balanzo, 2018. "What It Takes to Lead Sustainability Transitions from the Bottom-Up: Strategic Interactions of Grassroots Ecopreneurs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    8. Marina van Geenhuizen, 2013. "Valorization of university knowledge: what are the barriers and can ‘living labs’ provide solutions?," Chapters, in: Tüzin Baycan (ed.), Knowledge Commercialization and Valorization in Regional Economic Development, chapter 7, pages 135-156, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Victoria Galan-Muros & Todd Davey, 2019. "The UBC ecosystem: putting together a comprehensive framework for university-business cooperation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 1311-1346, August.
    10. Ankrah, Samuel & AL-Tabbaa, Omar, 2015. "Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 387-408.
    11. Delorme, Donatienne, 2023. "The role of proximity in the design of innovation intermediaries' business models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    12. Alejandro Bengoa & Amaia Maseda & Txomin Iturralde & Gloria Aparicio, 2021. "A bibliometric review of the technology transfer literature," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1514-1550, October.
    13. Peltomaa, Juha & Hildén, Mikael & Huttunen, Suvi, 2016. "Translating institutional change - forest journals as diverse policy actors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 172-180.
    14. Stan Metcalfe & Dimitri Gagliardi & Nicola De Liso & Ronnie Ramlogan, 2012. "Innovation Systems and Innovation Ecologies: Innovation Policy and Restless Capitalism," Openloc Working Papers 1203, Public policies and local development.
    15. Garcia-Perez-de-Lema, Domingo & Madrid-Guijarro, Antonia & Martin, Dominique Philippe, 2017. "Influence of university–firm governance on SMEs innovation and performance levels," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 250-261.
    16. Alessandra Colombelli & Antonio De Marco & Emilio Paolucci & Riccardo Ricci & Giuseppe Scellato, 2021. "University technology transfer and the evolution of regional specialization: the case of Turin," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 933-960, August.
    17. J. Stanley Metcalfe, 2009. "University and Business Relations: Connecting the Knowledge Economy," Working Papers wp395, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    18. Timo Kleiner-Schaefer & Kerstin J. Schaefer, 2022. "Barriers to university–industry collaboration in an emerging market: Firm-level evidence from Turkey," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 872-905, June.
    19. Roberto Iorio & Sandrine Labory & Francesco Rentocchini, 2014. "Academics’ Motivations and Depth and Breadth of Knowledge Transfer Activities," Working Papers 1401, c.MET-05 - Centro Interuniversitario di Economia Applicata alle Politiche per L'industria, lo Sviluppo locale e l'Internazionalizzazione.
    20. Kertcher, Zack & Venkatraman, Rohan & Coslor, Erica, 2020. "Pleasingly parallel: Early cross-disciplinary work for innovation diffusion across boundaries in grid computing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 581-594.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:36:y:2018:i:7:p:1280-1298. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.