3. DESARROLLOS
3.7 FILTRO DE SALIDA
Innovation is often used as a buzz word in research on living labs, where studies on innovations include tangible innovations such as products, services, and systems, intangible innovations such as knowledge, information, and practices and different types of innovations such as incremental and radical innovations.
By definition, living labs aim to create, prototype, validate and test new technologies, products, services and systems in real-life contexts. Living labs assume that outcomes are the results of innovation activities, where they highlight actors, activities and resource perspectives in living labs. Studies on living labs provide some attempts to classify outcomes, where they depict products, services, solutions or systems to be developed, validated or tested (cf. Lasher et al., 1991; Ballon et al., 2005; Eriksson et al., 2005). The more recent studies couple a broad variety of products, services and systems into innovation activities including creation, prototyping, validating, and testing. For example, Mulder et al. (2008) include a variety of tangible and intangible innovation outcomes such as knowledge, new products and services or intellectual property rights, end-user applications, prototypes and usage patterns in living labs. In this vein, Kanstrup et al. (2010) document the creation of prototypes, which enable users to share and exchange information in daily situations including visiting in bakeries, supermarkets, and restaurants. Niitamo et al. (2012) in turn provide a small company perspective and show how an energy IT system was developed for the company. Further, in this vein, Veeckman et al. (2013) propose that an innovation outcome, such as a product or a service, is closely linked to the innovation environment and the selected innovation approach. Last, Femeniás and Hagbert (2013) propose that living labs may create a variety of value for diverse actors. The authors suggest a wide spectrum of outcomes for the living lab to be built, which cover tangible and intangible innovations from knowledge and practices to new products and concepts. To sum up tangible and intangible innovations, this study shares the view of prior studies on outcomes by underlining that innovation outcomes cover artefacts of living labs ranging between products, services or systems or their parts or prototypes. Beside the tangible outcomes, the living lab may produce intangible results such as knowledge, information, and practices. However, the main body of studies on living labs fails to clearly explain tangible and intangible innovations per se.
75
Many studies address a need for understanding innovations in living labs, and particularly types of innovations. For example, Kusiak (2007) uses probably the most common classification of innovations by proposing that both incremental and radical innovations exist in living labs. In accordance with the classification of innovations by Henderson and Clark (1990), Svensson and Ihlström Eriksson (2009) attempt to widen the classification from incremental and radical innovations to modular and architectural innovations. Almirall and Wareham (2011) in turn follow the suggested categorization of Bhidé (2008) that living labs generate both mid- and ground-level innovations63, proposing also that
innovations may be incremental or radical. Leminen et al. (2012b) take another perspective and distinguish factors behind the innovation mechanism by proposing a recipe for innovation in living labs. They include a strategic intention, a passion, the number of participants, knowledge and skills as well other resources to influence novelty of innovations. Again, the authors conclude that incremental innovations are the most common type of innovations and breakthrough (radical) innovations are rare in living labs.
There are few studies that attempt to expand classifications on the types of innovation, from incremental and radical innovations to other types of innovations including systemic innovation, social innovations, and technological innovations. For example, Molinari (2011) writes about work flow and the dynamic nature of systemic innovation in living labs. Schaffers and Turkama (2012) share the view of Molinari (2011) and emphasise that living labs and their ecosystems catalyse systemic innovations. They also identify product and service innovations in cross-border living labs. Liedtke et al. (2012) in turn identify market, technological and social innovations when developing and testing technologies in living labs. Edwards-Schachter et al. (2012) share they view that social innovations exist. They propose living labs as social innovation spaces, where a living lab methodology is used to identify user needs, preferences and expectations for innovation opportunities. Leminen and Westerlund (2014) take a step further by proposing that both the complexity and the heterogeneity of services and types of living labs influence expected tangible and intangible innovations. The authors claim that explorative innovations focus on supporting
63 Bhidé (2008) categorizes innovations into high-, mid- and ground-level innovations. High-level innovations stand for building blocks and raw materials, mid-level innovations are intermediate products and components for a product, whereas ground- level innovations are knowledge or products used in consumption.
76
the emergence of radical innovations, while a variety of innovation strategies having exploration, exploitation or ambidexterity innovations focus on incremental innovations.
Table 7. Types of innovations and tangible and intangible innovations in living labs
Type of innovation Tangible and intangible
innovation Source
x Not available x Major commercial implementation x Product
Lasher et al. 1991
x Incremental and radical
innovations x Products and services
Kusiak 2007
x Not available
x Knowledge, new products and services or IPR, end-user applications, prototypes and usage patterns
Mulder et al. 2008
x Incremental and radical innovations
x Architectural and modular innovations
x Products and late versions of prototypes
Svensson & Ihlström Eriksson 2009 x Technological innovations x Prototypes Kanstrup et al. 2010 x Mid- and ground-level
innovations x Products, services and systems
Almirall & Wareham 2011
x Not available x Collaboration tools and practices
Budweg et al. 2011 x Systemic innovation x Prototypes Molinari 2011 x Social innovations x Needs, preferences and
expectations
Edwards-Schachter et al. 2012
x Technical and social innovations
- Liedtke et al. 2012
x Incremental and radical innovations
x Novelty of innovations
x Services and products x Concepts and product ideas x Methods, platforms, and
technologies
Leminen et al. 2012b
x Not available x System x User data
Niitamo et al. 2012
x Systemic innovations x Product innovations x Service innovations
- Schaffers & Turkama
2012 x Not available x Knowledge and practices
x New products and concepts
Femeniás & Hagbert 2013
x Incremental and radical
innovations x Product, service and systems
Leminen & Westerlund 2014
To sum up, the main body of literature on living labs shares the outcomes of living labs by two different means. First, studies on living labs suggest many types of innovations. Next, studies on living labs propose both tangible and intangible
77
results as outcomes in living labs. Even though the scattered studies on living labs suggest different types of innovations, such studies merely describe innovations rather than offering clarifying definitions, concepts or tools to differentiate or categorise innovations by different means. In contrast, this study summarises and categorises innovations by two different means, the types of innovations and the tangible and intangible innovations in living labs, which are suggested in the literature on living labs (Table 7). More specifically, this study among many innovation studies shares their view and distinguishes between incremental and radical innovations but also includes a broad variety of tangible and intangible innovations such as products, services, systems, prototypes, concepts, knowledge, information, and practices. To conclude innovation outcomes, this study applies such “perspectives”, the types of innovations and the tangible and intangible innovations, as a part of an innovation triangle of living labs as the framework of this study when developing and concluding the framework in the next chapter, Chapter 4 (see Figure 7).