110 likes | 279 Vues
Open innovation systems for value creation and knowledge exchange: Results from the Flemish LeYLab Dimitri Schuurman @DimiSchuurman. Living Labs theoretical positioning. Living Labs as open innovation ecosystems. Adapted from Leminen & Westerlund, 2012. Open Innovation Processes.
E N D
Open innovation systems for value creation and knowledge exchange: Results from the Flemish LeYLabDimitri Schuurman@DimiSchuurman
Living Labs as open innovation ecosystems Adapted from Leminen & Westerlund, 2012
Open Innovation Processes • Exploitation: Purposive outflows of knowledge to leverage existing technological capabilities outside the boundaries of the organization • Exploration: Purposive inflows to capture and benefit from external sources of knowledge to enhance current technological developments • Retention: the storage, maintenance and reuse of knowledge over time
Case study: 6 Living Lab-cases Internal cases • Fibreroll-out: successful (user data, domestication research, exploitationpossibilities), but time-consuming • eHealth case: no match withinfrastructure nor panel • AV-database case: somewhatsuccessful, delay hindred ‘post’-stage
Case study: 6 Living Lab-cases External cases • Cloudfriends: perfect match with panel & infrastructure, technologyexploitation, no post-phase (yet) • WeePeeTV: good match withlocalcharacterand research socialized panel members, assessment beyond panel, currently finishing project • Poppidups: use of localecosystem (school), assessment androll-out beyond panel, iterativelyfinetuned market-ready product
Open Innovation Processes • Exploitation: providers looking to exploit their fibre technology (moderate success) Cloudfriends was able to license its technology (success outside LL) provider wanted to sell solution to public organization (no success) • Exploration: utilizers get user feedback & lessons from technical integration (success) providers get usage data (success) & look for ‘killer app’ (no success) enabler is looking for new solutions for policy goals (moderate success) • Retention: presentations and publications by researchers, providers & enablers (success) predictive model extracted from user loggings (success) iteratively finetuned Living Lab methodology (success)
Lessons learned • Living Labs are open innovation networks involving different actors with different goals and motives • A thematical focus fosters knowledge transfers and goal allignment between stakeholders with different roles • Infrastructure by itself is not enough to attract utilizers • Kickstart Living Lab with ‘internal’ cases • Infrastructure and local embeddedness facilitate community-building • ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’ or limits to open innovation
Schuurman et al. (2013). Living Labs as innovation systems fostering open and user innovation: lessons learned from the LeYLab Living Lab. TIM Review November, special issue on Living Labs, forthcoming. Schuurman et al. (2013). Living Labs as open innovation systems for knowledge exchange: solutions for sustainable innovation development. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research (IJBIR), forthcoming. Dimitri.Schuurman@iMinds.be @DimiSchuurman Senior Researcher iMinds - MICT