USER-CENTERED INNOVATION: TOWARDS A CONCEPTUAL

INTEGRATION OF LEAD USERS AND LIVING LABS

Schuurman, Dimitri and De Marez, Lieven

MICT-IBBT, University of Ghent, Korte Meer 7-9-11, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
Dimitri.Schuurman@ugent.be, Lieven.DeMarez@ugent.be

Abstract
Within the current approaches towards innovation research the role of the user or consumer is increasingly
emphasized, giving momentum to user-centered research methodologies. Two research concepts occur at the
forefront of this evolution: the ‘lead user’-concept and the ‘living lab’-concept. Both have already received a lot
of academic attention, resulting in an impressive corpus of literature and interesting implementations. However,
up till now, living labs and lead users are rarely studied together in an integrative research approach, as proven
by their largely distinct literature and advocates. By means of a literature review and a SWOT-analysis of both
concepts and their associated methods, this paper wants to explore the (in)compatibility of these two approaches
for user-centered innovation research, and propose some guidelines and conceptual ideas to integrate them. This
is driven by the feeling that both concepts share a lot of common ground and that a conceptual integration should
further stimulate knowledge into innovation practices and processes involving the user, especially in the field of
ICT and in the light of the trend towards open and contextual innovation.

Keywords
lead users, living labs, open innovation , user-centered research, user involvement, ICT-innovation.

1 INTRODUCTION
In general, more and more attention is devoted to innovation research. An innovation can be characterized as an
invention put to productive use. [29]. In recent years, the end-user is more and more involved within innovation
research. This involvement goes further than the use of possible end-users as respondents or testers; within user-
centered research, knowledge and ideas of end-users are also valued and put to use. This can be done throughout
multiple stages of the R&D process and in different ways: design for users, design with users and design by
users. [23]. When a product is designed for users, data and theories regarding the users are used as a knowledge
base for design. A design with users denotes an approach were user studies are included, together with feedback
from the users on different solutions or concepts. When users are actively involved in the design of the product
or service, the term design by users can be applied. This user involvement holds out advantages not only for the
quality of the technology, product or service, but also for sales and marketing of the innovation. [1]. Especially
in the field of information and communication technologies (ICT), we witness a trend towards this so-called
‘user-centered innovation’. Two research concepts occur at the forefront of this evolution: the ‘lead user’-
concept and the ‘living lab’-concept. Both concepts have already received a lot of academic attention, resulting
in an impressive corpus of literature and interesting implementations. However, up till now, living labs and lead
users are rarely studied together, as proven by their largely distinct literature and advocates. By means of a
literature review and a SWOT-analysis of these concepts, this paper wants to explore the (in)compatibility of
these two approaches for user centered innovation research, and propose some guidelines and conceptual ideas to
integrate them. This is driven by the feeling that both concepts share a lot of common ground and that an
conceptual integration should further stimulate knowledge into innovation practices and processes involving the
user, especially in the field of ICT.

We first outline the context of innovation research and user studies that have led to both the lead user- and living
lab-concepts. Then, both concepts are discussed and differentiated from related concepts such as ‘innovators’ for
lead users and various other test- and experimentation platforms (TEPs) for living labs. For both concepts, this is
followed by an outline of the research methodologies that are associated with them: the lead user-method and the
living lab-approach. We conclude both sections with a SWOT-analysis for both research approaches. Eventually,
these two concepts are compared and similarities and differences are explored. This leads us to some thoughts
towards a further unification of these two concepts in order to stimulate future user centered-research and
innovative research designs in the light of open and contextual innovation.
2 INNOVATION
The importance of innovation can hardly be overstated. Not only is it considered a main factor for competition
amongst companies, it can also serve as a starting point for success on the global market. [24]. The ‘innovation’-
concept has already been given a variety of definitions. It can be used for innovative products as well as
processes. We prefer a holistic interpretation: ‘the creation of new products, processes, knowledge or services by
using new or existing scientific or technological knowledge, which provide a degree of novelty either to the
developer, the industrial sector, the nation or the world and succeed in the marketplace.’ [17]. As a result of
globalization and increasing competition, we witness a proliferation of (technological) innovations. This shortens
the life cycle of an innovation and has repercussions on the innovation process. In the ICT-sector in particular, it
is argued that these developments have led to a so called ‘innovation spiral’, resulting in more innovations but
also in more failures. [38]. In their attempts to decrease the risk of failure, companies have more and more
shifted their attention towards the user. The literature on innovation management describes this as an evolution
from ‘technology push’ to ‘market pull’. [9]. Since von Hippel indentified the users as sources of innovation,
their relevance within the innovation process has only increased. [54]. Not only are they used as ‘passive’
respondents, more and more research incorporates users’ knowledge and ideas. This kind of research can be
labeled ‘user-centered research’ and requires specific methodologies, structures and tools. [24]. However, this
does not imply that users are the only factor of importance within the innovation process. Mowery & Rosenberg
argue in their seminal review paper of ‘market pull’-literature that the presumed importance of market demand
over ‘technology push’ is not justified by empirical evidence. [32]. Instead of focusing either on push or pull, a
more interactionist approach between both was adopted. [4]. This new stance on innovation management was
also prompted by the flood of incremental innovations that resulted from the market pull-approach. [3]. More
recently, a new concept was proposed within innovation management literature: ‘open innovation’. Chesbrough
identified this as a model for 21st century innovation, characterized by a non-linear innovation process, more
cooperation between internal R&D and the outside world, and with companies benefiting from the synergies
associated with this collaboration. [9]. Ortt & van der Duin add yet another ‘model’ to this list: the era of
‘contextual innovation’. [36]. This implies that innovation practices and decisions have to be adapted to the
specific context and subsequently there are no more general ‘best practices’, as was the case in the past.
However, it can also be argued that ‘contextual innovation’ means that all of the previous ‘best practices’ still
hold value and that a ‘choice’ for one (or more) of these practices within in certain innovation process depends
on different ‘context’-factors, such as type of innovation (e.g. incremental/radical), industry, (end-)users, etc.

3 USER RESEARCH
Similar to the evolution in stances towards innovation practices (push vs. pull), the field of user research has also
been characterized by two major research paradigms. The oldest of the two theoretical frameworks is the
‘diffusionist perspective’ with Rogers as the founding father. According to this framework, the diffusion of
innovations in a social system always follows a bell-shaped normal distribution in which innovators, early
adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards can successively be distinguished with fixed segment sizes.
[42]. Since the 80’s however, questions about its technological determinism (‘Technology shapes society’) and
lack of attention to the usage of the innovation (see e.g. [40]) have induced Rogers to adjust his approach to the
adoption decision process (see [41]), but have also led to the rise of new paradigms such as ‘social shaping’ and
‘domestication’. These perspectives focus on the way the usage of innovations in households is being socially
negotiated and becomes meaningful, within the social context of class, gender, culture or lifestyle (see e.g.[53],
[49],[20]) and the process of taming and house training ‘wild’ technological objects, by adapting them to the
routines and rituals of the household and thus giving them a more or less natural and taken-for-granted place
within the micro-social context of that household (see e.g.[22]). Domestication thus refers to the integration of
technology in the daily patterns, structures and values of users. Although some rely on a more social
determinism (‘Society shapes technology’, see [8]), the domestication view needs to be seen from a
mutualshaping perspective because this process of incorporating new technologies in the normal structures of
everyday life is not a one-way stream. [20]. The user tailors innovations to fit in his or her daily life, but the
users and the environment change as well. [39]. Therefore, the domestication approach is not only how
(potential) users behave in relation to the technology and vice versa, but also how people deal with innovations,
which can be an articulation of existing practices, conflicts and meanings within the user community. [37].

In the past, these two major paradigms have mostly been regarded as opposite and competing, with convinced
advocates from the two sides engaging in vicious debates. However, with diffusionism as the more quantitative
tradition with the focus on acceptance and adoption decisions, and the domestication tradition as more
qualitative with a focus on the usage and appropriation of technologies, both paradigms can be seen as
complementary. [39], [37], [10]. Boczkowski sees both approaches as ‘two sides of the same innovation coin’.
[5]. Considered from a time perspective, domestication begins where diffusion ends: ‘once an individual, a
family or a household has adopted the technology, they start to domesticate it’. [18]. Nowadays, this dialectical
approach, which considers the development and diffusion of (ICT-)innovations as ‘joint processes of
technological construction and societal adoption’ is still gaining ground. [5].

As was the case with innovation (cf. supra), a new approach has gained momentum, incorporating both
perspectives on user research: instead of thinking in terms of diffusionism or social shaping, the ‘mutual
shaping’ or ‘interactionism’-approach appeared in the late 90’s as a dynamic middle path between the two
previous linear deterministic predecessors. Major implications of this third paradigm include utilizing
quantitative as well as qualitative research methodologies and implementing user research before the launch of
the technology and before the actual diffusion and adoption take place. In the next sections we will introduce the
lead user concept, as opposed to the classical search for the ‘general’ user in traditional market research, and the
living lab concept, rooted firmly within the interactionist view on user research and within the ‘open innovation’
paradigm by its open character.

4 LEAD USERS
The origin of the lead user concept can be traced back to von Hippel. He can be seen as the founding father of
this concept and is listed as (co-)author for all key publications. He first introduced the customer active paradigm
(CAP), which implied that under certain circumstances the user could start innovating himself, as a
counterweight to the dominant manufacturer active paradigm (MAP), where the manufacturer generates all
innovation by himself. [54]. In later works, he extended the CAP to an interaction perspective, introducing the
‘lead user’-concept. [55]. He considered the employment of lead users as a counter weight for traditional market
research that addresses users at the center of the market. Instead, the lead user (LU)-approach focuses on users
from the leading edge of the target market and even from markets facing similar problems in a more extreme
form. According to von Hippel lead users display two main characteristics with respect to a novel or enhanced
product, process or service: a) lead users face needs months or years before they will be general in a marketplace
and b) lead users expect to benefit significantly by obtaining a solution to these needs. [55]. Urban & von Hippel
state that lead users are especially relevant ‘[w]hen new product needs are evolving rapidly, as in many high
technology product categories’. [52]. This makes the LU-concept very useful in the case of ICT-innovation and
development. Schreier & Prügl follow von Hippel’s definition and add some characteristics that influence the
degree of ‘lead userness’: consumer knowledge & use experience, locus of control and innovativeness. [47].
They suggest these variables might be used as a proxy to identify lead users.

At first, lead users were seen as a ‘need-forecasting laboratory’ for marketing research, but Urban & von Hippel
added another characteristic: ‘since lead users often attempt to fill the need they experience, we hypothesize that
they can provide valuable new product concept and design data to inquiring manufacturers in addition to need
data.’ [52]. This implies another difference with the traditional market research methods: they look for need
information only, while LU-methods collect information on both need data, and new product concept and design
data. [26]. However, this does not necessarily mean that lead users have innovated themselves, although the
study of Urban & von Hippel found that 82% of the lead users had in fact developed their own version or had
modified the products studied. [52]. This way, lead user-theory can also be used as a means to discover user
innovations. [55].

This could cause some confusion. When lead users start innovating, one would be inclined to call them
innovators, although Rogers already used this term within his work on the adoption and diffusion of innovations.
[42], (cfr. supra). This is the case with Schoormans & De Bont, who simply equal lead users to innovators, as
they see lead users as consumers that are expected to be the first users of a new product in ‘their’ market. [45].
This is challenged by Morrison et al. who see a connection between lead users and innovators, but not an
equation. [30]. They think it is necessary to relate independent research on both lead users and innovators with
each other, but make a clear distinction: ‘to innovate’ in R&D means ‘to develop a new product or process’,
while an ‘innovator’ in adoption/diffusion literature is used to indicate ‘the timing of the adoption of a new
product or process’. [31]. They also state that ‘[e]mpirical lead user studies […] tend to also find that lead users
are early adopters of new products and services.’ [31]. Based on their own research, they propose the leading
edge status (LES)-construct, consisting of 7 items and showing an unimodal, bell-shaped distribution, unlike the
lead user variable, which was treated as a dichotomous variable in previous studies. They define LES as: ‘the
degree to which organizations use and apply technology innovations in new and different ways to solve
problems faced by the organization, and the degree to which they perceive the benefits of new products earlier
than the rest of the marketplace.’ [31]. This way, the LU-concept should be more compatible with the
‘innovators’ from diffusionism. However, note that LES is used only in the context of B-to-B environments.
Schreier et al. take another stance. They think the traditional diffusion curve is not applicable to lead users
because of significant differences between lead users and innovators. [46]. Lead users experience a certain need
prior to the development of an innovation to solve this need. This motivates lead users to search for a solution
themselves. As we already saw, a lot of lead users innovate themselves, thus fulfilling their needs themselves. In
the case an innovation solving these needs would come to market, these ‘innovating’ lead users are even likely
not te be innovators in the diffusionist sense, as their need is not longer present. This reasoning finds some
evidence within innovation literature, as it is suggested that an important motivation for early adoption is the
desire to gain status (see [7], [10], [42]) which is a motivation that is nowhere mentioned in LU-theory. Thus, we
can conclude that there exist multiple arguments to reject the simple equation between innovators and lead users,
but also that recent literature suggests further investigation into the similarities and differences of these
categories. However, there appear to be strong arguments that, next to the R&D-phase, lead users might also
provide additional value over early adopters in the marketing of new products. [46].

4.1 Lead user-method

Besides the elaboration of the lead user-concept, von Hippel and others also developed the so-called lead user-
method. This methodology describes how lead users can contribute to the NPD-process. Overall, four basic steps
can be identified: 1) the identification of an important market or technical trend; 2) the identification of lead
users for the trend, found in step one; 3) the development and testing of an innovation, based on the solution data
from the lead users, this third step mostly has a cyclical and iterative nature; 4) testing of the innovation,
resulting from step three, in the general market. Table 1 gives an overview of the lead user method in three
different sources. Note that von Hippel first thought of the LU-method as an instrument to obtain need data from
lead users, which could be projected to the market. [55]. The LU-method thus can be situated entirely within the
opportunity identification-stage of the new product development-process (NPD). Two years later, Urban & von
Hippel extended the LU-method to include the R&D-step in the NPD-process as well. [52]. This way, the LU-
method results in a prototype or concept of an innovation which can be tested in the market. The LU-method
outline described by Lilien et al. starts more from the point of view within a company and stresses the interaction
between lead users and innovation-teams, formed by people from different departments of the company. [26].

Table 1. Evolution of the LU-method in literature

Autor(s) von Hippel, 1986 Urban & von Hippel, 1988 Lilien et al., 2002
Phase 1 Identify an important market or Specify LU indicators: a) find market or Goal generation and team
technical trend technological trend and related measures, b) define formation (Phase 0)
measures of potential benefit Trend research
Phase 2 Identify LUs who lead in terms of Identify LU group: cluster analysis of survey-based LU pyramid networking
a) experience and b) intensity of LU indicators
need
Phase 3 Analyze LU need data Generate concept (product) with LUs LU workshop and idea
improvement
Phase 4 Project LU data onto the general Test LU concept (product) market research
market of interest

This results in a LU-workshop where concepts are generated and improved, followed by market research to test
these concepts for the general market. Instead of the random search for market trends, there is a phase of ‘goal
generation’ to direct this search and intra-company teams are formed. Note that within this application of lead
users, there may already be a product concept or idea at hand to be discussed and improved within the lead user
workshop. Where the previous two LU-methods could be seen as ‘market pull’, this method exemplifies a more
interactionist stance between push and pull, as the LU-method is more used as an evaluative method, without
excluding the option that the LU-workshop can generate entirely novel ideas. In either case, this overview
indicates that the LU-method can be used for different purposes and during different stages in the NPD-process.

4.2 SWOT-analysis
Strengths - Empirical research proved that the use of lead users is more effective for generating novel product
ideas than traditional methods for idea-generation and that products developed by using the LU-method turn out
to be novel and radical innovations that satisfy original and new consumer needs. [52], [19], [26]. Lead user
ideas also resulted in higher sales (up to 8 times) than non LU ideas. [26]. According to von Hippel lead users
will in most cases give up their rights of actual and potential intellectual ownership so that interested parties can
freely make use of their ideas. [56]. It also appeared that within LU-innovation knowledge from different
divisions of a company are being used. [21].
Weaknesses - A first weakness is the fact that the LU-method is work intensive and costly. [21], [25], [35].
Especially the identification of lead users is a difficult and time-consuming process that is crucial for the possible
success. However, in some areas it is impossible to identify lead users as there are none. [11]. In other cases,
there exist lead users that are hard to find: surveys that try to identify lead users by looking for high unfulfilled
needs will not necessarily detect lead users that have already found a solution to their needs themselves. [55]. An
empirical study found that the lead user-network is negatively associated with the level of knowledge generation
in new product development. [50]. The authors argue that this apparent counter-intuitive finding may be that in
the trade-off between efficiency and acquisition of really new information, priority is given to efficiency, thus
relating this finding to the first identified weakness.
Opportunities - It is argued that by revealing their innovative ideas freely, lead users stimulate a quicker
adoption and diffusion of the innovation. [56]. The possible success of the implementation of lead users also
depends on the area where the companies operate in. Firms in fast changing sectors like the gaming industry and
the world of sports are most likely to benefit from the LU-method. [57].
Threats - One of the main threats is that managers most often avoid the risk of radical innovations, products and
ideas, as they think this will only appeal to a small population. [21]. This risk avoiding behaviour often results in
inertia and resistance to change, so oftentimes a lot of difficulties are encountered when changing traditional
practices within firms. [35]. Another threat that is associated with this risk-avoidance behaviour, is the fact that
companies utilizing the LU-method must share possibly secret information to facilitate a successful LU-project.
[56]. Last but not least, within the LU-method, the correct identification of lead users is of crucial importance. It
is possible that lead users from related, but slightly different markets than the targeted market, are identified.
[58], [21].
Table 2. SWOT for lead users
Strengths Weaknesses
Effective idea-generation Work-intensive
Radical innovations Costly
Higher sales No LU
Ownership Innovating users not detected
Different knowledge
Opportunities Threats
Quicker adoption and diffusion Managers’ risk avoidance & inertia
Fast changing sectors Secret information
LU from different markets

5 LIVING LABS
The living lab-concept was introduced by William Mitchell, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT). [34]. Basically, it is used to describe an experimental platform where the user is studied in
his or her everyday habitat. It can also be seen as an eco-system where users are subjected to a combination of
research methodologies while they test new technologies that are still in development. Stahlbröst defines living
labs as a human-centric research and development approach in which innovations are co-created, tested, and
evaluated in the users’ own private context. [51]. This way, living labs are closely related to the ‘mutual shaping’
stance, mentioned in section 3. These living labs are mostly established through collaboration of private as well
as public research partners and often involve several iterations throughout multiple stages of the innovation
process. [13]. This links living labs to the ‘open innovation’-perspective (cfr. supra). To establish the everyday
context within a living lab, two approaches exist. One is to make the technology or product available in the home
of the users, another is the creation of a home where the technology or product is available and where users come
to stay for a certain period. [44]. The former is sometimes referred to as the European approach towards living
labs, while the latter stands for the American approach. Without going into detail, both can be considered as
valid living lab approaches with their own strengths and weaknesses. Living labs are situated amongst a wide
range of different Test and Experimentation Platforms (TEPs). TEPs can be defined as ‘all facilities and
environments for joint innovation including testing, prototyping and confronting technology with usage
situations’. [2]. A prototyping platform is used in the design phase for technologies with a low degree of
maturity. Development is more important than the usage of the technology. When the focus is put on testing of
the technology within a standardized laboratory, the term testbed is used. Within a field trial a realistic setting is
adopted, but the research is mainly limited to the testing and designing of technology without too much care for
users and usage practices. A market pilot implies testing by end-users not long before the commercial launch of
the technology is planned. Market pilots are used to gather marketing data and to make last-minute changes
before the actual market entry. Within a societal pilot the introduction of new products and services is intended
to result in societal innovation. The technology is also highly mature. Within a living lab, companies utilize users
throughout multiple stadia of the new product or service development. [43], [44]. In ideal circumstances, this
translates into a close collaboration between designers and researchers, improving the innovativeness of the
product or service. [6]. The biggest advantage for companies employing a user-centered innovation methodology
is that they gain a more accurate market evaluation. Furthermore, living labs can be used for different research
projects. [28]. In the field of ICT, living labs are defined as a development and innovation environment in which
new ICT-solutions are tested in familiar contexts for the users and in which data on users’ responses to these
innovations are gathered. [15]. Some authors argue that living labs could provide a way to meet the innovation
challenges of ICT-providers. [14], [34]. A proof of this can be found in two international organizations
representing several industrial ICT living lab-initiatives: the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) and
Living Labs Europe.

Summarizing, the main characteristics of living labs include studying the users in real-life environments through
a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods (interactionist approach), the possibility of an
iterative (pre-launch) research process and the establishment through collaboration between multiple research
partners (mostly public as well as private). This way, strong links with the open innovation-concept and the
interactionist stance within user research become apparent and a living lab-approach seems valid for varying
degrees of technological maturity.

5.1 Living lab-approach

There exist many methods to involve the user in the development of a new technology or product. As users are
seen as innovators within a living lab approach, they are not used as mere ‘guinea pigs’. Instead, research
methods focus on accessing their ideas and knowledge regarding the tested technology. [14]. ‘Hence, a living lab
is not just a network of infrastructure and services, but much more a network of real people with rich
experiences. Those experiences are the very thing making a living lab living, and therefore, research methods
should be looking for ways to capture these social and dynamic aspects.’ [33]. Shamsi lists five stages in the
process of a living lab configuration: 1) contextualization: an exploration of the technological and social
implications of the technology or service under investigation; 2) selection: identifying potential users or user
groups; 3) concretization: an initial measurement of the selected users on current characteristics, behaviour and
perceptions regarding the research focus, in order to enable a post-measurement; 4) implementation: the
operationally running test phase of the living lab; 5) feedback: an ex-post-measurement of the users and a set of
technological recommendations from the analysis of data. [48]. By definition living labs lend themselves to a
variety of research methodologies. Fǿlstad gives an overview of the most common research methods utilized in
living labs, based on an extensive literature review: analysis of system logs or automatically collected
behavioural data, ethnographical research, questionnaires, focus groups, and observational methods. [15].
Fǿlstad provides. [15]. The following four broad shared characteristics for living labs were distinguished within
an extensive literature review of ICT-research based on the living lab-methodology: evaluate or validate new
ICT-solutions with users, gain insight in unexpected ICT-usage and new service opportunities, experience and
experiment with ICT-solutions in contexts familiar to the users, and medium- or long-term studies with users.
[16].

5.2 SWOT-analysis
Strengths - An often cited strength for living labs is the thorough involvement of the user within the innovation
process, resulting in a two-way street with advantages for the user as well as for companies. [1], [6]. By using a
real life community, a living lab can already generate a future market. [12]. This applies especially when large
groups of users are involved. One of the characteristics of a living lab approach is that it takes place in a natural,
everyday setting. [1],[6]. This reduces socially desirable behaviour, gives a more accurate insight into possible
usage contexts and allows to study larger groups of users. Living labs can also be cost-effective as they avoid
making costly changes at a later innovation stage. They also generate better ideas and allow to eliminate bad
ideas faster. [12].

Weaknesses - One of the main weaknesses of living labs is that they require a lot of time and budget. [1], [6].
By following the users over a prolonged period, there exists a risk of drop-out before the end of the test period.
Especially in living lab settings with smaller amounts of users, it is difficult to ascertain whether the findings can
be extrapolated to the market. This can be seen as the problem of outliers. [1]. As already mentioned, there still
exists confusion regarding the exact interpretation of the living lab concept and there is a lack of empirical
studies regarding research parameters, appropriateness of underlying business models and effectiveness of living
labs as a system for innovation. [43], [12], [13]. It is also argued that living labs are less suited for the
development of incremental innovations. [1].
Opportunities - A main opportunity that is being explored in initiatives such as ENoLL lies in the cooperation
between living labs. [12]. This can happen through the sharing of experiences. A further awareness of living labs
can also lead to positive changes in innovation policy. [43]. This would lead to the following opportunity:
‘Living labs can enhance economical, social and cultural systems cross-regionally and cross-nationally’. [12].
Two opportunities in single living lab settings would include a better use of the feedback of respondents,
implying an ameliorated incentive system and a better incorporation of ‘web 2.0’-applications. [13],[44].
Threats - The most prominent threat for living labs is the need for substantial financial support, mostly external
funding, to establish them. [12]. The fact that other TEPs are better known and more developed may be a threat
to this funding. It is also mentioned that Europe lags behind with the investments for public R&D, especially
when compared to China and the US. [43].
Table 2. SWOT for living labs
Strengths Weaknesses
User involvement Time- and budget consuming
Future market Drop-out risk
Natural setting Outlier problem
Large groups Lack of studies
Cost-efficient No incremental innovations
Opportunities Threats
Cooperation External funding
Awareness Other TEPs
Using feedback European lag
Web 2.0

6 DISCUSSION: LEAD USERS WITHIN LIVING LABS

The previous sections have outlined both the lead user and living lab concepts. It appeared that they share a lot of
characteristics and seem closely associated with open innovation and the tendency towards a user-centered
approach within innovation research. However, only very few papers make mention of both concepts. Eriksson
et al. explicitly argue for a better integration of lead user-theory within living lab approaches. [13]. Löh makes a
first attempt and sees living labs as an alternative for the classical innovation approach, grounded within three
theoretical backgrounds: involving the customer, open innovation and lead users. [27]. Almirall also pairs living
labs with open innovation and lead users. [1]. He considers user involvement as an emergent process without
governance and without any attempt to systematize it and sees ‘lead users’ as one of the possible forms of this
involvement. Living labs, on the contrary, represent the first attempt to organize and structure user participation
in real life environments: ‘Living Labs become an innovation area where users co-create with developers and
researchers and we postulate that they are the first attempt to structure and provide governance to user
involvement in a way that can be addressed by companies, research institutions, public organizations and policy
makers.’ [1]. In this view, living labs act as facilitators for the massive filtering problem, i.e. selecting the most
appropriate partner or the most suitable idea; a problem that companies have to cope with in an environment
characterized by ‘open innovation’.

One might wonder why so few authors explicitly link both concepts. We argue that the main reason for this is a
certain conceptual ambiguity still surrounding lead users as well as living labs. The ‘lead user’-concept is used to
identify users with certain qualities (cfr. supra), but these users can be companies or individuals and they might
have come up with a solution for their needs themselves (making them ‘innovating users’) but this is definitely
not a necessary precondition. Moreover, lead users might be from the leading edge of the market in question or
even from another market that faces similar needs in more extreme form. Second, the lead user-method is
described as a methodology for ‘user involved’-innovation, resulting in need data, concepts, prototypes or new
products/services, but can also be used as a means to uncover user innovations. The term ‘living lab’ is also used
in more or less the same ambivalent way. First, it is used to indicate a research approach where the user is
assigned an important role in the NPD-process and where a prototype of the innovation is available for the user
in a familiar environment. Second, it is also used to indicate a formalized institution that enables research with a
living lab-approach. These ‘living labs’ have a more permanent character, allowing different
technologies/products to be developed/tested, whereas a living lab-approach might just as well be implemented
for a single research project.This last remark leads us to another problem that both concepts seem to be suffering
from. Within concrete innovation projects, the lead user-method as well as the living lab-approach remain in a
lot of cases ‘one shot’-operations. Despite the success these approaches have already generated, a lot of firms
abandon these concepts within their innovation processes for various reasons, even though it is commonly
assumed that a more permanent incorporation of these methods for user involvement would yield even better
results (see e.g. [35]).

In our view, largely following the argumentation of Almirall, living labs should be seen as an innovation
approach that a) involves users, b) results in iterative processes with user feedback and technology adaption and
c) where usage and testing in familiar environments is facilitated. Within this rather loose description, living labs
should be seen as an ‘empty box’ with certain requirements, that can and should however be filled with a wide
array of research methodologies involving the user, all dependent on the specific context. This way, a living lab-
approach is compatible with the ‘open innovation’ as well as ‘contextual innovation’-paradigm (cfr. supra). We
further believe that lead user identification and implementation in one or more research steps during the living
lab approach will invariably improve the outcome of the innovation-process. However, as we already argued,
both the creation of a real-life testing environment and the process of lead user-recruiting are difficult time- and
resources-consuming tasks. We believe two types of initiatives could lighten this burden: a further stimulation of
more permanent living lab-cooperations and the creation and implementation of user-panels for trend-monitoring
and lead user-identification.

In the light of our attempt to advance the conceptual integration of the living lab- and lead user-concepts, we
have stumbled upon a lot of questions, stressing the need for more research into this area. However, we believe it
cannot be denied that both concepts share a lot of common ground and are firmly rooted within the current trend
towards more and better user involvement within a more open innovation environment that attempts to reduce
failure. We also believe that all efforts towards a unification of the sometimes scattered field of theory regarding
innovation should be encouraged and will yield fruitful results in the future.

7 REFERENCES
[1] ALMIRALL, E. 2008. Living Labs and open innovation: roles and applicability. The Electronic Journal for
Virtual Organizations and Networks. 10, 21-26.
[2] BALLON, P., PIERSON, J. & DELAERE, S. 2007. Fostering Innovation in Networked Communications:
Test and Experimentation Platforms for Broadband Systems. In Designing for Networked Communications:
Strategies and Development. Eds. Heilesen, S. and Jensen, ISI Global, London, 137-166.
[3] BASSALA, G. 1988. The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[4] BIJKER, W. AND LAW, J. (eds.) 1992. Shaping Technology, Building Society. MIT Press, Cambridge.
[5] BOCZKOWSKI, P. 2004. The Mutual Shaping of Technology and Society in Videotex Newspapers:
Beyond the Diffusion and Social Shaping Perspectives. The Information Society 20(4): 255-267.
[6] BORONOWSKY, M., HERZOG, O., KNACKFUß, P. & LAWO, M. 2006. Wearable computing – an
approach for living labs. IFAWC2006 March 15-16, Mobile Research Center, TZI Universität Bremen,
Germany.
[7] BROWN, S. & VENKATESH, V. 2003. Bringing Non-Adopters Along: THE CHALLENGE FACING
THE PC INDUSTRY. Communications of the ACM, (46) 4, 76-80.
[8] BOUWMAN, H., VAN DIJK, J., VAN DEN HOOFF, B. & VAN DE WIJNGAERT, L. 2002. ICT in
organisaties. Adoptie, implementatie, gebruik en effecten. Amsterdam: Boom.
[9] CHESBROUGH, H. 2003. Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
[10] DE MAREZ, L. 2006. Diffusie van ICT-innovaties: accurater gebruikersinzicht voor betere introductie-
strategieën. Gent: Universiteit Gent.
[11] DIGNELL, M. & MATTILA, D. 2007. Lead Users in Product Development: A case study about
incorporation of lead users in business to business new product development. Luleå University of
Technology, Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences Division of Industrial marketing
and e-commerce.
[12] ENOLL. 2007. Living Labs Roadmap 2007-2010: recommendations on networked systems for open user-
driven research, development and innovation. Open document, retrieved at:
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/cf/document.cfm?doc_id=6474
[13] ERIKSSON, M., NIITAMO, V. & KULKKI, S. 2005. State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to
user-centric ICT innovation - a European approach. White paper:
www.vinnova.se/upload/dokument/Verksamhet/TITA/Stateoftheart_LivingLabs_Eriksson2005.pdf
[14] ERIKSSON, M., NIITAMO, V., KULKKI, S. & HRIBERNIK, K. 2006. Living Labs as a Multi-Contextual
R&D Methodology. 12th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and
Services through Collaborative Networks, ICE 2006. Milan, Italy, June 26-28.
[15] FǿLSTAD, A. 2008a. Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Communication Technology: A
Literature Review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organisations and Networks, 10, 99-131.
[16] FǿLSTAD, A. 2008b. Towards a Living Lab for the Development of Online Community Services. The
Electronic Journal for Virtual Organisations and Networks, 10, 47-58.
[17] GALANAKIS, K. 2006. Innovation process. Make sense using systems thinking. Technovation, 26, 1222-
1232.
[18] GREEN, L. 2002. Communication, Technology and Society. London: Sage Publications.
[19] GRUNER, K. & HOMBURG, C. 2000. Does Customer Interaction Enhance New Product Success? Journal
of Business Research, 49, 1-14.
[20] HADDON, L. 2006. The contribution of domestication research to in-home computing and media
consumption. The Information Society, 22 (4), 195-204.
[21] HULTINK, E. & SCHOORMANS, J. (2004). Productontwikkeling en marketing. Amsterdam: Pearson
education Benelux.
[22] JANKOWSKI, N. & VAN SELM, M. 2001. ICT en samenleving. Vier terreinen voor empirisch onderzoek.
In: Bouwman, H. (Ed.), Communicatie in de informatiesamenleving. Utrecht: Lemma, 217-249.
[23] KAULIO, M. 1998. Customer, consumer and user involvement in product development: A framework and a
review of selected methods. Total Quality Management, 9 (1), 141-149.
[24] KUSIAK, A. 2007. Innovation: The Living Laboratory Perspective. Computer-Aided Design &
Applications, 4 (6), 863-876.
[25] LETTL, C. 2007. User involvement competence for radical innovation. Journal of engineering and
technology management, 24, 53-75.
[26] LILIEN, G., MORRISON, P., SEARLS, K., SONNACK, M. & VON HIPPEL, E. 2002. Performance
assessment of the lead user generation process for new product development, Management Science Vol 48,
No 8 (August) pp. 1042-1059.
[27] LÖH, H. 2008. How to drive innovation in CWE - A Living Lab Approach. Retrieved at: http://www.ve-
forum.org/Projects/444/ConferencePapers/4_ICE2008_CoVES_ALivingLabApproach.pdf.
[28] MARKOPOULOS, P. & RAUTERBERG, G. 2000. Living lab – a white paper. IPO Annual Progress
Report 35, 53-65.
[29] MCDANIEL, B. 2000. A survey on entrepeneurship and innovation. Social Science Journal, 37 (2), 277-
284.
[30] MORRISON, P., ROBERTS, J., MIDGLEY, D., 1999. Towards a finer understanding of lead users. ISBM
Report 15-1999, Institut for the Study of Business Markets, Penn State University.
[31] MORRISON, P., ROBERTS, J. & MIDGLEY, D. 2004. The nature of lead users and measurement of
leading edge status. Research Policy, 33, 351-362.
[32] MOWERY, D. & ROSENBERG, N. 1979. The Influence of Market Demand upon Innovation: A Critical
Review of some Recent Empirical Studies. Research Policy 3, 220-242.
[33] MULDER, I.,VELTHAUSZ, D. & KRIENS, M. 2008. Living Methodologies: Understanding the Dynamics
of Innovation. In European Living Labs. Schumacher, J. and Niitamo, V. P. Eds. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag
Berlin, Berlin, 31–38.
[34] NIITAMO, V., KULKKI, S., ERIKSSON, M. & HRIBERNIK, K. 2006. State-of-the-art and good practice
in the field of living labs. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising:
Innovative Products and Services through Collaborative Networks, Milan, Italy, 349-357.
[35] OLSON, E. & BAKKE. G. 2001. Implementing the lead user method in a high technology firm: A
longitudinal study of intentions versus actions. J. Product Innovation Management. 18(2) 388–395.
[36] ORTT, J. & VAN DER DUIN, P. 2008. The evolution of innovation management towards contextual
innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, (11) 4, 522 – 538.
[37] PIERSON, J. 2005. Domestication at work in small businesses. In: Berker, T., Hartmann, M., Punie, Y. &
Ward, K. (Eds.) Domestication of media and technology. Berkshire: Open University Press, 205-226.
[38] POIESZ, T. & VAN RAAIJ, W. 2002. Synergetische Marketing. Een visie op oorzaken en gevolg van
veranderend consumentengedrag. Amsterdam: Prentice Hall.
[39] PUNIE, Y. 2000. Domesticatie van ICT. Adoptie, gebruik en betekenis van media in het dagelijkse leven:
Continue beperking of discontinue bevrijding? Doctoraal proefschrift, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel.
[40] ROBERTSON, T. 1984. Marketing’s potential contribution to consumer behavior research: the case of
diffusion theory. Advances in Consumer Research 11: 484-489.
[41] ROGERS, E. 1986. Communication Technology. The new media in society. New York: The Free Press.
[42] ROGERS, E. 2003. Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
[43] SCHAFFERS, H. & KULKKI, S. 2007. Living labs, an open innovation concept fostering rural
development. Tech Monitor, Special Issue on Open Innovation: A New Paradigm in Innovation
Management (September-October), 30-38.
[44] SCHAFFERS, H., CORDOBA, M., HONGISTO, P., KALLAI, T., MERZ, C. & VAN RENSBURG, J.
2007. Exploring business models for open innovation in rural living labs. Paper presented at 13th
International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, Sophia-Antipolis, France, 4-6 June 2007.
[45] SCHOORMANS, J. & DE BONT, C. 1995. Consumentenonderzoek in productontwikkeling, Lemma B.V.
Utrecht.
[46] SCHREIER, M., OBERHAUSER, S. & PRÜGL, R. 2007. Lead Users and the adoption and diffusion
of new products: Insights from two extreme sports communities. Marketing Letters, 18:15-30.
[47] SCHREIER, M. & PRÜGL, R. 2008. Extending Lead-User Theory: Antecedents and Consequences of
Consumers’ Lead Userness. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 331-346.
[48] SHAMSI, T. 2008. Living Labs: Good Practices in Europe. In European Living Labs. Schumacher, J. and
Niitamo, V. P. Eds. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin, Berlin, 15–30.
[49] SILVERSTONE, R. & HADDON, L. 1996. Design and domestication of information and communication
technologies: technical change and everyday life. In: Silverstone, R. & Mansell, R. (Eds.), Communication
by design. The politics of information and communication technologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[50] SONG, M., VAN DER BIJ, H., & WEGGEMAN, M. 2006. Factors for Improving the Level of Knowledge
Generation in New Product Development. R&D Management 36(2):173–87.
[51] STAHLBRÖST, A. 2008. Forming Future IT: The Living Lab Way of User Involvement. Doctoral Thesis:
Lulea University of Technology.
[52] URBAN, G. & VON HIPPEL, E. 1988. Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products.
Management Science, 35: 569-582.
[53] VAN DEN BROECK, W., PIERSON, J. & PAUWELS, C. 2004. Does interactive television imply new
uses? A Flemish case study. In: Conference Proceedings, Second European Conference on Interactive
Television. Enhancing the experience, March 31 – April 2 2004, University of Brighton, UK.
[54] VON HIPPEL, E. 1976. The Dominant Role of Users in the Scientific Instrument Innovation Process.
Research Policy 5, 3, 212-39.
[55] VON HIPPEL, E. 1986. Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts. MANAGEMENT
SCIENCE,(32) 7, pp. 791-805.
[56] VON HIPPEL, E. 2002. Horizontal Innovation Networks – By and For Users. MIT Sloan School of
Management (April). Retrieved at: www.opensource.mit.edu/papers/vonhippel3.pdf.
[57] VON HIPPEL, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[58] VON HIPPEL, E., THOMKE, S. & SONNACK, M. 1999. Creating breakthroughs at 3M. Harvard Business
Review 77 (September-October) 47–57.