What difference does a living lab make? Comparing two health technology innovation projects

References

• Almirall, E., M. Lee, and J. Wareham. 2012. “Mapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies.” Technology Innovation Management Review, September: 12–8.
   Google Scholar
• Almirall, E., and J.Wareham. 2008. “Living Labs and Open Innovation: Roles and Applicability.” eJov: The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks10 (3): 21–46.
   Google Scholar
• Ballon, P., J. Pierson, and S. Delaere. 2005. “Test and Experimentation Platforms for Broadband Innovation: Examining European Practice.” Paper presented at the 16th European Regional Conference by the International Telecommunications Society (ITS), September 4–6, in Porto, Portugal.
   Google Scholar
• Botero, A., and S.Hyysalo. 2013. “Ageing Together: Steps Towards Evolutionary Co-design in Everyday Practices.” CoDesign9 (1): 37–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bødker, K., F.Kensing, and J.Simonsen. 2004. Participatory IT Design: Designing for Business and Workplace Realities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. K.1989. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. 3rd ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Flick, O.2008. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Sage: London.
   Google Scholar
• Garud, R., and J.Gehman. 2012. “Metatheoretical Perspectives on Sustainability Journeys: Evolutionary, Relational and Durational.” Research Policy41 (6): 980–995.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., and A.Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Gobo, G.2004. “Sampling, Representativeness and Generalizability.” In Qualitative Research Practice, edited by C.Seale, G.Gobo, J. F.Gubrium, and D.Silverman, 435–456. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hakkarainen, L.2013. Paremman Teknologian Perässä – Turvalattia ja Käyttäjälähtöisyyden Lupaus [Quest for Better Technology: Safety Floor and the Promise of User Centrism]. Helsinki: Lisensiaatin tutkimus, Helsingin yliopisto, valtiotieteellinen tiedekunta.
   Google Scholar
• Hakkarainen, L., and S. Hyysalo. 2013. “How Do We Keep the Living Laboratory Alive? Learning and Conflicts in Living Lab Collaboration.” Technology Innovation Management Review, December: 16–23.
   Google Scholar
• Hasu, M.2001. Critical Transition from Developers to Users. Academic Dissertation. Helsinki: Department of Education, University of Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Hess, J., and V.Pipek. 2012. “Community-driven Development: Approaching Participatory Design in the Online World.” Design Issues28 (3): 62–76. 10.1162/DESI_a_00162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillgren, P.-A., A.Seravalli, and A.Emilson. 2011. “Prototyping and Infrastructuring in Design for Social Innovation.” CoDesign7 (3–4): 169–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyppönen, H.2007. “eHealth Services and Technology: Challenges for Co-development.” Human Technology: An Interdisciplinary Journal on Humans in ICT Environments3 (2): 188–213.
   Google Scholar
• Hyysalo, S.2003. “Some Problems in the Traditional Approaches to Predicting the Use of a Technology-driven Invention.” Innovation16 (2): 118–137.
   Google Scholar
• Hyysalo, S.2006. “The Role of Learning-by-using in the Design of Healthcare Technologies: A Case Study.” Information Society22 (2): 89–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyysalo, S.2010. Health Technology Development and Use: From Practice-bound Imaginations to Evolving Impacts. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hyysalo, S., and J.Lehenkari. 2003. “An Activity-theoretical Method for Studying User-participation in IS-design.” Methods of Information in Medicine42 (4): 398–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höyssä, M., and S.Hyysalo. 2009. “The Fog of Innovation: Innovativeness and Deviance in Developing New Clinical Testing Equipment.” Research Policy38 (6): 984–993.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, M., H.Mozaffar, G. M.Campagnolo, S.Hyysalo, N.Pollock, and R.Williams. 2014. “The Managed Prosumer: Evolving Knowledge Strategies in the Design of Information Infrastructures.” Information, Communication and Society17 (7): 795–813.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kymäläinen, T.2015. “Science Fiction Prototypes as Design Outcome of Research.” Academic dissertation, Aalto University, School of Art, Design and Architecture.
   Google Scholar
• Leminen, S., M. Westerlund, and A.-G. Nyström. 2012. “Living Labs as Open-innovation Networks.” Technology Innovation Management Review, September: 6–11.
   Google Scholar
• Manzini, E., and F.Rizzo. 2011. “Small Projects/large Changes: Participatory Design as an Open Participated Process.” CoDesign7 (3–4): 199–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulder, I., and P. J. Stappers. 2009. “Co-creating in Practice: Results and Challenges.” Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: ICE 2009, ‘Collaborative Innovation: Emerging Technologies, Environments and Communities’, June 22–24, Leiden, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Niitamo, Veli-Pekka, SeijaKulkki, MatsEriksson, and KarlA. Hribernik. 2006. “State-of-the-Art and Good Practice in the Field of Living Labs.” In International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and Services through Collaborative Networks, Milan, Italy, 349–357.
   Google Scholar
• Pierson, Jo, and BramLievens. 2005. “Configuring Living Labs for a ‘Thick’ Understanding of Innovation.” Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings2005 (1): 114–127.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, N., and S.Hyysalo. 2014. “The Business of Being A User: The Role of The Reference Actor in Shaping Packaged Enterprise System Acquisition and Development.” MIS Quarterly38 (2): 473–496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollock, N., and R.Williams. 2008. Software and Organizations: The Biography of The Packaged Enterprize System, or, How SAP Conquered The World. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, S., and R.Williams. 2002. “Social Shaping of Technology: Frameworks, Findings and Implications for Policy With Glossary of Social Shaping Concepts.” In Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and Tools, edited by KnutSorensen and RobinWilliams, 37–132. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Schuler, D., and A.Namioka. 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simonsen, J., and M.Hertzum. 2012. “Sustained Participatory Design: Extending The Iterative Approach.” Design Issues28 (3): 10–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tosh, J.1991. The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods & New Directions in The Study of Modern History. 2nd ed.London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Van de Ven, A. H., D. E.Polley, R.Garud, and S.Venkataraman. 1999. The Innovation Journey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Voss, A., M.Hartswood, R.Procter, M.Rouncefield, R. S.Slack, and M.Büscher. 2009. Configuring User-designer Relations: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar