Next Article in Journal
Towards Sustainable Residential Buildings in Saudi Arabia According to the Conceptual Framework of “Mostadam” Rating System and Vision 2030
Next Article in Special Issue
The Defining Characteristics of Agroecosystem Living Labs
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainability in Railway Investments, a Study of Early-Phase Analyses and Perceptions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Facing Societal Challenges in Living Labs: Towards a Conceptual Framework to Facilitate Transdisciplinary Collaborations
Article

Living Labs: From Niche to Mainstream Innovation Management

1
Centre for Science, Technology & Innovation Policy, Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0FS, UK
2
The Networks and Urban Systems Centre (NUSC), Business School, University of Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK
3
Department of Business, Strategy and Political Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, 7053 Drammen, Norway
4
Department of Marketing, Aalto University School of Business, FI-00076 Aalto, Finland
5
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(2), 791; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020791
Received: 8 December 2020 / Revised: 9 January 2021 / Accepted: 11 January 2021 / Published: 15 January 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovation Management in Living Labs)
Living Labs have received increasing attention over the last decade. However, despite their growing popularity and ability to positively impact organisations’ innovation performance, mainstream innovation management literature has overlooked the diverse and promising Living Labs research landscape. In an effort to move the field forward, this study analyses extant Living Labs literature in the domain of innovation management. The study identifies conceptual bases informing Living Labs research, maps the collaboration between scholars in the field, examines prevailing themes influencing the debate and reveals the influence of Living Labs research on other domains. Bibliometric methods of co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence analysis as well as bibliographic coupling are employed on two databases. Database A includes 97 focal journal articles and Database B includes all cited sources of Database A, totalling 500 documents. This study reveals the rapid growth of the scholarly literature on Living Labs in the innovation management domain, driven by a core group of authors. However, other contributions from highly visible scholars have the potential to connect Living Lab research to mainstream innovation management studies. The study also identifies the influence of Living Labs research in different application fields and potential for its further evolution. View Full-Text
Keywords: living lab; innovation; bibliometric analysis; bibliometric methods; co-authorship analysis; innovation management; systematic literature review; open innovation living lab; innovation; bibliometric analysis; bibliometric methods; co-authorship analysis; innovation management; systematic literature review; open innovation
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Greve, K.; Vita, R.D.; Leminen, S.; Westerlund, M. Living Labs: From Niche to Mainstream Innovation Management. Sustainability 2021, 13, 791. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020791

AMA Style

Greve K, Vita RD, Leminen S, Westerlund M. Living Labs: From Niche to Mainstream Innovation Management. Sustainability. 2021; 13(2):791. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020791

Chicago/Turabian Style

Greve, Katharina, Riccardo D. Vita, Seppo Leminen, and Mika Westerlund. 2021. "Living Labs: From Niche to Mainstream Innovation Management" Sustainability 13, no. 2: 791. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020791

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop