Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2015
ANALYSIS OF CHARACTERISTICS AND
TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURE OF
INNOVATION LABORATORIES:
IMPLICATIONS FOR STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT
FERNEY OSORIO BUSTAMANTE ELECTRONICS ENGINEER
ANALYSE DES CARACTERISTIQUES ET DES TYPES D'INFRASTRUCTURES
DE PLATE-FORMES D'INNOVATION: IMPLICATIONS POUR LA GESTION
STRATEGIQUE
FERNEY OSORIO BUSTAMANTE
UNIVERSITÉ DE LORRAINE
EQUIPE DE RESERCHE SUR LES PROCESSUS
INNOVATIFS
NANCY, FRANCE
UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA
FACULTAD DE INGENIERÍA –
DEPARTAMENTO DE INGENIERÍA DE
SISTEMAS E INDUSTRIAL
BOGOTÁ D.C., COLOMBIA
2015
ANÁLISIS DE LAS CARACTERÍSTICAS Y TIPOS DE CONFIGURACIÓN DE
LA INFRAESTRUCTURA EN LOS LABORATORIOS DE INNOVACIÓN Y SUS
IMPLICACIONES EN LA GESTIÓN ESTRATÉGICA
FERNEY OSORIO BUSTAMANTE
UNIVERSITÉ DE LORRAINE
EQUIPE DE RESERCHE SUR LES PROCESSUS
INNOVATIFS
NANCY, FRANCE
UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA
FACULTAD DE INGENIERÍA –
DEPARTAMENTO DE INGENIERÍA DE
SISTEMAS E INDUSTRIAL
BOGOTÁ D.C., COLOMBIA
2015
ANALYSIS OF CHARACTERISTICS AND TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURE OF
INNOVATION LABORATORIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR STRATEGIC
MANAGEMENT
FERNEY OSORIO BUSTAMANTE
Final report presented as a requirement to obtain the degrees of:
Magíster en Ingeniería Industrial
Master Design Global - Spécialité Management de l’Innovation et Design Industriel
Directors :
Ph.D., JOSÉ ISMAEL PEÑA REYES
Ph.D., MAURICIO CAMARGO
Advisor:
Ph.D., LAURENT DUPONT
UNIVERSITÉ DE LORRAINE
EQUIPE DE RESERCHE SUR LES PROCESSUS
INNOVATIFS
NANCY, FRANCE
UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE COLOMBIA
FACULTAD DE INGENIERÍA –
DEPARTAMENTO DE INGENIERÍA DE
SISTEMAS E INDUSTRIAL
BOGOTÁ D.C., COLOMBIA
2015
1
ABSTRACT There is a strong emergence of new innovation laboratories all over the world. Past experiences
have shown these types of projects are at risk to not succeed in their goals. The physical space is
considered as a conscious asset to improve the innovation outcomes that must be carefully
designed according with the strategic goals of the project. Throughout this work, five frameworks
from the literature that analyze innovation laboratories are identified and compared. Then, based
on both literature and authors’ experience, an updated framework is proposed as basis for a
guidance tool for researchers and practitioners aiming to adapt or to start a new laboratory. As
part of the operationalization process of the framework, a preliminary maturity grid is built and
from there a questionnaire is designed. Afterwards, an international study with answers from ten
laboratories from five different countries is done. As result and main contribution from this work
researchers and practitioners will find a comprehensive set of practices and experiences in the
way innovation laboratories have been implemented and operated in order to build their own
strategy.
Keywords: spaces, innovation laboratories, innovation environment, physical space, strategy
2
RÉSUMÉ Il y a une prolifération forte de nouveaux plate-formes d'innovation dans le monde entier. Des
expériences passées ont montré que cette sorte de projets est en danger dans la non réussite
dans leurs buts. On considère l'espace physique comme un actif d'améliorer les résultats
d'innovation qui doivent être soigneusement conçus selon avec les buts stratégiques du projet.
Au cours de ce travail, cinq cadres conceptuels qui analysent les plate-formes d'innovation sont
identifiés et comparés. Ensuite, basé tant sur la littérature que l'expérience des auteurs, un cadre
mis à jour est proposé la base pour un outil de conseils pour des chercheurs et les professionnels
qui veulent adapter ou commencer un nouveau laboratoire. Pendant le processus
d'opérationnalisation du cadre, une grille de maturité préliminaire est construite et de là un
questionnaire est conçu. Par la suite, une étude internationale avec des réponses de dix plate-
formes de cinq pays différents est faite. La contribution principale de ce travail est des chercheurs
et les praticiens trouveront un ensemble complet de pratiques et des expériences dans la façon
dont les plate-formes d'innovation ont été mis en oeuvre et opérés pour construire leur propre
stratégie.
Mots-clefs: espaces, plate-formes d'innovation, environnement d'innovation, espace physique,
stratégie.
3
RESUMEN Existe una fuerte proliferación de nuevos laboratorios de innovación alrededor del mundo.
Experiencias anteriores han mostrado que este tipo de proyectos presentan riesgos que impiden
que alcances sus objetivos. El espacio físico es considerado como un activo fundamental para
mejorar los resultados de innovación y debe ser cuidadosamente diseñado de acuerdo a las
metas estratégicas del proyecto. A lo largo de este trabajo, cinco marcos conceptuales sobre
laboratorios de innovación son identificados y comparados. Posteriormente, teniendo en cuenta,
la literatura y la experiencia de los autores, se propone un un marco conceptual actualizado que
es la base para una herramienta de orientación para profesionales e investigadores que deseen
adaptar o comenzar un nuevo laboratorio. Como parte del proceso de operacionalización de este
marco conceptual, una versión prelimnar de una grilla de madurez es construida y a partir de allí
se diseña un cuestionario, con el cual, se lleva a cabo un estudio internacional con la participación
de diez laboratorios de cinco países distintos. Como resultado y principal contribución de este
trabajo, los investigadores y los profesionales encontrarán un amplio conjunto de prácticas y
experiencias sobre cómo se han implementado y operado los laboratorios de innovación, con el
fin de que puedan construir su propia estrategia.
Palabras clave: espacios, laboratorios de innovación, ambientes de innovación, espacio físico,
estrategia.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................ 1
RÉSUMÉ ............................................................................................................................................... 2
RESUMEN ............................................................................................................................................ 3
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................................. 5
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... 5
I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 6
II. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................. 8
a. THE SPACE AS A CONSCIOUS ELEMENT IN THE STRATEGY OF INNOVATION
LABORATORIES ................................................................................................................................ 8
b. COMPARISON OF EXISTING FRAMEWORKS ON PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR
INNOVATION ................................................................................................................................... 9
III. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 13
a. TOWARDS AN UPDATED FRAMEWORK ............................................................................... 13
b. PROPOSITION OF A STRATEGIC ORIENTED MATURITY GRID ............................................. 14
IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 20
a. COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS TOOL ...................................................................................... 20
b. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 21
GENERAL ASPECTS .................................................................................................................... 22
STRATEGIC INTENTION ............................................................................................................. 23
PROCESS OF CREATION VERSUS PROCESS OF USE ................................................................. 26
PHYSICAL EMBODIMENT .......................................................................................................... 29
INNOVATION OUTCOMES ........................................................................................................ 32
c. FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................... 33
FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 33
LIMITATIONS OF THIS WORK ................................................................................................... 34
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 34
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................... 35
5
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Updated framework ........................................................................................................... 14
Figure 2 Hierachical representation of operationalization ............................................................. 15
Figure 3 Geographic distribution of respondents ........................................................................... 21
Figure 4 Type of laboratories surveyed ........................................................................................... 21
Figure 5 Role of the surveyed within the laboratories.................................................................... 22
Figure 6 Time of Operation .............................................................................................................. 23
Figure 7 Keywords in objectives of innovation laboratories........................................................... 24
Figure 8 Disposition to create value and engagement with stakeholders ..................................... 24
Figure 9 Expected role of the users within the laboratories .......................................................... 25
Figure 10 Cultural identity ................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 11 Estimated length of the innovation laboratories ............................................................ 26
Figure 12 Intended innovation processes ....................................................................................... 26
Figure 13 Intended versus current innovation processes .............................................................. 27
Figure 14 Intended versus current creative activities ..................................................................... 27
Figure 15 Users of Innovation Laboratories .................................................................................... 28
Figure 16 Types of facilitators .......................................................................................................... 28
Figure 17 Budget invested in physical infrastructure ..................................................................... 29
Figure 18 Average size per type of location .................................................................................... 29
Figure 19 Space setup versus flexibility ........................................................................................... 30
Figure 20 Degree in which evolution is planned ............................................................................. 31
Figure 21 Perceived intangible outcomes ....................................................................................... 32
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Comparison of Frameworks ............................................................................................... 12
TABLE 2 Strategic Intention .............................................................................................................. 16
TABLE 3 Process of Creation ............................................................................................................. 17
TABLE 4 Physical Embodiment ......................................................................................................... 17
TABLE 5 Process of Use ..................................................................................................................... 19
TABLE 6 Innovation Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 20
6
I. INTRODUCTION There is an increasingly interest of organizations in creating dedicated environments to foster
innovation processes. Depending of the context, these physical environments can take form of
laboratories with different kind of spaces such as creativity and prototyping rooms, co-workings
spaces, testing rooms, etc. According to the literature an “innovation laboratory” is a room or a
set of rooms designed for spatial re-configuration, participant observation (Griffin & Michele
Kacmar, 1991), writing spaces, materials for visualization (post-it notes, paper, pens, cards), and
ICT to support brainstorming and distributed group working (Nunamaker, Applegate, &
Konsynski, 1988).
Looking for a more integral definition, an innovation laboratory can be described as facilities for
encouraging creative behaviors and supporting innovative projects through the provision of
appropriate resources, visualization and prototyping facilities, and the ability to reconfigure new
projects (Lewis & Moultrie, 2005; Moultrie et al., 2007). These laboratories shall increase the
capability of new product development, decrease time to market, and usually, they are aligned
with the firm’s or organization’s strategic intention and scope (Gey, Meyer, & Thieme, 2013).
Besides the relative recent definitions on innovation laboratories, understanding the effects of
the space in innovation has been a topic of concern years ago. Snead & Wycoff worked on the
development of creativity rooms as an input to innovation (Snead & Wycoff, 1999), whilst
Kristensen proposed the wider implications of how workspace design influences innovation
(Kristensen, 2004). Also, Lewis & Moultrie condensed and proposed the innovation laboratories
concept (Lewis & Moultrie, 2005), and Dupont designed a prototype for an environment to boost
collaborative processes (Dupont, 2009). Finally and more recent, studies like those performed by
Andersson have started to focus on how spaces influence the culture in a workplace within an
ambidextrous organization (Andersson Schaeffer & Eriksson, 2014).
Despite the previous work, there still is a gap in understanding how these environments
(innovation laboratories) impact innovation performance and how this performance can be
aligned with the strategic intentions of the organization at the early stages of their design. This
document takes into account the proliferation of innovation laboratories and the strategic
importance of the environment design as a conscious element in their sustainability.
As shown by Meyer there is a big quantity and diversity of innovation laboratories and the way
they intend to support innovation (Meyer, Schultz, Foradi, Thieme, & Meyer, 2014). Among these,
it is possible to find different segmentations by size, regions, countries or specialties. But, two of
the questions that motivate this work are; how the original intent to support innovation was
realized? And, did the designed environment contribute or interfere to achieve that goal?
The ViveLabs network in Colombia is one example of these small segmentations of innovation
laboratories. These laboratories are promoted and financed by the national government, they
are leaded by universities, incubators or R&D centers. In this scenario, the ViveLabs are
considered innovation laboratories with the objective of foster innovation in the sector of digital
content through training, entrepreneurship, research, and product development. In this case, the
government defined the basic setups for the laboratories and the operators had to adapt or
improve the proposed spaces. After two years of operation, the ViveLabs have shown significant
results becoming a reference for the citizens and companies seeking to access to their services.
However, as the model of these innovation laboratories is under permanent construction many
aspects need to be addressed (OECD, 2014). In that matter, the way the laboratories were
7
conceived have led some of them to be over or undersized with some of their infrastructure
unused causing sustainability issues.
Another example of innovation laboratories is the Design Factories. This type of laboratories
emerged in the University of Aalto through their Media, Service and Design Factories. They are
considered as co-creation environments for learning, teaching, research, and industry
cooperation (Laakso & Clavert, 2014). Nowadays, the Global Design Factory Network has been
established with international cooperation and the replica of this model in countries like Australia,
China and Chile. The Aalto Design Factory has been operational since 2008 showing significant
results in all of its strategic activities making them a potential reference of good practices
(Björklund, Luukkonen, Clavert, Kirjavainen, & Laakso, 2011).
Additionally, there are the so called Living Labs. They constitute probably the biggest worldwide
network of innovation laboratories. Among several definitions, from the infrastructure point of
view, Living Labs are semi-partitioned spaces in form of innovation arenas integrated in real life
environments, equipped with ICT based tools that surface tacit, experiential, and domain-based
knowledge such that it can be further codified and communicated (Almirall & Wareham, 2011).
These laboratories have spread to all over the world as context adapted spaces generating a big
diversity between them. Therefore, there is no agreement in the way these spaces should be built
giving rise to a variety experiences either successful or misplaced. This is the case of FLELLAP,
which was created to support the development of innovative information, communication and
entertainment products and services. This laboratory operated between October 2010 and
March 2013 and according to (Veeckman, Schuurman, Leminen, & Westerlund, 2013) it failed to
reach a common vision amongst all of its stakeholders. As part of the lessons learned, they
emphasize in “the importance to have a thematic focus clearly defined, an infrastructure adapted
to support such focus and, most important, to include these elements as part of the strategic
intention that has to be shared and aligned with all the stakeholders”.
Likewise, there are the Fab labs, a global network of local spaces that enable invention by
providing access to tools for digital fabrication, sharing an inventory of capabilities to make almost
anything and allowing people and projects to be shared (The Fab Foundation, 2012). Fab labs
were started by the Centre of Bits and Atoms at MIT in 2003 (Gershenfeld, 2012) and today there
are more than 260 all over the world (The Fab Foundation, 2015). Despite their significant
increase and popularity, fab labs are no stranger to the challenges faced by the other innovation
laboratories. Indeed, some fab labs are considering to be partially privatized through
professionalizing part of its activities in the seeking of sustainability (Guthrie, 2014). This could
rebound in perceiving fab labs different than their original intent as an open, community-based
place for creation.
As has been shown, there are many and diverse types of experiences and research on innovation
laboratories, and there is not unified vision on how to adapt a new or existing project to create a
space to support innovation from the strategic point of view. However, in order to give answers
to our motivational questions, it is necessary to consider how this type of particular project could
be oriented. Is it reasonable to think in an ideal methodology for this purpose? The objective of
this thesis is to contribute to the literature by proposing a methodology to compare and analyze
the outcomes of innovation laboratories in order to understand the influence of the spaces to
support innovation processes. In the rest of the document, a literature review is presented in
which existing frameworks are identified, next, based on the review, an adjusted framework is
proposed, followed by the design of an instrument (questionnaire), then results are presented
and finally conclusion and further steps of the research are discussed.
8
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
a. THE SPACE AS A CONSCIOUS ELEMENT IN THE STRATEGY OF INNOVATION
LABORATORIES A successful innovation process is usually driven by the personal experiences of managers
operating within established networks and leveraging personal connections (Dougherty & Hardy,
1996). This allows to think how these experiences can be improved and how the workplace may
influence them. In that way, Olson noted that “environmental design carries the potential of
having a direct impact on worker morale and productivity” and it should take into account
architectures, interiors and landscaping for both customers and employees (Olson, Cooper, &
Slater, 1998).
In the same way, referring to innovation laboratories it is necessary to think in how the space
encourage creative behaviors not just for employees but for the users. According to Lewis, one
of the main objectives at the moment of designing an innovation laboratory is to consider the
fact that the users need to be in a space that reduces the hierarchy and supports participation
(Lewis & Moultrie, 2005). The physical design of the space should promote dynamism, playfulness
and debate in order to achieve the three characteristics for a creative climate (Ekvall, 1997).
That is why managers of spaces that aim to foster innovation face a challenge that goes beyond
that just managing them. Peschl suggest that innovation needs to be enabled rather than
controlled. More concretely, they state that, to manage an innovation space managers have to
“learn how to provide an ecosystem of living ambiances of cultivation, facilitation, incubation and
enabling, rather than a regimen of control and forced change” and to consider both physical
space and organizational climate as part of the enabling context (Peschl & Fundneider, 2012).
Then if physical space and the infrastructure related to it need to be taken into consideration,
identify which elements compose an ideal space should be a matter of interest. Recent literature
suggest that it is possible to consider an infrastructure-driven laboratory based upon either
material or immaterial infrastructure, referring in the first place to those physical elements and
technologies to equip a laboratory and second, to those environmental aspects that surrounds
the laboratory such as the context, the community and the stakeholders (Schuurman et al., 2013).
However, despite of this, the literature is scarce in terms of what type of infrastructure may be
implemented according to previously defined strategic goals or how the existing infrastructure
has been used to achieve those goals.
Innovation laboratories have to deal with substantial financial investments and the possibility
they can have short useful lifespan (Lewis & Moultrie, 2005). This stablishes the biggest challenge
and leads to the reality of successfully operate an innovation space: sustainability. As shown
before, emerging laboratories such as ViveLabs with significant investments by national
governments are at risk of reducing their lifespan due to sustainability issues and here the need
to build a model to conceive spaces to foster sustaining innovation is vital. The ViveLabs are not
the only ones with this challenge. Since their official launch in 2006, Living Lab initiatives have
been funded by the European Commission to tackle Europe’s declining economic
competitiveness and societal challenges (Dutilleul, Birrer, & Mensink, 2010), yet, almost ten years
later, cases such as FLELLAP encourages to keep the research efforts towards the understanding
of the sustainability of these innovation laboratories.
9
b. COMPARISON OF EXISTING FRAMEWORKS ON PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTS
FOR INNOVATION TABLE 1 summarizes the five frameworks identified in the literature. Here, we show the main
features, the year it was proposed, as well as the differences between them based in five
comparison criteria. It is important to notice that some frameworks comprise a more detailed
level of elements by disaggregating specific components for certain constitutive blocks. However,
not all of them reach that level of specificity, therefore, we only present the main blocks.
Regarding to the comparison, we established a set of five criteria in order to identify the
comprehensiveness of the current frameworks. These criteria are:
1. Space & infrastructure focus: As the motivation and research questions rely on the role
of the physical space to support innovation, we look to compare whether the space or
the infrastructure has been considered as one of the main feature of analysis.
2. Strategy vs outcomes approach: To understand the performance of the space it is
required to analyze how it was conceived and how has been the space actually used,
therefore we seek to identify a framework that contributes in this regard.
3. Criteria definition: Almost all frameworks have a solid theoretical base although not all of
them define criteria for each block. Those with criteria definition are considered a
significant input.
4. Operationalized & metrics: Besides the criteria, we look at whether instruments and
metrics were developed for each framework.
5. Case study: Finally, we compare which frameworks have been tested and deployed
through single or multi case studies.
Along this section, the identified frameworks will be discussed, the main features and the context
in which they were developed are going to be underlined. The first framework (Moultrie et al.,
2007), recognizes that the environment itself can take part of the organization’s innovation
strategy (rather than ad hoc) and it can influence performance in innovation. Subsequently, “if
resources are going to be invested in the creation of an innovation environment, then it is
essential that strategic intentions underpinning this space are explicit”.
A remarkable point of view of Moultrie is the outcome approach (Moultrie et al., 2007). They
used the transformation model (progression from inputs and outputs) (Woodman, Sawyer, &
Griffin, 1993) as conceptual foundation to consider how strategic intent may be transformed into
specific innovation environments and how these are subsequently used to deliver new products
and services. In addition, they did a specific study of what should be the physical embodiment of
such spaces. These elements seem to be a useful tool in order to examine and compare which
kind of real environments are implemented in different laboratories. In that sense, this
framework is comprehensive and detailed, it identifies for each block or process which elements
are involved. Although, the framework was never operationalized, it is a significant input to
advance in this research.
Afterwards, Dupont presents a physical environment specifically designed to facilitate
collaborative work (Dupont, 2009). The author proposes a coherent framework to enable the
involvement of the end-users at the early stage of an urban project. He highlights that the key
pillars of the framework are the involvement of various stakeholders, the attitude towards
collaboration and a structured process. Then, those pillars shall be embedded into a customized
10
space to accelerate such process from the sharing of stakeholders’ requests to a reached
consensus. This framework has been deployed, tested and analyzed (Dupont, Morel, Hubert, &
Guidat, 2014; Skiba, Dupont, Morel, & Guidat, 2012) through the Lorraine Smart Cities Living
Lab®. Still, identified points for improvements remain its reproducibility and the definition of key
performance indicators to measure the steps of the process and its outcomes.
More recently, Schuurman propose a framework for “infrastructure driven laboratories” under
of Living Labs domain (Schuurman et al., 2013). Their proposal is based on the experience with
the LeYLab, which basically offered fiber-optic Internet access to a panel of 115 households and
organizations, to stimulate innovation on media and eHealth. After years of operation, they
realized that a heavily infrastructure-driven laboratory imposes some risks, such as the roll-out
which can take longer and the integration of the external cases to the original intent. All the
external cases they had were situated in the media domain, whereas no further eHealth cases
were held. This evidences the need of a clear thematic focus for a laboratory in order to easily
define which projects attract and realize. The framework proposes that the infrastructure
represent the core of the laboratory and the other five general elements depend on this
infrastructure.
Schuurman made another significant contribution in the literature by also defining the scope of
the term infrastructure (Schuurman et al., 2013). They propose that a laboratory can be
composed by material infrastructure as all the tangible assets that are brought to the space:
physical networks, user devices, research equipment. But also, they consider the immaterial
infrastructure referring to all the intangible assets that surrounds a laboratory such the
environment, the stakeholders and the end-users. Nevertheless, this work does not deepen on
what exactly those elements are and what are their contributions to the outcomes.
The Living Lab constellation presents an original approach based on a single case experience at
generic level but it is also possible to think in a multi-project level by analyzing each project as a
unique constellation. However, this framework is still exploratory and preliminary. Nonetheless,
finding out that the motivation for this research is a common interest by other authors, it
validates the emergence of this issue.
On the other side, the Living Lab triangle is centered to find a way to measure the innovation
outcomes of these laboratories. This framework is one of the most comprehensive in the
literature gathering previous concepts and elements which aim to understand the behavior of
Living Labs (Veeckman, Schuurman, Leminen, & Westerlund, 2013). However, the infrastructure
aspect is limited to technical matters and it does not seem to be considered an influential factor
within the framework. Despite of this, as part of the conclusions further in this work, the authors
realized that infrastructure actually plays a bigger role and it needs to be clearly defined as part
of the general strategy of the laboratory. Between the selected frameworks, the Living Lab
triangle is the only one which has been operationalized to perform a multi-case analysis among
four laboratories (Veeckman, Schuurman, Leminen, Lievens, & Westerlund, 2013). Therefore, it
represents an important reference to be considered in our path to propose our own adapted
framework.
Finally, as part of the literature review, the term “enabling spaces” has been studied by Peschl
through several years. They develop a framework based on the premise that innovation should
be enabled (facilitated) rather than managed (referred as controlling) (Peschl & Fundneider,
2012). This framework considers that an enabling space is designed as a multi-dimensional space,
11
in which architectural/physical, social, cognitive, technological, epistemological, cultural,
intellectual, emotional and other factors are taken into account and integrated.
Following this work, in (Peschl & Fundneider, 2014) the authors state that each space has to be
specifically designed for each organization and its quality relies in carefully choosing the
parameters of each space: scenic location, almost no tables, different seating scenarios including
a private situation for individual thinking, as well as a more public setting for negotiating
knowledge, mobile ICT-infrastructure, lots of space for presenting things, workshop equipment
facilitating the transformation of ideas into tangible prototypes, etc. The enabling spaces
framework proposes an original approach that has been developed through previous research
but it is still not operationalized.
As result of the comparison of frameworks, we summarize the main findings as follows:
· Regardless of the laboratory label, it is clear that spaces have an active role in the
innovation processes and outcomes.
· In general, research efforts to understand its role and its contribution remain as
theoretical and exploratory.
· To diagnose physical environment performance, it is necessary to analyze how it was
conceived, materialized and used.
· It is important to establish a common understanding of what composes the physical
embodiment of an innovation laboratory.
· The framework can work just as a tool or guideline. Each space has to be designed for
each laboratory according to its context.
12
TABLE 1 Comparison of Frameworks
Comparison of Frameworks
Author Comparison Criteria
Description
Space &
Infrastructure
Focus
Strategy
vs
Outcomes
Approach
Criteria
Definition
Operationalized
& Metrics Case Study
Moultrie,
2007
Role of Physical Environment in Innovation
X X X Blocks
Strategic
intent Process of creation Physical space
Process
of use Realized intent
Dupont,
2009
EMA Space - Environments to foster collaborative innovation
X X X Blocks
Governance
&
stakeholders
Collaborative methodologies
Change
management
processes
Technology
(equipment
& methods)
Creative
space
Schuurman,
2013
Living Lab Constellation
X X Blocks Infrastructure Natural setting Multi-method
Medium-to
long-term
User-
centric
Multi-
stakeholder
Veeckman,
2013
The Living Lab Triangle
X X X Blocks
Innovation
Outcome Technical Infrastructure
Ecosystem
Approach
Level of
Openness Community
Real-
world
context
Lifespan Evaluation Context
Research
Co-
creation User role
Peschl,
2014
Enabling Spaces Framework
X X Blocks
Architectural and Physical
Space
Social, Cultural and
Organizational Space Cognitive Space
Emotional Space Epistemological Space Technological and
Virtual Space
13
III. METHODOLOGY This research is based on the author’s experience and the collaboration between two universities and
two of their laboratories. These are the Lorraine Fab Living Lab® of the Université de Lorraine in
France (created by the merge between the first collaborative space developed for Lorraine Smart
Cities Living Lab and the fab lab of the university titled “GSI Lab”) and the ViveLab Bogotá of the
Universidad Nacional de Colombia. With 5 and 2 years of operation respectively, common issues have
been shared and identified, giving place to the questions that motivate this research.
Although, at the beginning of this research it was considered to focus only in the Living Labs domain,
due to the lack of research efforts to analyze and understand influence of physical environment and
infrastructure in the outcomes, we decided to open the landscape to a broader and more generic
domain such as innovation laboratories. This allowed us to identify and compare other concepts like
innovation environments and enabling spaces.
In the literature review, five frameworks were already selected due to the specific focus or relevance
given to the space and environmental aspects as part of the laboratory. Next, a comparison between
the five frameworks was performed remarking the positive aspects or the disadvantages of each of
them. As none of the frameworks seemed to be totally oriented to the objective of this research and
some of them still remain as theoretical works, we attempt to propose a conceptual framework
adjusted to the conditions of this research.
Further steps aim to operationalize the updated framework. In order to build an analysis and a
comparing tool, indicators and evaluation criteria need to be defined for each element of the
proposed framework. With this, gathered information and experiences from different running
laboratories could help to build, for example, a maturity grid based model that will enable us to fulfill
the assessment of the innovation performance and the influence of the space.
a. TOWARDS AN UPDATED FRAMEWORK Along to this work, it has been remarked the close relation between physical environment and the
strategic intention with the innovation performance. Then, it is possible to think that if at the project
stage of a new laboratory it is possible to have a way to analyze and design the proper environment
for intended goals, the outcomes of such intention could be better oriented. In addition, if during
that process we contribute to understand the way physical space and resources are used, thus, it
could be possible to establish some guidelines to those laboratories that are already in operation to
re-direct their strategy or to adapt the existing space.
Considering this and the results of the comparison, we believe (Moultrie et al., 2007) provides the
fittest framework for the purpose of this research. They comprise the process of creation of the
innovation environment (physical space) in order to satisfy strategic goals (strategic intention), and
the process by such space is used and the degree to which the strategic goals are met (realized
intention). Additionally, elements that compose each block and process are described. However, as
we addressed in the previous section, this framework has some shortcomings regarding to its
theoretical status, strong firm orientation and its lack of research and methodologies assessment.
As part of our contributions in this work, in Figure 1 we propose an updated framework based on the
experience of the projects described in literature discussion presented earlier in this work. As has
14
been shown, to establish a clear strategic intention at the early stage of the project is fundamental,
and just in that regard the literature has evolved actively during last years. Among the other
frameworks studied in this work, it is possible to identify common elements that define which aspects
should be taken into account to set up the strategy for an innovation laboratory.
Figure 1 Updated framework
Precisely, our main contributions to this updated framework relies in this point (strategic intention),
where we keep from the original framework only strategic goals and teamwork elements, and we
propose 5 new ones:
1. Ecosystem approach: To generate added value for all the stakeholders involved, to create
long-term engagement and identification with the laboratory.
2. Real-world context: To capture or resemble real life environments (through space, equipment
or methodologies).
3. User centric innovation: To involve users in the different phases of innovation cycle in which
they can test, evaluate, contribute and co-create.
4. Culture and community: To build an identity and to grow a community of users engaged and
motivated with access to the laboratory.
5. Lifespan: To estimate the length of the project as a whole (short, mid or long-term).
Furthermore, we also believe that “realized intention” should be seen as innovation outcomes with
tangible and intangible results that allow us to assess impact and determine how the setup
performed. With these results decisions can be made either to early modify the space (adaptation)
or to deeply address the strategic intention (evaluation).
b. PROPOSITION OF A STRATEGIC ORIENTED MATURITY GRID As the aim of this work is to go deepen in the operationalization of the framework, the next step in
the methodology was to have a clear definition of each indicator proposed in the framework. In
15
addition, a first approximation to a maturity grid was done based on the literature review as well as
the author’s experience and some experts.
Here, the concept of maturity is taken into consideration as a measure to quantify the organizational
capabilities (Maier, Moultrie, & Clarkson, 2012). This concept is helpful in order to determine
standard practices or processes, and their classification by degree of expertise (Claire, Galvez, Boly,
Camargo, & Moselle, 2014). One way to do this is by looking at what people are doing operationally
and analyzing behaviors, attitudes, and competences (Maier et al., 2012). This is usually visualized in
a set of cumulative stages, where higher stages build on the requirements of the lower ones. This
evolution toward maturity can be made using a ladder representation (Andersen & Jessen, 2003).
In this case, the maturity grid is used as a methodological representation of our framework. Based on
the definition of each criterion, we built a set of four levels of maturity for each one of them (Figure
2). The majority of these levels were identified from the literature but in some cases it was necessary
to appeal to our own experience and discussions with some experts in order to determine the levels
of maturity. Consequently, this maturity grid constitutes an initial version that needs to be discussed
and completed based on the actual experience and actions undertaken within the innovation
laboratories.
Figure 2 Hierachical representation of operationalization
Strategic Intention
The first process to be considered is the “strategic intention” (TABLE 2). According to Moultrie the
design of an environment “enables the development of unique capabilities, enables reconfiguration
of capabilities to changing demands, and supports synergies between complementary assets”
(Moultrie et al., 2007). Hence, it is determinant to be conscious of which kind of capabilities and
assets are important to enable and how the laboratory is strategically conceived around its context.
Fram
ewo
rk
Strategic Intention
Strategic Goals
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Ecosystem Approach
Level 1
Level 2
…Real Context
…
Process of Creation
Innovation Processes
Creative Activities
…Physical
Embodiment
…
16
TABLE 2 Strategic Intention
Criteria Description Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Reference
Strategic
Goals
To support organization / partnership mission
No goals defined
Short-time goals. Not measurable.
Mid-term goals. Clear thematic goals. Measurable.
Long-term and sustainability goals. Measurable.
(Moultrie et al., 2007)
Ecosystem
Approach
To generate added value for all the stakeholders involved, to create long-term engagement and identification with the laboratory.
No value creation. No sharing for stakeholders.
Partially Sharing. Missing links between stakeholders. No equally contribution.
Value and sharing for most of the stakeholders.
Value creation and sharing for all stakeholders. Long engagement.
(Dupont et al., 2014; Veeckman, Schuurman, Leminen, & Westerlund, 2013)
Real
Context
World
To capture or
resemble real life
environments
(through space,
equipment or
methodologies).
Testbed like.
Natural setting
with
limitations.
Real world with
time and space
limitations.
Real world context.
No limitations.
(Schuurman et al., 2013; Veeckman, Schuurman, Leminen, & Westerlund, 2013)
User
Centric
Innovation
To involve users in the different phases of innovation cycle in which they can test, evaluate, contribute and co-create.
No interaction with users. No evaluation. No cocreation.
Users seen as passive actors (tester). Limit evaluation. No decision making by users.
User as contributor. Interactive evaluation. Feedback may lead to modifications.
Users as cocreators. Multiple channels and iterative feedback from users.
(Schuurman et al., 2013; Veeckman, Schuurman, Leminen, & Westerlund, 2013)
Culture and
Community
To build an identity
and to grow a
community of users
engaged and
motivated with
access to the
laboratory.
No
community.
No cultural
identity.
Few people
know and
access to the
space. Limited
access to
space.
Contrasting
internal &
external
images.
Established
community.
Frequent access
and events.
Officially known
cultural identity.
Engaged and active
community.
Cultural identity
and coherent
internal/external.
High frequency of
interaction.
(Moultrie et al., 2007) And author’s
experience
Teamwork
To enhance teamwork in innovation, encouraging better communication (physical or virtual), encourage formal and informal social interaction and motivate staff
No intent to enhance teamwork.
Strictly to formal interaction between members. Hierarchy.
Physical or virtual communications mechanisms. Staff involved and motivated with strategy.
Enhance teamwork. Boost communication. Allow social interaction (formal or informal).
(Moultrie et al., 2007) and author’s
experience
Lifespan
To estimate the
length of the
project as a whole
(short, mid or long-
term).
Short-term <
1 year
Mid-term 1-2
years
Long-term 2-3
years
Very long +3 years
(permanent)
Author’s
experience
Process of Creation
Beyond the strategic reflection, it is necessary to understand the needs and type of people who will
use the space, including the degree to which independent facilitation is required and how the space
will be linked to the whole innovation process. Likewise, during the “process of creation” (TABLE 3)
17
one has to be aware that, in practice, any work environment will evolve from the original intentions
and it will manifest the real work undertaken there.
TABLE 3 Process of Creation
Criteria Description Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Reference Intended
Innovation
Processes
Research, Design, Implementation or Exploitation
At least 1 process
2 processes 3 processes All innovation processes
(Moultrie et al., 2007) and author’s
experience
Intended
Creative
Activities
Search, synthesis, creation, prototyping or evaluation
At least 2 activities
3 activities 4 activities
Full creative activities are held in the space.
Potential
users and
facilitators
The intended users of the space: from occasional test users or students through to dedicated environments for co-located project teams.
Occasional teams (test or creative). Technical assistant.
Crowd of users and active people in events. Facilitators and assistant.
Iterative projects team taking place in the space. Professors, researchers, facilitators.
Co-located team projects. People from community acting as facilitators.
Available
resources &
constraints
The intended availability of physical, financial, human and technical resources
Not dedicated space. Budget <500k EUR. Staff <2
Rented space. Budget: <2M EUR. Staff: <10
Own adapted space. Budget: <5M EUR. Staff: <20
New physical space from scratch. Budget: >5M EUR. Staff: at disposal
Intended
events
The type of ‘events’
intended in the space, from one-off meetings through to ongoing project work
One-off meetings
Classic class/group activities (fixed). Creativity sessions. Showrooms. Access to technical resources.
Dynamic project sessions. Open networking meetings. Jams/marathons.
Co-located external projects.
Physical Embodiment
The innovation space itself encompasses all the characteristics of the physical environment (TABLE
4). The design of the space varies significantly, with different design values, degrees of flexibility and
also the way of the space evolution is contemplated. Different laboratories contain diverse levels of
physical resources, from the IT infrastructure, the support of prototyping and visualization and them
furniture. Each configuration is realized based on specific constraints such as resources, space, skills
and time.
TABLE 4 Physical Embodiment
Criteria Description Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Reference
Geographic
Location
The physical location of the environment and its relationship with the firm. This might include standard office space,
Standard Office Third-party External Facilities
Already Existing Lab
New own dedicated space
(Moultrie et al., 2007) and author’s
experience
18
through to third-party external facilities.
Scale The physical scale of the environment.
Single room (<100m2)
Multiple fixed spaces (<200m2)
Dynamic multiple rooms (<400m2)
Dedicated building (>400m2)
Real vs Virtual
The degree to which the space is designed around virtual teamwork and communication.
Only real (physical) communications
Partially Virtual Communications
Advanced Virtual Communications
Decentralized Lab Interaction
Flexibility
The degree of flexibility embodied in the environment to enable alternative configurations and uses. The degree of flexibility/re-configurability of resources in the workspace.
Fixed Space
Poor flexibility. Hard effort to adapt.
Acceptable re-configurability of spaces.
Smooth adaptation to reconfigure new experiences.
Design Values
Specific design values targeted at encouraging specific behaviors. The use of imagery to reinforce actions.
No presence of intended design values
Some design is used. "Good looking lab".
Partially adopted design values for encourage behaviors.
Use of design values & imagery to encourage specificbehaviors or actions.
IT Resources
The role of IT to enable group work, activities and processes.
Basic tools (for presentation)
L1 + Common IT tools (Virtual communications are supported)
L2 + Advanced level (Interactivity, Project Management Software, Social Networks)
L3 + Availability of high-end technologies to fully support innovation processes and creative activities
Data and
information
The availability of local data/information to support innovation, creativity or design processes/activities.
No access to info and data
In-house library. Internet access.
Limited access to academic data bases
Full access to libraries and databases (Gov, Academic, Patents)
Prototyping &
Visualization
Availability of equipment, facilities and tools to support/enable modelling and visualization activities as a core component of creative and design processes.
Simple paper tools (cardboards)
L1 + Basic printing and modelling soft
L2 + Set of 3D printing, laser cuts, CAD software
L3 + 3D immersion, drones, holographic-VR
Constraints
Practical constraints on the design of the environment
Administrative, legal & finance issues
Lack of tech skills (personnel)
Lack of design and architectural "feeling"
Physical space limitations
Evolution
The degree to which evolution is planned to meet future goals.
No future changes considered
Problems and needs are tracked but no changes are intended
It is expected to do some minor changes to the space
High willingness to adapt space to needs and goals
19
Process of Use
Innovation spaces are force to adapt to the actual conditions and this may lead to new or adapted
uses of the space. The way innovation is actually supported, which creative activities are done within
the laboratory, or in which degree the space really enables teamwork are some of the elements to
take into consideration but more important is to compare how much this has changed in comparison
to the original intent and the process of creation. This could lead to helpful insights to understand
the role of the physical space.
TABLE 5 Process of Use
Criteria Description Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Reference Supporting
Innovation
The stage of the innovation process in which the environment is actually used
Supported processes are totally different to the intended.
Some processes are supported
Most of the intended processes are supported
Intended processes are totally supported
(Moultrie et al., 2007) and author’s
experience
Supporting
Creativity
The actual way in which the environment supports creative activities
Supported activities are totally different to the intended.
Some activities are supported
Most of the intended activities are supported
Intended activities are totally supported
Enabling
teamwork
The actual role of the space in enabling physical and virtual teamwork
It does not enable teamwork
Barely enables teamwork
Enables teamwork for most of activities
Totally enables and enhance teamwork
Actual users
&
facilitators
The actual users of the space
Current users are totally different than expected
Some users match to those intended
Most of the users are the intended
The whole community matches con intent and culture
Actual
events
The actual type of events held
The space is use for different events and activities than intended
Most of the events are unintended
Majority of event match the initial intent
Space is used only for intended events.
Innovation Outcomes
As we talk about Innovation Laboratories, it is expected their activity result in some kind of innovation
outcomes. However, based on the literature review there is no clear understanding on which kind of
results are the ones to determine if a laboratory is successful or not. Beyond this, it is clear that the
activity of innovation laboratories triggers a set of creative and innovation processes with
involvement of the community that eventually lead to some positive testimonials and compelling
stories (Moultrie et al., 2007). Therefore, it is needed to inquiry and define in detail which should be
the indicators that would help to assess the innovation performance of this kind of laboratories.
20
For the purpose of this work, it is considered as innovation outcomes, the degree in which the
strategic intention is achieved based in some tangible and intangible results. We will inquire into
which could be those results.
TABLE 6 Innovation Outcomes
Innovation Outcomes
Achievement of Strategic Intention
Tangible Results
Intangible Results
Moving forward through the path to operationalization, an international study is proposed. As it was
shown before, the proliferation of international laboratories around the world has been significant.
Then, designing an instrument to gather and analyze the experiences of multiple cases, fits with the
need of completing and ameliorating the grid. This instrument will be a questionnaire intended to
reach multiple networks of laboratories such as Living Labs, Design Factories, ViveLabs and others.
IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS a. COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS TOOL
One of the first products of this work is the design of instrument to collect qualitative and quantitative
data based in multiple cases. It is being co-designed with directors and managers from some
innovation laboratories. This questionnaire is based on the 30 criteria defined in the framework and
the grid of indicators previously presented. It has 56 questions directly related to the framework plus
14 general questions for classification and feedback purposes for a total of 70.
The instrument is composed by multiple choice questions as well as checkboxes and open questions.
In the first case, we aim to evaluate in which maturity level is the laboratory in the correspondent
criteria according to the literature. On the other side, the checkboxes and open questions are used
to gather data and identify which practices are performed within the laboratories and also to make
and inventory of actual infrastructure that compose the innovation spaces.
The first version was created with the support of the Lorraine Fab Living Lab® in Nancy, France, the
Centre for Digital Media in Vancouver, Canada and the ViveLab Bogotá, Colombia. Currently, the
questionnaire is under permanent amelioration through the feedback of participants.
The instrument was designed to perform an international study. Due to this, the questionnaire is
available in 3 languages: English, French and Spanish. This allows us to increase the scope of our study
in order to have a more comprehensive set of experiences and perspectives. The questionnaire can
be seen in the ANNEX 1 and also it can be accessed through the following links:
· English: http://goo.gl/forms/GGPKyxswCK
· French: http://goo.gl/forms/pVRt19YWl2
· Spanish: http://goo.gl/forms/9VOfgWVODs
21
b. RESULTS Thus far, it has been received 11 answers from 10 laboratories distributed in 8 cities and 5 countries
(Figure 3). In total, 45 institutions have been requested, therefore, we have had a rate of answer of
22%. Among the respondents there are representatives from Living Labs, ViveLabs, Design Factory
and Fab Labs (Figure 3, Figure 4). Regarding to the role of the respondents, the majority of them are
directors or managers of the laboratories, this fact guarantees that the information collected is
accurate and as close as possible to the reality of the laboratories (Figure 5).
Figure 3 Geographic distribution of respondents
Figure 4 Type of laboratories surveyed
22
Figure 5 Role of the surveyed within the laboratories
From this point, we will focus on a reference case in order to see in more detail the application of the
questionnaire. Also, for every relevant point a comparison will be made with the general results of
the study. The ANNEX 2 contains the detailed analysis sheet, and the complete answer sheet for each
laboratory is included in the ANNEX 3.
The reference case is the Lorraine Fab Living Lab® which is the innovation platform of the ERPI
Research Group from Université de Lorraine in France. Below, a summarized version of results from
each section of the questionnaire will be presented, starting from the general aspects, followed by
the strategic intention, a comparison between the process of creation and the process of use, then
the main physical characteristics and finally, the innovation outcomes.
GENERAL ASPECTS
Our reference case, the Lorraine Fab Living Lab® (from now and on LF2L®) belongs to the Université
de Lorraine, however, there is an alliance of several institutions that work together in order to create
the laboratory and benefit from it. Specifically, as the main partners (or stakeholders) there are the
University (of Lorraine), the Local and Regional Government (Grand Nancy, Region Lorraine), as well
as big companies, which in this case are the ones in charge of the electrical distribution in France
(ERDF) or electrical production (EDF). Networks of small and medium companies are also associated
to this laboratory.
Thinking in these kind of innovation spaces which are mainly managed by Universities, it is common
to find that there is some kind of partnership or consortium behind supporting the creation of these
laboratories and usually with some specific roles. For example, 6 of the 10 laboratories surveyed, are
funded by the government through national ministries or city halls and the University is the one who
runs the laboratory.
23
Another remarkable characteristic is that indeed most of the innovation laboratories are recent. In
the case of the LF2L®, it has been operational since 2014, although it has been the result of previously
experiences that sum up a total of 5 years. In general, among the sample, the longest innovation
space has been running since 2007 but most of them have only between 2 and 3 years of operation
(Figure 6).
Figure 6 Time of Operation
STRATEGIC INTENTION In the strategy definition of the innovation laboratories, there is a common challenge: sustainability.
55% of the laboratories had defined since the beginning that they have to meet long term goals and
to make the laboratory sustainable. Those goals, in the case of the LF2L®, encompass the support of
pedagogical activities of the Université de Lorraine, to enable a space to be the meeting point
between the local institutions and companies and to give access to the citizens according to specific
projects. In this specific case, the LF2L® is the embodiment of two previous projects combined:
Lorraine Smart Cities Living Lab and the GSI Lab (a Fab Lab recognized by the MIT). Therefore, they
face one additional challenge which is not only combine the physical and technological resources of
both laboratories, but to merge these two dynamics.
Among the innovation laboratories that are involved in this study so far, their answers to the question
“what were the goals defined at the beginning of the project?”, besides the sustainability challenge,
the most common goal is to facilitate an ecosystem through a platform where projects can be
developed and communities can be involved. Figure 7 shows the keywords that can be more
frequently found in the objectives of the laboratories surveyed.
24
Figure 7 Keywords in objectives of innovation laboratories
Regarding to the partners and stakeholders, 82% of the managers of the laboratories had the priority
or at least the intention to go beyond than the strictly legal commitments and create value and
promote long engagements with them (Figure 8). Among the strategies to do this, there are: to give
free access to space, to offer training services and to provide dissemination of stakeholders’ services
through the communications channels of the laboratory.
Figure 8 Disposition to create value and engagement with stakeholders
Now, the LF2L® had a wide disposition to involve the users actively in the projects develop there.
Specifically, they see the users as collaborators and co-creators. This matches with dispositions from
the other laboratories (Figure 9). It seems that there is a common understanding that the users can
play a bigger role during the innovation processes.
25
Figure 9 Expected role of the users within the laboratories
In relation to the way to engage the community of users around the laboratory, the LF2L® implements
a variety of strategies that include thematic workshops that connects the community with the
partners of the laboratory. Similarly, they offer the space itself (and facilitators if it is required) to a
community (for instance makers) for them to take advantage of the infrastructure installed there.
Some other practices that it is possible to found among the other laboratories are public social-tech
activities such as “meet-ups” and “cacharreo digital”, product testing, big events and dissemination
of activities. On other side, some laboratories claim that sometimes they struggle to successfully
engage the users due to lack of resources. Often, this kind of activities are seen as “extra” efforts and
require to keep the laboratory open during late hours or weekends.
Concerning to build a cultural identity, the answers show that this is an element that is not clear in
the strategy of the laboratories. In the case of LF2L®, since the beginning they have contemplated to
build up and share with the stakeholders the state of mind and manners that should reflect the space.
Nevertheless, as it is shown in Figure 10, 73% of the laboratories did not define the cultural identity
or they did it only with the inner team missing to share it with their partners and stakeholders.
Figure 10 Cultural identity
26
Finally, in connection with the strategic goals, it is evidenced that most of the laboratories estimated
to be permanent. This is directly related to the sustainability goals shown before. In some cases, such
as LF2L®, it starts as a new project with a limited length but in time, results motivate to transform the
initiative in a permanent one.
Figure 11 Estimated length of the innovation laboratories
PROCESS OF CREATION VERSUS PROCESS OF USE
Figure 12 show the main focus of innovation laboratories. They are mainly intended to support the
design and implementation of products. It is important to notice how few exploitation and research
processes are in mind for this laboratories.
Figure 12 Intended innovation processes
The case reference for this study focused on doing research, design and implementation processes.
Then, it is expected this reflects into the embodiment of the laboratory. Moreover, to be strongly
linked to the Université de Lorraine, is what makes the LF2L® to have a comprehensive innovation
experience. If we compare in general, the intended processes against the actual ones, the most
significant change is more laboratories are doing research (Figure 13). It is likely that managers are
finding out that research is actually one of the key processes to ignite innovations. In that case, an
27
innovation laboratory should be conceived to allow research to also happen there. Anyhow,
managers have stated they adapt according to the project. In some cases, the users demand the
laboratory to provide new processes.
Figure 13 Intended versus current innovation processes
In a similar way, innovation laboratories tend to offer a complete environment to creativity. In the
case of the LF2L®, it was designed to allow people to search, create, synthetize, prototype, and
evaluate their ideas. Among the respondents, creation and prototyping activities are the more
privilege at the moment of conceiving the space (Figure 14). Although, regarding to the current use,
some have abandoned prototyping activities due to insufficient resources (physical and financial).
Figure 14 Intended versus current creative activities
28
Professors and students are the main users of the LF2L®. Then, it is possible to find citizens and
officials working with companies. Also, the platform receives certain communities such as makers
and some associations. If a comparison is made with the rest of laboratories, a pattern is possible to
establish. Indeed, the main expected users and currently using the laboratories are the students,
entrepreneurs and companies (Figure 15). Depending of the specialization of each laboratory it is
possible to find specific communities such as elderly people, journalists or healthcare professionals.
Figure 15 Users of Innovation Laboratories
Regarding to facilitators, the LF2L® has based its operation with professionals hired specifically to do
the animation of the intended activities and also with professors and researches. Observing the
experiences from other laboratories it is interesting to have in mind that it is also possible to have
mentors or coaches that could help to animate the laboratory. In some other cases, people from the
community can volunteer to share their experience as part of the process of being part of a
community and feeling identified with the culture and values reflected by the space.
Figure 16 Types of facilitators
29
Another remarkable aspect to review is the budget for the creation of a laboratory. A variety of
budget sizes are possible to find. In this study, it is possible to find laboratories that cost less than 500
thousand euros but also others that exceeds the 5 million euros. Anyhow, the most significant insight
here is that in the majority of cases the budget invested to the physical infrastructure is around the
51% and 75% (Figure 17).
Figure 17 Budget invested in physical infrastructure
PHYSICAL EMBODIMENT
The first aspect to look at is the average size dedicated to the laboratory. As we can see in the figure
bellow, it has a relation with where the laboratory is located; it is bigger the area for the now
dedicated spaces (owned). This gives us the idea that when a laboratory is conceived and there is not
an already existing space, it tends to be bigger as more activities and dedicated spaces can be
proposed without a constraint in the space.
Figure 18 Average size per type of location
30
It has been shown that an innovation space hosts a diverse set of processes and activities. This means
the space needs to transform and adapt according to the necessity. Therefore, the setup and the
flexibility of the space is a key element to be taken into account. Our reference case counts with a
acceptable flexibility to reconfigure spaces. Actually, they have the possibility to transform the space
from a one wide and single classroom to a smaller multiples areas for projects by moving the chair
and tables, and using wall paper as divisions. Despite of this, in the reality it is not easy to move the
tables and chairs because of the weight and missing wheels. In time, this results in people’s
unsatisfaction and overcosts due to maintanance of the furniture. This kind of issues happen to all
kind of spaces and distributions (Figure 19). This is why it is important to encourage directors and
managers to be conscious and thorough of what kind of space configuration it is necessary and
optimal for the laboratory.
Figure 19 Space setup versus flexibility
This study also collected information about the type of areas that is possible to find within an
innovation laboratory, the software available, the information sources, and the equipment and tools
used. The reader is invited to review the ANNEX 2 in order to see the detail analysis.
In any case, creating an innovation space is challenging. Below, we share the main limitations and
difficulties that managers faced to build their laboratories:
· Find the physical space;
· Coordinate and share the space with other departments within the institution;
· Lack of a dedicated person to administrate the laboratory;
· Its use, maintenance and resources;
· Establish a framework of values and good use;
· Change in the organizational culture of the institution;
· Bureaucratic procedures make difficult the execution of projects and hiring;
· Generate a common understanding among the stakeholders;
· Technology investment;
31
· Adjustments for physical accessibility;
· Reduced budget;
· Local companies are too small to sponsor R&D;
· Companies are unfamiliar with idea of doing joint applied R&D;
· And timing to start projects with private partners.
Now, based on these limitations, managers would like to see implemented in their laboratories the
features listed hereunder:
· Interactive boards;
· Touch tables;
· 3D printing;
· Holographics;
· Laser cut;
· Open space;
· Enhance lighting and furniture;
· Accessibility;
· to have an own space;
· Improved electronics equipment
Certainly, it is unlikely that every aspect and detail goes perfect during the creation of a project.
Besides, the environment is always changing and what matters is to have the capability to adapt. The
experience of LF2L® is a prove of this. As it was mentioned before, this is laboratory encompasses at
least 5 years of previous experiences that include the evolution from 3 different spaces. Today they
have a very complete platform and yet, they recognize that there are still more aspects to improve.
This is the degree in which evolution is planned. This is something that the respondents seem to have
in mind (Figure 20).
Figure 20 Degree in which evolution is planned
32
INNOVATION OUTCOMES
The LF2L® underlines as their tangible outcomes the number of people that use (or visit) the space
(almost 3000 in one year and a half), the number of organizations or institutions that have been
involved in the use of the platform (more than 150) and the conferences, seminar and articles that
have been published. One particular outcome is the Nomad’Lab which is a mobile fab lab that has
been used to extend the activities and culture of the laboratory beyond the original space. Regarding
to the laboratories in general, this is what the respondents so far have highlighted as tangible
outcomes:
· Number of users (including visitors);
· Number of people trained;
· Number of entrepreneurship events;
· Number of entrepreneurs supported (or incubated);
· Number of seminars offered;
· Number of communities created (or hosted);
· Number of spin off;
· Participation on research projects and demonstrations in the lab;
· Portfolio of benefits for companies
Furthermore, it is perceived that innovation laboratories generate results that go beyond measurable
indicators. In this questionnaire we were looking for those outcomes and how the managers
understood them. One of the most recognized benefits from having an innovation laboratory is that
usually these places become iconic buildings or places. This contributes to branding recognition of
the city and people get to know who is behind the innovation space and they are curious to find out
what is it about. In addition, the degree of flexibility of the space may allow for exceptional uses.
Moreover, managers believe that innovation spaces actually change the mindset of the users and
partners. It inspires and motivates users to do teamwork, to be creative and active. Figure 21
summarizes the main elements related as intangible outcomes from innovation laboratories.
Figure 21 Perceived intangible outcomes
33
c. FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS In this section it will be summarized the main insights of this work. Also, limitations will be presented
as a basis of improvements in future research efforts.
FINDINGS
1. In general, it has been seen that the questionnaire itself works as a guidance tool to help
managers to make the planning of a new innovation space project in a more comprehensive
way. As part of the feedback, some respondents underlined that at the early stages of their
projects, they had not taken into consideration several criteria or elements that are strategic
in the success of innovation laboratories.
2. Based on an existing and mostly theoretical framework, an updated version was proposed
and operationalized. According to the literature review, it is an original contribution to the
recent research efforts to understand the behavior and performance of innovation
laboratories.
3. Undeniably, the physical space and technical infrastructure need to be considered as an
active asset within the strategy of innovation laboratories. This study showed that in most of
the cases the percentage of economic investment in the infrastructure represents between
50 and 75% of the project.
4. Moreover, there is a general perception in how the space influences, in a more intangible
way, the outcomes of the laboratory. For instance, one of the most remarkable aspects is
that innovation laboratories often turn into iconic places of the city to which they belong.
This makes them work as a significant dissemination tool for the city and partners involved.
5. Additionally, innovation spaces also become attractors of communities. People develop a
sense of belonging and this provides a valuable source of ideas, insights and evaluations for
new projects.
6. The setup of the space has a fundamental role in the acceptability from users. Moreover, if
a laboratory is flexible enough to host different kind of events and projects, this will motivate
users and stakeholders to participate and be engaged in innovative processes. After all,
modifiable spaces provide an experience of being allowed to, or empowered to, act
differently and innovatively (Oksanen & Ståhle, 2013).
7. This international study gives an information source in order to identify, compare and
validate which are the most common areas in a laboratory, the technologies used as well as
the information sources available. In time, the information presented in this work can be
updated to deliver a more accurate report.
8. Innovation laboratories mainly focus on design and implementation processes. Some of them
recognized the importance of doing research and they intend to do it. Also, it is clear that
almost none of the laboratories focus on exploitation processes and this is maybe because
of the nature of the laboratories surveyed (university based or related to). However,
innovation laboratories should come closer or at least, explore how to do commercialization.
This will allow to make the most of the projects realized there, in order to actually make the
laboratory sustainable. One option is to offer to private partners clear mechanisms of
commercialization and intellectual property conditions.
34
LIMITATIONS OF THIS WORK
1. One of the shortcomings of this work is the extent of the questionnaire. Among the
respondents, several of them have manifested that it took too much time to answer.
2. Regarding to the questionnaire, some questions need to be reviewed and improve to get
better results. Also, the methodology should be accompanied with some interviews taking
place directly in the laboratory in order to acquire more accurate data.
3. The maturity grid is incomplete. With the information collected through the international
study the grid can be updated. In any case, there are some criteria which can vary from one
context to another.
4. Answers collection is still in process. This is why, the first results were presented in a more
qualitative manner. Anyway, in the future it is expected to do a more robust quantitative
analysis.
5. Additionally, feedback from respondents was received. Their comments suggest the
questionnaire should also look into: social software, percentage of use of each room or area
(and why), other spaces non-working related, co-creation methodologies, point of view of
the community and innovation techniques.
CONCLUSION Along to this work, it has been studied why the space should be considered a conscious asset within
the strategy of an innovation laboratory. It has been discussed the importance to understand the
influence of the physical environment in the innovation processes. A conceptual framework was
proposed in order to study the processes of creation and use of a space intended to support
innovation and to measure the outcomes according to the original strategic intention.
To achieve this, research efforts were focused in co-designing with directors and managers of
innovation laboratories an analysis instrument in order to provide qualitative and quantitative data
about multiple cases. This included, to build a grid of indicators followed by the design of a
questionnaire. Then, an international study was done and finally 10 laboratories from 5 countries
were part of the analysis.
The main contribution of this work is the construction of a guidance tool for those who want to start
a new project of creation of an innovation space. This means researchers and practitioners can find
a comprehensive set of practices and experiences in the way innovation laboratories have been
implemented in order to build their own strategy.
However, there is still plenty of work to do. Further research efforts will focus on increase the number
of laboratories surveyed aiming to improve the results presented in this work. Equally, the
methodology needs to be improved taking into consideration additional elements from users’
perceptions and the context in which the innovation laboratory operates.
Finally, we encourage the academic community to deepen in this issue by studying the users’
perspective in the performance of the physical space. Likewise, to characterize the type of outcomes
from an innovation laboratory is required.
35
One last remark, is that part of this work was presented in the ICE/IEEE Technology Management
Conference at Belfast in June, 2015 (Osorio Bustamante, Peña Reyes, Camargo, & Dupont, 2015).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2011). Living Labs: arbiters of mid-and ground-level innovation. Technology Analysis \& Strategic Management, 23, 87–102. doi:10.1080/09537325.2011.537110
Andersen, E. S., & Jessen, S. A. (2003). Project maturity in organisations. International Journal of
Project Management, 21(6), 457–461. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00088-1
Andersson Schaeffer, J., & Eriksson, Y. (2014). Tool-complexes of innovation. : Spaces for explorative
innovation in four manufacturing companies. Design Research Society Biennial International
Conference 16-19 June 2014, Umeå, Sweden. Recuperado a partir de http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A774887&dswid=9647
Björklund, T., Luukkonen, S., Clavert, M., Kirjavainen, S., & Laakso, M. (2011). Aalto University Design Factory through the eyes of its community members. Study report. Aalto University Design Factory.
Claire, J., Galvez, D., Boly, V., Camargo, M., & Moselle, J. C. (2014). A new innovation project maturity assessment methodology based on innovation degree. En 2014 International
Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE) (pp. 1–8). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICE.2014.6871614
Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained Product Innovation in Large, Mature Organizations: Overcoming Innovation-To-Organization Problems. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1120–1153. doi:10.2307/256994
Dupont, L. (2009, noviembre 5). Transfert du génie industriel vers l’ingénierie urbaine : vers une
approche collaborative des projets urbains. Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine - INPL. Recuperado a partir de https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00734950/
Dupont, L., Morel, L., Hubert, J., & Guidat, C. (2014). Study case: Living Lab Mode for urban project design: Emergence of an ad hoc methodology through collaborative innovation. En 2014
International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE) (pp. 1–9). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICE.2014.6871550
Dutilleul, B., Birrer, F. A. J., & Mensink, W. (2010, julio 15). Unpacking European Living Labs: Analysing Innovation’s Social Dimensions. Central European Journal of Public Policy. Recuperado a partir de http://www.cejpp.eu/index.php/ojs/article/view/49
Ekvall, G. (1997). Organizational Conditions and Levels of Creativity. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 6(4), 195–205. doi:10.1111/1467-8691.00070
36
Gershenfeld, N. (2012). How to Make Almost Anything: The Digital Fabrication Revolution. Foreign
Affairs, 91. Recuperado a partir de http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/fora91&id=1077&div=&collection=
Gey, R., Meyer, L. P., & Thieme, M. (2013). A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon Innovation Laboratory: A Structurational Viewpoint.
Griffin, R., & Michele Kacmar, K. (1991). Laboratory research in management: Misconceptions and missed opportunities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(4), 301–311. doi:10.1002/job.4030120405
Guthrie, C. (2014). Empowering the hacker in us: a comparison of fab lab and hackerspace ecosystems. En 5th LAEMOS Colloquium (Latin American and European Meeting on
Organization Studies). Habana.
Kristensen, T. (2004). The Physical Context of Creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(2), 89–96. doi:10.1111/j.0963-1690.2004.00297.x
Laakso, M., & Clavert, M. (2014). Promover la creatividad y las habilidades del pensamiento de diseño entre los estudiantes universitarios. Revista de estudios de juventud, 104, 215–228.
Lewis, M., & Moultrie, J. (2005). The Organizational Innovation Laboratory. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 14(1), 73–83. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00327.x
Maier, A. M., Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P. J. (2012). Assessing Organizational Capabilities: Reviewing and Guiding the Development of Maturity Grids. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 59(1), 138–159. doi:10.1109/TEM.2010.2077289
Meyer, L.-P., Schultz, J., Foradi, M., Thieme, M., & Meyer, K. (2014). Innovation laboratories worldwide.
Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U.-E., Janssen, S., & Van der Lugt, R. (2007). Innovation Spaces: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Role of the Physical Environment in Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(1), 53–65. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00419.x
Nunamaker, J. F., Applegate, L. M., & Konsynski, B. R. (1988). Computer-Aided Deliberation: Model Management and Group Decision Support. Operations Research, 36(6), 826–848. doi:10.1287/opre.36.6.826
OECD. (2014). OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Colombia 2014. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204638-en
Oksanen, K., & Ståhle, P. (2013). Physical environment as a source for innovation: investigating the attributes of innovative space. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(6), 815–827. doi:10.1108/JKM-04-2013-0136
37
Olson, E. M., Cooper, R., & Slater, S. F. (1998). Design strategy and competitive advantage. Business
Horizons, 41(2), 55–61. doi:10.1016/S0007-6813(98)90035-0
Osorio Bustamante, F., Peña Reyes, J. I., Camargo, M., & Dupont, L. (2015). Spaces to foster and sustain innovation: Towards a conceptual framework. En Engineering, Technology and
Innovation (ICE), 2015 International ICE Conference on.
Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2012). Spaces enabling game-changing and sustaining innovations: why space matters for knowledge creation and innovation. Recuperado a partir de http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1386/jots.9.1.41_1
Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2014). Designing and Enabling Spaces for collaborative knowledge creation and innovation: From managing to enabling innovation as socio-epistemological technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 346–359. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.027
Schuurman, D., Baccarne, B., Kawsar, F., Seys, C., Veeckman, C., De Marez, L., & Ballon, P. (2013). Living labs as quasi-experiments: results from the Flemish LeYLab. XXIV ISPIM Conference :
Innovating in Global Markets: Challenges for Sustainable Growth. Recuperado a partir de https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/3237435/file/3237445.pdf
Skiba, N., Dupont, L., Morel, L., & Guidat, C. (2012). A space for innovation process acceleration, supporting collaborative citizens workshops. En 2012 18th International ICE Conference on
Engineering, Technology and Innovation (pp. 1–9). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICE.2012.6297646
Snead, L., & Wycoff, J. (1999). TOOLS@ WORK: Stimulating innovation with collaboration rooms. Journal for Quality and Participation, 55–57.
The Fab Foundation. (2012). The Fab Charter. Recuperado 2 de mayo de 2015, a partir de http://www.fabfoundation.org/fab-labs/the-fab-charter/
The Fab Foundation. (2015). Fab Labs around the world. Recuperado 2 de mayo de 2015, a partir de http://www.fabfoundation.org/fab-labs/
Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., Lievens, B., & Westerlund, M. (2013). Characteristics and their outcomes in living labs: a Flemish-finnish case study. XXIV ISPIM Conference :
Innovating in Global Markets: Challenges for Sustainable Growth. Recuperado a partir de https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/4185240
Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2013). Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Technology Innovation
Management Review, 3(2). Recuperado a partir de http://timreview.ca/article/748
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321. doi:10.5465/AMR.1993.3997517