ANALYSIS OF CHARACTERISTICS AND TYPES OF … · concept (Lewis & Moultrie, 2005), and Dupont designed a prototype for an environment to boost collaborative processes (Dupont, 2009).

2015

ANALYSIS OF CHARACTERISTICS AND

TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURE OF

INNOVATION LABORATORIES:

IMPLICATIONS FOR STRATEGIC

MANAGEMENT

FERNEY OSORIO BUSTAMANTE ELECTRONICS ENGINEER

[email protected]

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