Typologies of localized spaces of collaborative innovation

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2414402

1

Typologies of localized spaces of collaborative innovation

Ignasi Capdevila MosaiC, HEC Montréal [email protected]

Abstract

Hacker spaces, maker spaces, Living Labs, Fab Labs or co-working spaces are common

denominations of localized spaces of collaborative innovation (LSCI) where knowledge

communities meet to collectively innovate. These spaces can represent a key element in the

innovation ecosystem of cities, bridging between individual’s creativity and the firms’

innovation. However, the increasing importance of this phenomenon has been overlooked by

researchers on innovation both in organizations and in territories. The research here presented

is a first attempt to study the LSCI phenomenon globally, by proposing a typology that

classifies 120 spaces depending on the leaders (users or organizations) and the main driver

(social or economic) of the projects developed in the LSCI. The contribution of this paper is

to propose a practical methodology that could be applicable to the classification of other

existing LSCI. Furthermore, the proposed typology could be used by policy makers to

reinforce the interactions between the actors of the local innovation ecology.

Introduction

A territory’s innovation capacity highly depends on its capacity of enabling knowledge flows

between the different stakeholders. Beyond the classical view that considers innovation as a

process run in the R&D departments, organizations both private and public currently put in

place ways of tapping the creative and innovative capacity of a vast number of individuals

that are outside their formal boundaries.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2414402

2

External sources of knowledge are often crucial for organizations in order to develop

innovative products (Chesbrough 2003; Hippel 2007). Knowledge-intensive organizations tap

on the innovative capacity of individuals and communities that share the same local

environment (Marquis & Battilana 2009). Research in economic geography has underlined

the importance of colocation in the knowledge transfer between firms and their milieu.

Following practices based on the creative class theories (Florida 2012), firms and

governmental bodies have put in place policies to attract talented individuals to their cities.

However selecting and hiring single talented individuals might not be sufficient to integrate

the innovation developed externally due to the fact that innovation is generally not the result

of single individuals but the co-creation within communities.

Practices to apprehend the knowledge developed in communities have generally taken a top-

down approach. Open innovation (Chesbrough 2003) for instance has focused on initiatives

from firms to align collective efforts towards the development of their commercialized

products and services. Similarly, public institutions have progressively allowed a higher

citizens’ participation by providing more information in order to receive feedback and the

citizens’ ideas and suggestions.

Research on innovation by communities have either studied localized communities that

interact in close contact mainly in a face-to-face mode (i.e. Wenger 1999; Brown & Duguid

1991) but within an organization or studied the role of virtual communities outside an

organization (Luthje et al. 2003; Raymond 1999).

This article contribute to fill this gap in the literature by focusing on the study of innovation

communities that are localized but do not belong to an organization. In the last decades,

diverse types of communities such hacker spaces, maker spaces, Living Labs, Fab Labs or co-

working spaces, among others, have spread worldwide. These spaces, despite having common

aspects, take different configurations. I will refer to them using the unifying term of localized

spaces of collaborative innovation (LSCI from now on).

Despite of the fact that the number of these spaces have been increasing at a considerable rate

(see for instance the annual number of new hacker spaces in Figure 1), the innovation

communities that these spaces are representing have not motivated deep research. To study

the knowledge creation and transfer within these LSCI and the role they play in the innovative

ecosystem of their local environment is crucial to understand in which ways the other

3

stakeholders of the innovation process (from citizens to public institutions and firms) can

benefit from the innovation develop collectively by their members.

This article represents a first approach to this end by determining a typology of LSCI that

from side is wide enough to include the biggest amount of LSCI but on the other side,

considers enough detailed criteria to allow a meaningful classification.

A LSCI is defined as a space open to the public in order to foster collective creativity. For our

research, I have considered the following common characteristics shared by all LSCI:

• 1) they are spaces open to the general public.

• 2) they have a defined focus and goal collectively agreed by their members.

• 3) they share information, and tools among the members and they encourage the free

sharing of knowledge

The above definition is related to the three common characteristics that define a community of

practice (Wenger 1999).

The increasing phenomenon of LSCI has been related to commons-based peer-production

(Benkler & Nissenbaum 2006) and the emergent ‘fabbing’ movement (Troxler 2010).

However, I have avoided including the terms “fabrication” or “production” that have

connotations of tangibility and materiality to also consider collaborative spaces that might

focus on the development of immaterial outcomes, like services, new knowledge or

networking.

Around the world, several thousands of spaces with a diversity of names fulfill the above

definition like labs (Fab Labs, medialabs, Living Labs, maker labs), hubs, thinktanks, clubs,

maker spaces etc. However, a considerable number are labeled by their members under the

following four denominations: Fab Labs, Living Labs, co-working spaces, and hacker spaces.

4

Figure 1: Number of new Hacker Spaces launched from 1982 to 2012 (Source: Author using available data from hackerspaces.org)

Literature and theory

Research on innovation in economic geography has dealt with the study of knowledge flows

between actors in geographical proximity, underlining the importance of the transfer of

knowledge and most importantly, tacit knowledge (Gertler 2003; Maskell & Malmberg 1999;

Howells 2002; Howells 2012).

The distinction between two kinds of knowledge, tacit and explicit, is important in the study

of localized learning (Polanyi, 1966). Explicit knowledge is the knowledge that can be

codified and consequently easily transmitted. Tacit knowledge, on the contrary, can be

difficult expressed and codified due to that “we can know more that we can tell” (Polanyi

1966, p.4). These two kinds of knowledge are intimately related in the process of knowledge

creation and cannot be separated (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995). The transmission of tacit

knowledge requires a close and frequent interaction between individuals. This is the reason

why face-to-face contact and co-location are important aspects for the transmission of tacit

knowledge. But co-location by itself cannot ensure knowledge transfer and learning

(Boschma 2005). Cognitive proximity is necessary to obtain the sufficient absorptive capacity

to be able to detect and take advantage of the new knowledge (Nooteboom et al. 2007).

However, geographical and cognitive proximity are not independent. One of the main

arguments in the “learning regions” thesis (see for instance Florida 1995; Morgan 1997;

Maskell & Malmberg 1999) is that tacit knowledge cannot be transferred easily because it

5

needs a face-to-face interaction between individuals that share the same institutional context

about communication codes, values and conventions. Furthermore, the transfer of tacit

knowledge cannot be dissociate from the creation of new knowledge as the two phenomena

occur simultaneously through the mechanism of user-producer interaction (Lundvall 1988;

Gertler 1995). The new knowledge is consequently deeply embedded in the geographical

context and is dependent of all the implied stakeholders. The potential innovations that would

derive from this knowledge would be then the result of a co-creation that could be fruit of

informal interaction and not deliberate.

According to this perspective, knowledge transmission is not unidirectional between

knowledge producers and knowledge users but bidirectional. Consequently, innovation is the

result of this social interaction. To more deeply understand how the interaction between

individuals’ creativity and the innovation process in formal firms develops in the context of a

creative territory, Cohendet et al. (2010) argue that the creative “underground” that is formed

by artists, hackers and activists relates to the formal firms and institutions of the so-called

“upperground” through the intermediary of knowledge communities, that form the

“middleground”. These ontological strata of the innovation actors contribute to the

understanding of the interaction between local firms, that follow the market rules, and

creative individuals, that might follow an artistic logic far from the market logic. The

underground and the upperground might be cognitively distant but share the same “creative

milieu”.

This perspective relies on the evidence that organizations are culturally, socially, historically

and institutionally embedded in the territories where they are located and influenced by the

local community (Marquis & Battilana 2009). Local community in a wider sense can be

understood as Storper (2005) defines it: “a wide variety of ways of grouping together with

others with whom we share some part of our identity, expectations, and interests.” but also as

the variety of different small communities that share a common interest, hobby, profession or

practice. As Cohendet et al. (2010) argue, the knowledge-based organizations localized in a

territory are dependent on local communities of the “underground” to contribute to the

innovative process.

However, there is a lack of literature about the embeddedness of knowledge communities in

the territories. According to the literature on knowledge communities in general and

communities of practice (Brown & Duguid 2000; Wenger 1999; Wenger & Snyder 2000),

6

cognitive and social proximities play a major role than geographic proximity, allowing tacit

knowledge to flow beyond the localized context of the knowledge creation among the

community members (Amin & P Cohendet 2004). Even if this might be true in theoretical

terms, in practice, the intensity of interaction among members of a community of practice

force them to concentrate their knowledge exchange with a limited number of persons, mainly

the ones whom they share a closest proximity and relationship (Brown & Duguid 2000,

p.143).

These studies have however mainly underlined the importance of knowledge communities in

an organizational context (Wenger 2000; Wenger & Snyder 2000; Amin & P Cohendet 2004).

The role that communities play outside organizations in the innovation process has been

seldom investigated.

However, a multitude of communities in the form of LSCI have emerged in the last decades

creating a phenomenon that has been referred as “fabbing” (Troxler 2010). In the next section,

different knowledge communities represented by diverse types of LSCI are presented. The

differences between them are analyzed in order to define a typology of LSCI.

Data and Methods

This research includes data from LSCI that use the following four denominations: Fab Labs,

Living Labs, co-working spaces, and hacker spaces. The theoretical and practical reasons are

the following: Firstly, taking groups of LSCI offers a first rough filter of spaces as each group

includes several hundred spaces. The available definitions of these groups also allow

confirming as a first approach the applicability of the above LSCI definition. Secondly, the

groups are independent. Apart from few exceptions, there are no LSCI that consider

themselves as belonging simultaneously to two denominations. Thirdly, for all four

denominations, listings of spaces are published online and are of public access.

This study is based on primary source data, as it analyses texts extracts from the webpages of

the different LSCI. The extracts were the texts described by the LSCI responsible members or

founders to describe their activities and goals. Generally the texts were under the section title

“About us”, “Mission”, “Who we are” or similar. Other parts of the website that would deal

with these issues were also used in some cases. The text length was two pages in average. In

7

the case of Living Labs, the data used was the form that each space filled in to apply to be

officially recognized by the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). Table 1 represents

the sources where the listings were extracted from. Analyzed spaces were selected randomly

from the listings after discarding not active spaces and spaces with no webpage.

LSCI denomination Data source Total number of active spaces worldwide

Number of spaces

analyzed

Fab Labs http://wiki.fablab.is/wiki/Portal:Labs About 220 30

Co-working spaces http://wiki.coworking.com/w/page/29303049/Directory About 2500 30

Hacker spaces http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/List_of_Hacker_Spaces Around 800 30

Living Labs http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/livinglabs 319 30

TOTAL About 4000 120

Table 1: Data sources

Fablabs

The Fab Lab concept originated in MIT’s interdisciplinary Center for Bits and Atoms where a

first lab was put in place empowering students to make (almost) anything (Gershenfeld 2005)

by the use of new technological tools for rapid prototyping like 3D printers, laser cutters, and

programmable sewing machines that allow small-scale production. There is currently a

network of Fab Labs composed by more than 220 labs distributed around the globe, cities and

rural areas, rich and developing countries. All Fab Labs follow MIT’s charter (CBA-MIT

2012). They serve a wide spectrum of users, from youth, inventors as well as companies and

students. They also serve multiple uses like teaching, professional development, applied

research and research services.

Co-working spaces

The co-working movement started in the early 2000’s (Spinuzzi 2012). Co-working spaces

are more than mere shared offices. They have a focus on knowledge sharing and collaboration

among their members. Even if the spaces are very different in both services and culture, they

shared four common values: “collaboration, openness, community and sustainability”

(Leforestier 2009).

8

Co-working enables collaboration, shared knowledge and mutual learning and offers

opportunities to reach commercial deals among co-workers (Cohen 2011). These spaces allow

encounters between people working in different professions that can result in new innovations

(Heikkilä 2012). Co-working spaces take generally the legal form of a startup that charges

monthly fee for allowing its members to have access to common equipment and facilities. Co-

workers, apart from the advantage of sharing fixed costs, identify the interaction with other

people, random discoveries and opportunities, knowledge sharing and being member of a

strong community as the main advantages of joining a co-working space (Deskmag 2012).

Maker spaces / Hacker spaces

Even though hacker spaces or other similar terms like hacklabs (Maxigas 2012) do not

respond to a clear definition, they could be straightforwardly defined as being communities’

workspaces which operate on the principles of hacker ethics (Himanen 2002; Levy 2001; Farr

2009). They are driven by an open culture that, through a sharing attitude and a peer-to-peer

approach, can enhance the development of distributed networks and social bonds (Bauwens

2005). Emerging from the counter culture (Grenzfurthner & Schneider 2009), hacker spaces

are a large set of differing places, with one ubiquitous feature: a community of enthusiasts

sharing a common motivation (Schlesinger et al. 2010). Altruism, community commitment,

meeting other hackers in the real world and having fun seem to be the most important factors

of motivation (Moilanen 2012).

Some spaces that do activities similar to hacker spaces do not use the term “hacker” to refer to

themselves. This fact might be due to a general misinterpretation of the word that can be

related to illegal practices (Moilanen 2012) and have opted by using other terms like ‘maker

space’.

Maker-spaces is another usual term to designate workshops that offer access to machines and

tools for experimenting with technology and production processes; they are characterized by a

culture of openness that relies on sharing knowledge, skills and tools (Seravalli 2012). These

“shared machines shops” (Hess 1979) are open self-organized environments, generally

nonprofit organization, with a strong emphasis on invention and technology based on

exploration and free-sharing of knowledge. Following hacker ethic, they also focus on

community development and the improvement of society.

9

Living Labs

Living Labs are driven by two main ideas: a) involving users early on in the innovation

process, and b) experimentation in real world settings, aiming to provide structure and

governance to user participation in the innovation process (Almirall & Wareham 2008). A

typical Living Lab looks like a collaborative project engaging companies, academia,

government and technological centers, where users are involved in nascent development

stages and successive iterations are validated in real life environments. Living Labs have

grown in the few years to a network of institutions comprising more than 300 members, not

only in Europe, but also in Brazil, South Africa, Mozambique, China and Taiwan (Almirall &

Wareham 2010).

Evaluation of data

The research was based on an exploratory study as it deals with an emergent phenomenon

(Eisenhardt 1989) and there is a lack of research about LSCI. Information about activities in

the different LSCI is however overwhelming as LSCI tend to document all their activities and

resources on their websites. The methodological approach for the typology has tried to be as

inclusive as possible to take into consideration the biggest possible amount of LSCI. To do so,

I have opted for a qualitative research based on text analysis of the content of the selected

LSCI webpages.

The definition of a typology of LSCI presented several challenges. The first obstacle was the

big amount and diversity of collaborative spaces and the terms to define them risked to cause

“death by data asphyxiation” (Pettigrew 1990). This obstacle was avoided firstly by limiting

the scope of the research by specifying the common aspects to be considered to include a

LSCI in the study, following the definition of LSCI. For instance, spaces that were not open

to the general were excluded of the analysis public (i.e. if they were spaces for employees or

selected members). Secondly, by considering networks of LSCI I identified four main

denominations of LSCI that each clusters several hundred LSCI: Fab Labs, Living Labs, co-

working spaces and hacker spaces. Thirdly, by starting the analysis focusing on a short list of

thirty spaces for each identified main denomination, summing 120 spaces in total. The sample

10

has been extracted randomly from the listings and will be used to define the typology that will

later be used as the framework to analyze further LSCI.

The second challenge was to identify commonalities and differences between the selected

LSCI.

The first step consisted in a rough text analysis to extract the most cited words considering all

texts together using Nvivo software. The results showed that the words “project” and

“projects” -taken together- represent the most cited words taking all the texts together (0,93%

of the total number of words in the 120-text sample). Once the main similarity between all the

LSCI was identified (they all deal with projects), our research focused on determining the

differences between the LSCI projects.

The second step of the analysis consisted in a qualitative analysis of the raw data to identify

the two main axis of classification related to differences in projects developed in the LSCI.

Data from the LSCI was systematically coded with Nvivo software. The four identified main

concepts could explain more significantly the differences between different LSCI.

The first classification depends on the goal of the projects. LSCI can be classified considering

if projects developed in the LSCI have a non-profit goal or not. Non-profit projects include

educational projects, projects aiming social integration or hobbyist projects. For-profit

projects include projects developed for an entrepreneurial endeavor or for a company or

aiming to the territorial economic development.

The second classification axis differentiates between the LSCI that develop project that are

led by individuals and the ones that are led by institutions. These are projects that are

initiated, sponsored or proposed by organizations and institutions.

Appendix 1 sums up the coding of the four concepts, their corresponding subconcepts and

illustrative exemplary quotes extracted from the data.

Following these classification guidelines, the third step of our analysis consisted in

determining the keywords that were more recurrent and that could justify the classification

issued of the previous step. Following a quantification strategy (Langley 1999), I identified

the most cited words that corresponded to the four concepts identified in the second step. The

resulting keywords are represented in table 2.

11

Id. Concept Keywords coded A Projects mainly lead

by INSTITUTIONS network, research, city, public, partners, university, students, education, infrastructure, industry, government, country, researchers, businesses, national, institutions, enterprises

B Projects mainly lead by USERS

community, ideas, involved, together, artists, interested, inventors, personal, idea

C FOR PROFIT projects or focusing on local ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

work, innovation, business, research, services, office, partners, entrepreneurs, products, companies, professional(s), team, management, service, company, industry, private, production, market, businesses, economic, enterprises

D Projects NON PROFIT projects or focusing on SOCIAL ISSUES

social, environment, rural, free, students, artists, education, society, educational

Table 2: Coded keywords

The fourth step consisted in cleaning the results by checking that each keyword corresponded

to the considered concept by analyzing the meaning of the keyword used in the context of the

quotation.

The fifth step was to assign a numerical value to each LSCI for each of the four aspects

corresponding to the number of times that a keyword corresponding to each aspect was cited.

Afterwards, each LSCI was reduced to a binome (H;V) consisting in: H = Concept A –

Concept B and V = Concept C – Concept D. All the LSCI were represented graphically.

Results

The results of the analysis are represented in Figure 1 (graduation and scale of the axis have

been deleted to focus on the relative position of the LSCI).

12

Figure 1: Representation of 120 LSCI according to the leadership and the focus of the projects developed.

Figure 2 represents the relative position of the four LSCI denominations (as an average of the

30 LSCI included in each category).

Figure 1: Relative position of the different denominations according to the leadership and the focus of the projects developed.

The results show that there are substantial differences between the approaches of the different

four denominations. The two groups of LSCI that are integrated in a formal network and that

have committed to follow specific guidelines, the Living Labs and the Fab Labs, show a

13

smaller dispersion than the denominations with blurrier definitions, the co-working spaces

and the hacker spaces.

Co-working spaces show a clear focus on the economic aspect. The fact that services offered

by these spaces aim generally for-profit startups or freelance professionals could justify this

aspect. As Fab Labs, co-working spaces present a mix of projects, some of them proposed and

funded by institutions, and some by their users.

Considering the project focus, the majority of the hacker spaces that have been analyzed are

relatively closed to the average Fab Lab, indicating that, despite not using the same

denomination, the goals and the focus are similar. The analysis shows as well that hacker

spaces have also an interest in economic development of their local environment. This fact

does not imply that their projects are for profit, but that in certain cases they welcome

entrepreneurs and are interested in the economic impact of their activities in their local

environment. This aim is coherent with hacker ethics that advocate for a positive impact in the

social and economic environment.

Living Labs are the LSCI that follow the most a top-down approach. They are normally

founded and funded by public institutions and are located in public buildings. In opposition,

hacker spaces are the LSCI that developed the most projects that are initiated by their

members. Most hacker spaces websites are a showroom for their members’ individual

projects.

Discussion

Even though the four LSCI groups present differences that justify the use of different

denominations, the analysis showed that, excluding extreme cases, the hacker spaces / maker

spaces and Fab Labs share similar approaches. They all are mainly concerned about projects

led by users and about having an impact on the social environment. Living Labs have also the

social concern but the influence of institutional initiative is much stronger. The results of the

analysis have not identified LSCI that have a clear economic focus and at the same time are

led by institutions or formal organizations. I suggest that the innovation approach advocated

by open businesses fulfills these conditions. Open businesses are organizations that by

applying open business models (Chesbrough 2007), chose to increase transparency and

14

stakeholder inclusion. Their structures are open, and voluntary contributors are rewarded in

proportion to their implication, reputation and the economic impact of their work. Such

businesses respond to the LSCI definition that has been used in this research and at the same

time are for-profit organizations. This organizational structure is emergent and few companies

apply open business practices (one example would be open network Sensorica.ca operating

mainly in Montreal). In table 3 the summary of the typology of LSCI is represented.

Focus on individuals goals Focus on organizational goals

Economic main driver Co-working space Open business

Social main driver Hacker space, maker space, Fab Lab Living Lab

Table 3: Typology of LSCI

LSCI are the spaces where knowledge communities meet and co-create. According to

Cohendet et al. (2010), such communities are part of the “middleground” playing the crucial

role of being the communicating bridge between the individuals of the “underground” and the

formal organizations of the “upperground”.

Our results show that the different typologies of LSCI can be ordered according to its relative

proximity to the underground and the upperground (Figure 3).

Figure 3: LSCI as the middleground

LSCI beyond being mere physical meeting places of communities, develop in cognitive

spaces of knowledge sharing (Grandadam et al. 2012). The importance of projects in LSCI

15

highlighted in this study is in accordance with the literature of localized innovation. Projects

align temporary efforts and integrate the diversity of the actors of the local innovation ecology

(Grabher 2002; Grabher 2001) by connecting the under-, the middle- and the upperground

(Grandadam et al. 2012).

Implications for policy makers

Urban and regional innovation policies have aimed the firm level (for instance, by reducing

taxes) or the individual level (for instance, by applying policies to attract talent, following

Floridian theories). Few policies have however fostered the identification, and nurturing of an

intermediary level between firms and individuals: the communities (Cohendet et al. 2010).

This study contributes in this direction by identifying actors of the middleground and by

studying their relative distance to the upper- and middleground.

Limitations

This analysis presents though a number of limitations. First, it considers keywords as a proxy

for characteristics. However, this might lead to an oversimplification of the data and a loss of

the richness of the data. The methodology also forces a translation of the source data in order

to apply the keyword analysis, with the consequential risk of loss of context.

Conclusion

The contribution of this paper is to present a first attempt to define a typology of the emergent

phenomenon of LSCI. Even though the number of LSCI created around the world is

increasing substantially every year, there is little research that studies the phenomenon

globally or that studies separately any of the LSCI denominations presented in this paper. The

methodology applied in this research present also several advantages. Firstly, it uses publicly

available data, from primary sources. Secondly, using keyword quantification simplifies the

characterization of LSCI. Thirdly, as a consequence of the previous points, this methodology

could be applied to consider the 4000 LSCI (see table 1) that the four studied denominations

include.

16

APENDIX 1

A Projects mainly lead by INSTITUTIONS Concept A: Projects mainly lead by INSTITUTIONS

Subconcept Exemplary Quotes Source

Lead/funded by universities

AIR is a fablab for engineering students and students from Grenoble to invent, create and implement projects and application objects ambient intelligence in the course of their training.

Fab Lab 20

Located in the heart of Entrepreneurial Centre of The Institute of Optics Graduate School, Photonic FabLab can also put you in contact with other specialized companies in specific areas. Activities of R & D undertaken in collaboration with the FabLab the Institut d'Optique are eligible for research tax credit.

Fab Lab 29

(…) the Digital Society Department, a User and Policy Research collaboration between the Free University of Brussels and the University of Ghent in Belgium.

Living Lab 06

Lead/funded by regional and governmental bodies

The City of Ghent is a partner in one of the Smart Cities Portfolio CIP projects Living Lab 08

Lead/funded by companies

Living Lab (…) was established by three founding partners: NICTA, Fraunhofer and SAP. These partners will be the primary source of R&D expertise, and support the lab through in-kind and/or cash contributions.

Living Lab 01

The link with the industry is permanent as our trade associations represents over 7,500 companies in Europe, with their executives and creative people crossing the doorstep of our building on a daily basis.

Living Lab 09

Lead/funded by foundations

With 10 years of services provided to the Brazilian community, the Des.Paulo Feitoza Foundation has a laboratory using the Living Lab concept that already made several developments.

Living Lab 15

B Projects mainly lead by USERS

Concept B: Projects mainly lead by USERS Subconcept Exemplary Quotes Source

Improves users lives and creativity

A fab lab is a high tech workshop where we foster the emerging possibility for ordinary people to not just learn about science and engineering but actually design machines and make measurements that are relevant to improving the quality of their lives.

Fab Lab 01

We exist to support your creative process and, when we can, your personal and business growth. Fab Lab 10

Meetings with other self-employed, freelancers and entrepreneurs inspire and let you grow as a person and as a professional. Coworking Space 12

(…) stimulates your innovation. Coworking Space 18

Focuses on users projects

(…) where members can use a wide range of digital fabrication tools and software to turn their dreams into physical objects. Members are given access to advise, training, materials, software and tools at very low cost to allow for the fabrication of anything they wish (…)

Fab Lab 03

where anyone (artist, designer, engineer, developer, tinkerer, student, citizen...), independantly of his/her education level, can come to Fab Lab 05

17

experiment, learn and create all kinds of objects (artistic or design object, interactive object, technical object, prototype, etc.). Anyone and everyone can come along to the Friday Open lab Days to realize their very own designs. Fab Lab 06 Ideas: Have an idea? Do you realize? Find a place where you can make a first prototype to convince potential customers? FabLab-Leuven is that place (…)

Fab Lab 07

It will vary from project to project but the majority of activities are focused on services developed with and by users. Living Lab 08 Project members have the opportunity to design their own design process by combining the design knowledge shared by other projects with the collaborative tools available. Members learn not only how to design, but, most important, how to design a design process.

Living Lab 25

SAT Urban Hub provides support, resources and facilities for Montreal and Quebec artists, researchers and business developers to explore, experiment (…)

Living Lab 28

The members and residents work well individually, but work even better collaboratively (…) Coworking Space 05

The Office, we understand your business needs and strive to offer highly personalized services to help you manage your business profitably (…)

Coworking Space 10

You can bring your own project or work on a group project (…) Hacker Space 01

100% volunteer-operated and our passion is to help entrepreneurs, inventors, and makers get their ideas off the ground, to grow business, and to support our community.

Hacker Space 29

Facilitates mutual help among peers

Training in fab labs based on doing projects and learning from peers. Fab Lab 04 Members of a FabLab form a community: they help each other, share their knowledge, build knowledge together in an open and collaborative process integrated to the FabLabs' global network.

Fab Lab 05

The FabLab is free if you share your knowledge with others. So you can make free use of the machines, but if you put your results online Fab Lab 07 Even though we don't take money to use the machines, we would like you to document your work in return. Fab Lab 14 The culture is one of collaboration, resource sharing and tough love. Tenants are curated to promote this culture and ensure the alignment of ambition with achievement (…)

Coworking Space 08

Members can each other meet and collaborate exchange ideas or on innovation, creativity and sustainability. Coworking Space 13

Our aim is to provide Galway with a place for people to work and collaborate on creative projects, to learn and to share their knowledge. We welcome all skill levels and all creative ideas (…)

Hacker Space 05

It's a place for hackers (in the proper use of the term) and makers to come together and work on projects. Hacker Space 10

Whether this is helping with creative projects, technical tasks or practical activities, staff aim to facilitate learning through guided support and workshops, but we don't act as teachers. By talking with other participants in the space, participants acquire skills, knowledge and inspiration and build confidence

Hacker Space 13

18

We strongly encourage our members to contribute with ideas, workshops and projects. Together we are creating the place to be for all sorts of hackers out there.

Hacker Space 14

Creates a communityaround a common interest

Together this forms a growing network of like-minded people, a homely atmosphere to work in and an inspiring community to be part of. Coworking Space 02

You enjoy a stimulating environment: work alongside other entrepreneurs, network, learn from, ask for feedback, feel the vibe and become part of a unique community!

Coworking Space 14

Hacklab-Cvl is an open community lab/group about people with common interests, usually in computers, technology, electronics, etc. It’s a community where people can socialize, collaborate, share resources and knowledge to build and make cool stuff with technology.

Hacker Space 03

Community-based and community-building by nature, it seeks to promote active participation, knowledge sharing, and collaboration among individuals

Hacker Space 22

Artengine is an Ottawa-based collective of artists, technologists and interested members of the general public with strong ties to the local, national and international community of technologically-based artists.

Hacker Space 25

C FOR PROFIT projects or focusing on local ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Concept C: FOR PROFIT projects or focusing on local ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Subconcept Exemplary Quotes Source

For profit and business driven

In the first two weeks of operation, club members have already experienced business considerations such as pricing, cash accountability, stock management, quality control, delivery requirements and consequences, business goals and plans, scaling, and more (…)

Fab Lab 001

(…) ensuring economic viability through systematic business model design (…) Living Lab 03 (…) new synergies, business models and concepts, as the entire eco-system is challenged by the new consumer and the digital industry Living Lab 09

Cultivating organisational effectiveness through generative leadership and agile technology solutions. Coworking Space 05

Different profiles are professional in SpaceMultiplicity, a cozy environment that fosters exchange and multidisciplinary collaboration. This way people increase their productivity and improve the professional relationship.

Coworking Space 23

Helps members develop their businesses

(…) club members would get paid for the service of actually buying the raw materials, constructing the antennas, configuring and installing the system, and so forth (…)

Fab Lab 001

We exist to support your creative process and, when we can, your personal and business growth. Fab Lab 10 We provide the machinery of the Fab Lab to help you achieve the objects that will help you develop your business plan (…) Fab Lab 19 We have over 40 start-ups; We have designers, fashion experts, product developers, software engineers, etc. Living Lab 09

(…) people, this way we can offer entrepreneurs and companies the possibility to grow and also the opportunity to network (…) Coworking Space 03

(…) support startups, freelancers and creatives in their growth (…) Coworking Space 05

19

In Workstation find a productive, low-cost, which will develop the most of your business by optimizing your working time. Coworking Space 09

(…) inspire you and make you grow as a person and as a professional. Coworking Space 12

Offers services for organizations

For organisations the Fab Lab offers: Opportunities for partnerships and collaborations around programming; A range of venues for events and workshops; Program models on a fee-for-service basis (…)

Fab Lab 002

If you or your company is interested helping us build the most accessible and successful prototype and fabrication facility in our province, see how you can be involved through sponsorship, business or individual memberships (…)

Fab Lab 10

Would like to accelerate your business innovation? Communicating objects, communicating clothes, renewable energy, social networks, new uses of mobility ... The fablab will offer a testing ground of choice for your projects, as well as a workshop to do rapid prototyping.

Fab Lab 21

(…) Industry driven + transfer of knowledge from academia to companies (…) Living Lab 05 (…) involves the entire Flemish media and ICT business community. It frequently carries out multidisciplinary Living Lab research to facilitate the development and exploitation of broadband services (…)

Living Lab 06

(…) accommodate bigger international organisations to apply simultaneous investigations over different living labs, receiving feedback that includes the international context they need for their product.

Living Lab 07

The of ItB3 S / A is providing solutions in Biotechnology and Bioinformatics with guaranteed quality, flexibility, reliability and innovation, targeting the main focus of its activities on customer satisfaction (…)

Living Lab 18

(…) for professionals working in home-office, small businessmen, entrepreneurs in the early stages of their business, professional freelancers, designers, advertisers, consultants, technology professionals, journalists, and many others (…)

Coworking Space 28

Professionals and companies use our space with internet, desk, meeting rooms and not have to worry about rent, condominium, officials, etc

Coworking Space 22

Fosters economic development of the city or region

Our founders, funders and partners all share the vision to increase opportunities for growth and innovation in Manitoba (…) Fab Lab 10 Although we have a focus on solving local industry and community projects we also aim at participating on global projects such as those proposed by the Fab Lab community.

Fab Lab 11

(…) to optimize and boost the valorisation of ICE R&D in Flanders, to support joint ‘value creation’ for all stakeholders involved (…) Living Lab 10 It works as a communications hub and it will be an open umbrella brand for enabling companies and the public sector to get in touch and co--‐operate with research organizations and their end--‐users in the Amazonian region

Living Lab 22

SAT Urban Hub provides support, resources and facilities for Montreal and Quebec artists, researchers and business developers to explore, experiment (…)

Living Lab 28

(…) space for Melbourne’s high-potential digital media and web 2.0 entrepreneurs (…) Coworking Space 08

The Management Committee measures success through: Benefit to Australia (…) Living Lab 01

20

D Projects NON PROFIT projects or focusing on SOCIAL ISSUES Concept D: NON PROFIT projects or focusing on SOCIAL ISSUES

Subconcept Exemplary Quotes Source

Art for art’s sake

It’s all about the people In addition to the numerous get-togethers in the fabLab and a series of training programmes, there is an annual summer camp, an intensive ten-day programme in the city for15 artists from home and abroad.

Fab Lab 06

We aim at producing a new type of working atmosphere were research, creativity, art and innovation meet together to produce new concepts, products and real engineering designs (…)

Fab Lab 11

Our Bring the Art Home initiative is a framework art mentorship program in which young artists’ works are exhibited in inspiring shows at companies and work environments with spirited openings, respective talks and events. The aim of the tender is to multiply chances of young and known artists to gain recognition in Hungary and in Austria alike, as well as the incorporation of participants into our widespread international network.

Living Lab 30

The individual artist, the artistic process & artistic excellence A plurality of voices in media Creative use of new technology (…) Hacker Space 12

Our vision is to connect artists, art audiences and the general public locally, nationally and internationally (…) Hacker Space 25

Creative spirit and knowledge sharing

(…) create a platform of expression. It aims to bring together fans of digital creation to stimulate the spirit of creativity and knowledge sharing.

Fab Lab 08

And as we aim audience, anyone who wants to learn and share knowledge, especially orphanage residents, public primary schools, the poor children .... (…)

Fab Lab 08

The échoFab is a space for learning and support offering to the public a collection of free resources and varied ( machine tools controlled by computer, network and exchange ideas and share knowledge, network of international tele-presence of Fab Labs) dedicated to creativity citizen by making objects to meet a personal or collective.

Fab Lab 09

Our mission is to support and promote the teaching, learning and practicing of craft of all varieties. Hacker Space 27

Focus on excluded people and minorities

(…) community organization based in Montreal founded in 1995 to assist people potentially excluded from participation in the information society, is very proud to launch the installation of the first Fab Lab in Quebec (…)

Fab Lab 09

We live in a rural active, responsible and deeply human-centered. The FabLab is a place of sharing, link that bridges the lack of shops, public services affecting our villages.

Fab Lab 15

(…) elderly people and those with special needs living (…) Living Lab 03 (…) socially acceptable mobile services for young people, especially those in formal education, i.e. pupils and students. Living Lab 03 (…) unemployment, social integration, housing, gentrification, healthcare, etc. Can this virtual network, be a basis for a solution? Does this technology allow for improved sustainability of cities and its citizens?

Living Lab 10

The Living Lab is available even for students of the Federal University or for the wider community, especially for those who does not Living Lab 14

21

have access to the information technology tools. (…) development of products for a broad variance of people who have special needs, in what they have a central role of contribution with its co-creation, what helps to improve not only the quality of these products but they also brings benefits to their lives improving their capabilities and their quality of life.

Living Lab 15

(…) environmental friendly technologies in collaboration with low-income communities, to improve the conditions of urban housing and rural properties, aiming to contribute to supply the basic human needs of adequate housing, clean water, healthy food, renewable energy and proper treatment and disposal of waste.

Living Lab 17

(…) offer to the rural people efficient, feasible, sustainable and reasonable cost technologies which will be able to improve the quality of life of both people and animals once one of our main principles is stimulate the farmers to manage the animals respecting their rights regarding the welfare

Living Lab 23

(…) youth facilitators were hired in various communities to provide information and training sessions on the use of ICTs to socially marginalized populations, including low income, new immigrant and elderly individuals.

Living Lab 29

We involve elderly persons and caregivers in our research activities based on a particapatory design approach and strict ethical guidlenes that protect the integrity of vulnerable persons.

Living Lab 04

Non profit, non commercial projects and organizations

AssentWorks is a non-profit workshop dedicated to providing hands-on access to fabrication and prototyping equipment, knowledge, and a community of support for entrepreneurs, inventors, tinkerers, artists, and innovators.

Fab Lab 10

(…) commercial projects and longer cutting jobs are better done elsewhere than in our FabLab with limited capacity and the 'share your work' -principle.

Fab Lab 14

Ghent LL is about the non-commercial, or ‘pre-commercial’, aspects of the product/service life-cycle, e.g. facilitating researchers, businesses, developers and potential users to collaborate in testing out new services and then promoting these to be taken up either by the public sector, to increase service quality, or by the private sector, to take forward to commercial exploitation (…)

Living Lab 08

(…) identified, we contend, empower and connect ideas and innovative projects in entrepreneurs seeking Social Enterprise a vehicle for positive transformation of the context in which they have decided impact.

Coworking Space 11

Focus on community development, social cohesion and communication between social groups

They are submerged into a creative international global environment that enables solving community problems. Fab Lab 11 We have to contribute to the democratization of manufacturing and providing access to innovative technology solutions to communities in the BOP and society as a whole. built our mission on three lines questions relevant to society, arising from our country and continent reality (…)

Fab Lab 12

We are focused on developing projects that aim to answer questions in social 60%, 30% academic and 10% professionals. Fab Lab 12 Smart Cities : The Flemish Proeftuin platform provides a virtual network that is intended to bring the local community (residents, local traders, regional press, local government, civil society and associations) in a city closer together in a very easy way. A new channel to communicate and exchange information in an innovative way. Our urban society is changing rapidly and is facing many challenges: an aging population, training for youth, (…)

Living Lab 10

(…) preservation and sustainability. Other platforms allow the access to energy, internet and services with initiatives to provide electric Living Lab 22

22

energy for remote communities (…) This project aims to reduce infant mortality in 38 municipalities of Maranhão, prioritized by the Ministry of Health when signing the National Pact for the reduction of infant mortality, of which 17 have already been worked on this issue since 2009 (…)

Living Lab 24

(…) to create a real-life and online community of specialists and non-specialists who are interested in digital media technologies and a venue and forum where they can meet and discuss ideas.

Living Lab 27

We also allocate a significant proportion of our profit to a fund with which we support projects and people who are ‘making the world better’.

Coworking Space 04

(…) encourage mobilizing both social and urban communities and to benefit the region. Coworking Space 29

We are amongst one on the many space in the world fulfilling a need for the technical, creative and social minded to have a place where they can come together and share their knowledge (…)

Hacker Space 14

(…) in terms of internal organization, all participants have a voice, meaning they can suggest things, and responsibility, that is what I intend to make, provided there is consensus in favor of the proposal and this favorable to political purposes hacklab. shared responsibility is promoted and no accumulation of responsibilities by a single person or group, and try not to generate a position or authority figures (…)

Hacker Space 29

Focus on education and training

Courses for students and staff ::Every term, we run courses to get Aalto people acquainted with the gear and able to operate them by themselves.

Fab Lab 14

The FacLab offers courses focusing on digital fabrication. Modular and open to all regardless of experience, they are also the professionals of tomorrow.

Fab Lab 18

(…) provide education associations a venue to educate the public in science and technology and enable people to acquire real skills in design and construction of objects.

Fab Lab 21

The Digital Citizenship Living Lab also provides different courses including since basic aspects until advanced computational contents. Living Lab 14

Focus on social economy and social innovation

(…) representing the interests of Austrian business in a pluralistic society and advocates the social market economy, the deepening and enlargement of the EU.

Living Lab 05

We are particularly interested in the Smart Cities thematic domain as well as Energy Efficiency/Sustainable Energy/Climate change; Social Innovation/Social Inclusion; e-Government/e-Participation; Sustainable Mobility.

Living Lab 08

23

References

Almirall, E & Wareham, J, 2008. Living Labs and open innovation: roles and applicability. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10.3(August), pp.21–46. Available at: http://www.technology-management.de/projects/264/Issues/eJOV Special Issue on Living Labs 2008/eJOV10_SPILL3_Almirall_Living Labs and open Innovation_2.pdf [Accessed March 8, 2013].

Almirall, Esteve & Wareham, Jonathan, 2010. Living labs: Arbiters of mid-and ground-level innovation. Global sourcing of information technology and business processes, pp.233–249. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/M541571653750R7X.pdf [Accessed January 31, 2013].

Amin, A. & Cohendet, P, 2004. Architectures of knowledge: Firms, capabilities, and communities. Available at: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=1xYfzw94iDwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR10&dq=amin+and+cohendet&ots=AL9YyNuMJi&sig=hqsAr19c7J1QyEdYWwNweq4mjGU [Accessed March 20, 2013].

Bauwens, M., 2005. The political economy of peer production. Retrieved on Nov. Available at: http://www.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/~graebe/Texte/Bauwens-06.pdf [Accessed March 8, 2013].

Benkler, Y. & Nissenbaum, H., 2006. Commons‐based Peer Production and Virtue*. Journal of Political Philosophy. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00235.x/full [Accessed February 7, 2013].

Boschma, R., 2005. Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), pp.61–74. Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1080/0034340052000320887&magic=crossref||D404A21C5BB053405B1A640AFFD44AE3 [Accessed June 10, 2011].

Brown, J. & Duguid, P., 1991. Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), pp.40–57. Available at: http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/cgi/doi/10.1287/orsc.2.1.40 [Accessed January 29, 2013].

Brown, J. & Duguid, P., 2000. The social life of information, Harvard Business Press. Available at: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=D-WjL_HRbNQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Brown,+J.S.+and+Duguid,+P.+(2000),+‘‘Balancing+a&ots=3HTisvyCF3&sig=yd2c_8ovgesyt1rlCg0jiSVdqTY [Accessed January 29, 2013].

24

CBA-MIT, 2012. The Fab Charter. Available at: http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/charter/.

Chesbrough, H., 2003. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, Available at: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4hTRWStFhVgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=chesbrough&ots=XrWA_Rt7vD&sig=z7kdIla10WP5-fs7QpVjU2p2Sqc [Accessed March 21, 2013].

Chesbrough, H., 2007. Why companies should have open business models. MIT Sloan management review, 48(2), pp.22–28.

Cohen, M.A., 2011. Four scenarios for co-working: sharing workspace offers potential benefits in an uncertain economy. The Futurist, v.45, no.4, 2011 July-August, p.8(3).

Cohendet, Patrick, Grandadam, D. & Simon, L., 2010. The Anatomy of the Creative City. Industry & Innovation, 17(1), pp.91–111. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13662710903573869 [Accessed March 6, 2013].

Deskmag, 2012. Deskmag Global Coworking Survey 2012. Available at: https://www.deskwanted.com/static/Deskmag-Global-Coworking-Survey-slides-lowres.pdf.

Eisenhardt, K., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), pp.532–550. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/258557 [Accessed March 6, 2013].

Farr, N., 2009. hackerspaces | flux | Respect the Past, Examine the Present, Build the Future. Available at: http://blog.hackerspaces.org/2009/08/25/respect-the-past-examine-the-present-build-the-future/ [Accessed March 22, 2013].

Florida, R., 2012. The Rise of the Creative Class--Revisited: --Revised and Expanded, Available at: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Hd52xAomqVwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR27&dq=florida+creative+class&ots=1YlMaJVfbD&sig=M34t-I_XJygEIDOtAqJxCRuT2Kk [Accessed March 23, 2013].

Florida, R., 1995. Toward the learning region. Futures. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001632879500021N [Accessed March 21, 2013].

Gershenfeld, N., 2005. Fab: The coming revolution on your desktop--from personal computers to personal fabrication. Available at: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=Zw0j50HDwYUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&dq=

25

gershenfeld+almost+anything&ots=xiixZaeJdy&sig=W9eiMlwpP7ENyOouUykptB_K9bw [Accessed March 5, 2013].

Gertler, M.S., 1995. “Being There”: Proximity, Organization, and Culture in the Development and Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies. Economic Geography, 71(1), pp.1–26.

Gertler, M.S., 2003. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or The undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1), pp.75–99. Available at: http://joeg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/jeg/3.1.75.

Grabher, G., 2001. Ecologies of creativity: the Village, the Group, and the heterarchic organisation of the British advertising industry. Environment and Planning A, 33(2), pp.351–374. Available at: http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=a3314 [Accessed June 18, 2011].

Grabher, G., 2002. The Project Ecology of Advertising: Tasks, Talents and Teams. Regional Studies, 36(3), pp.245–262. Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1080/00343400220122052&magic=crossref||D404A21C5BB053405B1A640AFFD44AE3 [Accessed July 21, 2011].

Grandadam, D., Cohendet, Patrick & Simon, L., 2012. Places, Spaces and the Dynamics of Creativity: The Video Game Industry in Montreal. Regional Studies, (August 2012), pp.1–14. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00343404.2012.699191 [Accessed March 2, 2013].

Grenzfurthner, J. & Schneider, F., 2009. Hacking the Spaces. Available at: http://www.monochrom.at/hacking-the-spaces/ [Accessed March 8, 2013].

Heikkilä, J., 2012. Preconditions for Sustainable Rural Coworking Spaces in Southwest Finland.

Hess, K., 1979. Community technology. Available at: http://www.getcited.org/pub/101869823 [Accessed March 8, 2013].

Himanen, P., 2002. The hacker ethic. Available at: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=4SeIQZjpzCwC&oi=fnd&pg=PT8&dq=hacker+ethics&ots=XznXSS4_sP&sig=vYN2QJDVVevs-2SRfms09U29E6s [Accessed March 8, 2013].

Hippel, E. Von, 2007. The sources of innovation, Available at: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-8349-9320-5_10 [Accessed May 30, 2013].

26

Howells, J., 2002. Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 39(November 2001), pp.871–884. Available at: http://usj.sagepub.com/content/39/5-6/871.short [Accessed March 13, 2013].

Howells, J., 2012. The geography of knowledge: never so close but never so far apart. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(5), pp.1003–1020. Available at: http://joeg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/doi/10.1093/jeg/lbs027 [Accessed March 1, 2013].

Langley, A., 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management review, 24(4), pp.691–710. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/259349 [Accessed March 6, 2013].

Leforestier, A., 2009. The Co-Working space concept CINE Term project. , (February), pp.1–19.

Levy, S., 2001. Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution. Available at: http://static.usenix.org/publications/login/2010-10/openpdfs/bookreviews1010.pdf [Accessed March 8, 2013].

Lundvall, B., 1988. Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. Technical change and economic theory.

Luthje, C., Herstatt, C. & Hippel, E. Von, 2003. The dominant role of“ local” information in user innovation: The case of mountain biking. , (July). Available at: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/1804 [Accessed March 28, 2013].

Marquis, C. & Battilana, J., 2009. Acting globally but thinking locally? The enduring influence of local communities on organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, pp.283–302. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308509000033 [Accessed May 22, 2013].

Maskell, P. & Malmberg, A., 1999. Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge journal of economics, (May 1995), pp.167–185. Available at: http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/2/167.short [Accessed March 13, 2013].

Maxigas, 2012. Hacklabs and hackerspaces – tracing two genealogies. , (June), pp.1–10. Available at: http://peerproduction.net.

Moilanen, J., 2012. Emerging Hackerspaces–Peer-Production Generation. Open Source Systems: Long-Term Sustainability, pp.94–111. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/V2Q37K5164X15402.pdf [Accessed March 8, 2013].

27

Morgan, K., 1997. The Learning Region: Institutions, Innovation and Regional Renewal. Regional Studies, 31(5), pp.491–503. Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&doi=10.1080/00343409750132289&magic=crossref||D404A21C5BB053405B1A640AFFD44AE3.

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H., 1995. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford University Press.

Nooteboom, B. et al., 2007. Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36(7), pp.1016–1034. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733307000807 [Accessed January 29, 2013].

Pettigrew, A., 1990. Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice. Organization science. Available at: http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/content/1/3/267.short [Accessed March 22, 2013].

Polanyi, M., 1966. The tacit dimension,

Raymond, E., 1999. The cathedral and the bazaar. Knowledge, Technology & Policy. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12130-999-1026-0 [Accessed May 30, 2013].

Schlesinger, J., Islam, M.M. & MacNeill, K., 2010. Founding a Hackerspace, Available at: http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-122210-154836/unrestricted/Founding_a_Hackerspace.pdf [Accessed March 8, 2013].

Seravalli, A., 2012. Building Fabriken, Design for Socially Shaped Innovation. medea.mah.se, (July). Available at: http://medea.mah.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Building-Fabriken-Design-for-Socially-Shaped-Innovation-Seravalli-2012.pdf [Accessed March 8, 2013].

Spinuzzi, C., 2012. Working Alone Together: Coworking as Emergent Collaborative Activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), pp.399–441. Available at: http://jbt.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1050651912444070 [Accessed March 8, 2013].

Storper, M., 2005. Society, community, and economic development. Studies in Comparative International Development. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02686164 [Accessed May 30, 2013].

Troxler, P., 2010. Commons-Based Peer-Production of Physical Goods: Is There Room for a Hybrid Innovation Ecology? 3rd Free Culture Research Conference, Berlin, pp.1–23. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1692617 [Accessed March 8, 2013].

28

Wenger, E., 2000. Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization, 7(2), pp.225–246. Available at: http://org.sagepub.com/content/7/2/225.short [Accessed January 29, 2013].

Wenger, E., 1999. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity, Available at: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=heBZpgYUKdAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Communities+of+Practice:++Learning+as+a+Social+System&ots=kdpj-qexYm&sig=Xc4XiiJydecnys64cm6ObYGJYXU [Accessed January 29, 2013].

Wenger, E. & Snyder, W., 2000. Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard business review. Available at: http://itu.dk/people/petermeldgaard/B12/lektion 7/Communities of Practice_The Organizational Frontier.pdf [Accessed January 29, 2013].