Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Governing Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship

Governing Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Governing Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Cities are never random. No matter how chaotic they might seem, everything about them grows out of a need to solve a problem. In fact, a city is nothing more than a solution to a problem, that in turn creates more problems that need more solutions, until towers rise, roads widen, bridges are built, and millions of people are caught up in a mad race to feed the problem-solving, problem-creating frenzy. Neal Shusterman Author of young-adult fiction In Downsiders (2001) Growing urbanization puts pressure on both social and ecological systems. This pressure raises complex and multi-facetted challenges that can only be tackled by collaborative and distributed innovation development processes. However, theoretical frameworks that as- sess such collaborations are often very conceptual, with little focus on the actual gov- ernance mechanisms that facilitate them. This article studies the urban living lab concept as an inter-organizational design and multi-stakeholder innovation development process to govern the quintuple helix model for innovation by means of an action research based multidimensional case study design, which focuses on the concepts of innovation demo- cracy, mode 3 knowledge production, the innovation ecosystem as a system of societal sub- systems, and socio-ecological transition. In this way, we provide a more profound understanding of such innovation processes to tackle socio-ecological challenges by means of public–private interactions driven by eco-entrepreneurship. Introduction however, that these challenges need to be dealt with by a diverse ecosystem of private actors, universities, civil Society is confronted with challenges of an increasingly society, and politics. complex and global nature. It is hard for a single societ- al actor to come up with the right solutions, given that Nevertheless, in innovation management theory, the knowledge and resources are distributed among a wide question is not why, but rather how such challenges can network of stakeholders (Bogers & West, 2012). Thus, in- be tackled. In the collaborative knowledge production novation actors must reach out to external knowledge. and innovation management literature, one of the Among the most pressing and interesting challenges frameworks that attempt to take the natural environ- are those involving public value and market failure. As ment into account is the "quintuple helix model" for in- urbanization continues at a rapid pace, socio-ecologic- novation (Carayannis & Campbell, 2010). Although this al systems are put under heavy pressure, inducing eco- rather recent analytical framework is very promising, logical issues such as global warming, decreasing air only little empirical evidence exists that explores its pos- quality, increasing hazardous emissions, and geological sibilities and limitations. On top of that, this model is instability. Although a sense of urgency for solutions is mainly applied to assess larger innovation ecosystems widespread, society is still struggling to find an ad- such as national or regional innovation systems, and to equate, sustainable, and agile way to react. It is clear, a lesser extent to the innovation development process. www.timreview.ca 22 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Therefore, this article focuses on the specific gov- Nevertheless, these interactions need to be governed ernance mechanisms that can facilitate quintuple helix and in some way be able to connect the traditional top- innovation at the level of the individual innovation de- down approach with a grassroots or bottom-up ap- velopment process. More specifically, the "urban living proach. This strategy is in line with the open or distrib- lab" concept is explored as an inter-organizational R&D uted innovation approach (Bogers & West, 2012; design and multi-stakeholder innovation development Chesbrough, 2003), causing city governments to ques- process to govern the quintuple helix model for innova- tion the dominant paradigm of top-down innovation tion. Hence, this article contributes to a more profound development, and implementation, and to experiment understanding of local collaborative innovation pro- with innovation processes together with, and even by, cesses that are designed to tackle socio-ecological chal- citizens and other organizations in the urban environ- lenges by means of public–private interactions, driven ment (Paskaleva, 2011). by eco-entrepreneurship. In other words: How can urb- an living labs be a way to put quintuple helix innova- Understanding collaborative innovation processes tion into practice? A useful framework for the analysis of such complex col- laborative innovation networks is the "triple helix" First, we discuss the urbanization process to better un- model for innovation (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995), derstand the context in which these challenges occur. which originally focused on collaboration and know- Next, we relate this evolution to collaborative innova- ledge production in university–government–industry tion literature, and elaborate on the (urban) living lab partnerships (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). It was concept as a way to put this into practice. Finally, we later expanded with a fourth helix to incorporate civil develop an analytical framework, which is structured society (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). along the concepts of innovation democracy, mode 3 knowledge production, the innovation ecosystem as a However, from a socio-ecological systems point of system of societal subsystems, and socio-ecological view, the urban evolutions described above also need transition, and apply this framework to two urban liv- to be studied as changes in human–environment sys- ing lab cases. tems (Young et al., 2006). Background Hence, a socio-ecological systems approach integrates social and ecological systems thinking in a holistic way Urbanization, socio-ecological challenges, and urban in- to assess "system threats" (Berkes et al., 2000). Such so- novation cio-ecological systems can be considered complex The speed of urbanization is overwhelming (Bocquier, units in which resources are exchanged and regulated 2005). This rapid evolution puts pressure on social, by social and ecological systems (Berkes et al., 2002; physical, and ecological systems as city populations Machlis et al., 1997), which makes them interesting con- continue to grow and more and more people are live in ceptual frameworks to assess socio-ecological innova- densely populated areas. This pressure, in combination tion in an urban environment. They also encourage the with the associated emergence of grand societal chal- integration of this logic and analytical dimensions in lenges and rapid technological evolutions, forces cities the innovation ecosystem literature. Therefore, a fifth to look for new ways to reinvent themselves (Atkinson, helix should be added to the quadruple helix model, to 1998; Foth, 2009; Viitanen & Kingston, 2014). also take the natural environment into account (Caray- annis & Campbell, 2010). This is what makes the quin- In practice, however, local governments often lack the tuple helix model for innovation an interesting and capability and resources to tackle these challenges in a valuable model to analyze innovation ecosystems. flexible way (O’Flynn, 2007). In the search for new ways to cope with this tension, transparency and close inter- To explain processes of knowledge exchange that take action with grassroots initiatives are increasingly put place in such collaborative innovation ecosystems, forward as solutions to overcome this gap (Buscher et these models apply the concepts of "mode 3" know- al., 2010). This approach involves a wide variety of urb- ledge production and "open innovation diplomacy". an stakeholders (e.g., citizens, universities, enterprises, Mode 3 knowledge production is conceptualized as an non-governmental organizations), thereby potentially extension of mode 1 knowledge production (traditional leveraging the distributed knowledge in the urban en- research by universities) (Godin & Gingras, 2000) and vironment. mode 2 knowledge production (knowledge that is gen- www.timreview.ca 23 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez erated when mode 1 knowledge is applied and put into and remains too much of a "practice-based" concept practice) (Gibbons et al., 1994; Nowotny et al., 2003). (Kviselius et al., 2008; Schuurman, 2015). Quintuple Mode 3 adds a third component to this representation helix (-related) concepts provide potentially valuable of knowledge production by highlighting the overarch- tools and assumptions for the assessment and theoret- ing system in which this knowledge is produced and ex- ical foundation of the more practical oriented living lab changed (i.e., innovation networks and knowledge literature, embedded within a broader socio-ecological clusters). "Open innovation diplomacy", on the other system. On the other hand, the living lab literature hand, is used to describe the way in which different or- might provide a practical framework to put quintuple ganizations and ecosystem are able to collaborate and helix innovation into practice. Furthermore, exploring bridge the divides that exist between traditionally separ- the quintuple helix model in the context of urban in- ated domains (this can be social, organizational, cultur- novation contributes to a more profound understand- al, or technological) (Carayannis & Campbell, 2011). ing of urban innovation in relation with socio-ecological transition in urban areas. Living labs and the urban environment Triple, quadruple, and quintuple helix models have a Methodology strong theoretical nature. One approach that tries to fa- cilitate such models in a structured way is the "living Research design lab" approach, which can be defined as an ecosystem To investigate quintuple helix innovation in relation to approach in which end users and other stakeholders urban living labs, we conducted an action research are involved in the development of an innovation over study (Reason & Bradbury, 2001) in which we purpose- a long period of time, in a real-life environment, follow- fully designed and participated as researchers in two ing an iterative process (Niitamo & Kulkki, 2006; urban living lab projects. This approach allowed us dir- Schuurman et al., 2012) applying multi-method, user- ect access and control over the projects, as well as more centric innovation research with a strong focus on user profound insights on the observed phenomena. The empowerment and real-world experimentation (Føl- analysis is structured following the principles of a multi- stad, 2008; Schuurman et al., 2013; Ståhlbröst, 2008). dimensional case study design (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, Furthermore, it offers a structured process and environ- 1984). The unit of analysis in this design is the individu- ment to govern input from a wide variety of stakehold- al project-centric innovation ecosystem. ers and research methods (Eriksson et al., 2006; Ståhlbröst & Holst, 2012). The two cases had to: i) focus on eco-entrepreneurship, ii) target the urban environment, iii) be open for the re- In the urban environment, living labs gain importance searcher team to shape and mold (cfr. action research), as a way to govern (complex) urban collaborative innov- iv) be collaborative in nature, and v) encompass an in- ation processes (Buscher et al., 2010; Paskaleva, 2011). novation development process. The two selected re- Although the process is similar, urban living labs have a search projects were instigated by start-up distinct nature because the focus is on civic participa- organizations with socio-ecological goals in the urban tion, and the output is aimed at increasing quality of environment, and they were both incubated by a re- life in the city rather than the development of a com- gional incubating organization (funded by the Flemish mercial product or service (Baccarne et al., 2014). As government in order to stimulate innovation in ICT). such, urban living labs are an instrument to include a Both projects involved the set-up of an ad hoc collabor- wide variety of stakeholders (citizens, municipalities, ative network of stakeholders and a structured, semi- entrepreneurs, etc.) in the search for innovations that formal adaptive iterative product development process. meet local socio-ecological challenges (Franz, 2014). Project A was set up around the development of an in- Juujärvi and Pesso (2013) define an urban living labs as teractive platform to engage, collaborate, and commu- “a physical region in which different stakeholders form nicate on the topic of air quality. Project B concerned public–private–people partnerships of public agencies, the development of a peer-to-peer car sharing initiative firms, universities, and users collaborate to create, pro- for electric vehicles. totype, validate, and test new technologies, services, products, and systems in real-life contexts”. Both living lab processes were designed along prin- ciples whereby the living lab project had to: i) incorpor- However, despite strong European support, this re- ate multiple iterations (Pierson & Lievens, 2005; search and development concept is still struggling for Schaffers & Budweg, 2009), ii) involve multiple stake- an adequate and more profound theoretical anchoring holders (Feurstein et al., 2008; Frissen & Lieshout, 2004; www.timreview.ca 24 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Juujärvi & Pesso, 2013), iii) be driven by multi-method resources to the ecosystem, but also mixes, trans- research (De Moor et al., 2010; Eriksson et al., 2006; Niit- lates, and processes resources from others. The quin- amo & Kulkki, 2006), iv) involve real-world experiment- tuple helix model describes five societal subsystems ation (Følstad, 2008; Niitamo & Kulkki, 2006), and v) be (Carayannis et al., 2012): i) the educational system, based on active co-creation by stakeholders (Følstad, which generates and disseminates new knowledge; 2008; Schumacher & Niitamo, 2008; Schuurman et al., ii) the economic system, which controls, possesses, 2012; Ståhlbröst, 2008). In line with the conceptualiza- and generates economic capital; iii) the political sys- tion of an urban living lab, the local government was a tem, which has political and legal capital (e.g., laws, required stakeholder in the innovation development clearances, policy, public goods); iv) civil society, ecosystem. Between each iteration, steering committee which has social capital, and is characterized by tra- meetings were held to evaluate the process and modify ditions, values, and behavioural patterns; and v) the it if necessary. These steering committees consisted of natural environment, which has natural capital (e.g., the researchers, the project managers, and the project natural resources, climate, air quality, geological sta- instigators (eco-entrepreneurs) (see also Rits et al., bility). 2015). 4. Socio-ecological transition: the main contribution of Research framework the quintuple helix model is the integration of the A beneficial aspect of case study design is the opportun- natural environment, which is conceptualized as a ity to include multiple sources of evidence, thus enhan- contextualization of the four helices of the quadruple cing the validity of the analysis through data helix. triangulation (Yin, 1984). The sources of evidence in Assumption: if this context is taken into account, it is this study include ethnographic field notes, in-depth in- possible to achieve sustainable socio-ecological terviews, email communications, meeting reports of transition, creating synergies between economy, soci- steering committees, initial project proposals, project ety, and democracy (Carayannis & Campbell, 2011). reports, and project deliverables. These sources of evid- ence were coded and interpreted by the author team Analysis following an analytical protocol (Yin, 1984) that encom- passed the four dimensions that are key elements in the Quintuple helix innovation in a structured process literature on innovation ecosystems, and in particular An urban living lab follows a structured process in the quintuple helix model and socio-ecological systems: which a central problem, idea, concept, or prototype is at the heart of the collaboration. This innovation devel- 1. Innovation diplomacy: the praxis of bridging barriers opment process implements a combination of different between traditionally separated actors and fields methodologies (e.g., for Project A: interviews, focus (Carayannis & Campbell, 2011). groups, surveys, co-creation workshops, online crowd- Assumption: properly targeted initiatives are able to sourcing, and a field trial) to involve a wide variety of connect know-how, tacit knowledge, creativity, and stakeholders (e.g., for Project A: different local govern- formal knowledge between different domains and ment divisions, citizens, civil society organizations, nurture entrepreneurship. large and small research organizations, and startups). As described earlier, this formal but flexible staged pro- 2. Mode 3 knowledge production: based on a system- cess was, in both cases, instigated by the eco-entrepren- theoretic perspective in which knowledge is molded, eurs, was financially supported by the Flemish remixed, shared, and applied within a knowledge- government, and was managed by iMinds Living Labs, driven society. a semi-public living lab organization, embedded in an Assumption: quintuple helix ecosystems are know- interdisciplinary and cross-university, technology-driv- ledge production, distribution, and application sys- en research centre. The formal living lab process struc- tems in which knowledge is generated through the tured the innovation development and governed exchange of knowledge between actors in the ecosys- stakeholder interaction, knowledge production, and tem (Carayannis & Campbell, 2012). knowledge transfer. For example, the process facilitated steering committees, safeguarded the overall planning 3. A system of subsystems: the quintuple helix ecosystem and resources of the project, leveraged social capital encompasses the different domains that resonate within the different subsystems, provided coaching and and collaborate to solve mutual challenges. implementation resources, and translated knowledge Assumption: each ecosystem actor provides unique between ecosystem stakeholders. www.timreview.ca 25 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Innovation diplomacy However, this information cannot be interpreted by act- The formal commitments within both cases were lim- ors outside the knowledge domain (e.g., regular cit- ited to the eco-entrepreneurs and the semi-public living izens). Even if the raw numbers are translated in visual lab management organization. However, both cases information (e.g., public visualizations of the air quality also had semi-formal commitments from their respect- have been created in the city of Project A), the academic ive local governments. Both projects were unable to complexity was not interpretable for citizens and cit- convince other key actors in the ecosystem to become a izens had no idea how to act upon this information. formal partner of the project because these other actors were not willing to commit themselves to an uncertain Through an iterative, multi-method research approach, and open project. However, once the project gained mo- the (tacit) knowledge of all stakeholders could be cap- mentum and tangibility, collaborations were still pos- tured, exchanged, (re)combined, mixed, and molded. By sible on an ad hoc basis. Not only were key stakeholders distributing and translating fundamental chunks of eventually attracted to the ecosystem, but also several knowledge to actors outside the original knowledge do- unexpected smaller institutions (i.e., research institutes, main, unexpected but valuable interpretations and in- companies, and civic organizations), who were very will- teractions occurred. However, such "sparks" and often ing to contribute and share their knowledge. The ad volatile knowledge must be adequately captured and hoc, open-ended, and semi-formal design of these tem- managed to contribute to the project goal. For Project A, poral collaboration networks served as an risk reducing this process of knowledge capture resulted in the devel- characteristic and helped to overcome collaboration opment a conceptual model for socio-ecological barriers. As such, the collaborative design of the urban change, which served as the basis for design require- living lab stakeholder ecosystem acted as a centripetal ments and the development of the project prototypes. force within the urban environment, as acupuncture to Project B, on the other hand, focused on understanding congregate urban actors with similar goals. Although end-user needs and frustrations in relation to technolo- every collaborator had their own agenda (e.g., lever- gical evolutions and other stakeholder needs and know- aging their own business, connecting with the local gov- ledge, mainly to set-up a field trial experiment that ernment, pushing local change), this did not interfere matched the usage context. These insights were neces- with the overall goals of the project. sary for both practical and substantial reasons in order to be able to test the electric-car sharing system. Finally, when it came to the involvement of the local government, the process facilitated access and interac- The ecosystem and circulation of knowledge tion with different governmental levels. The deploy- In both cases, various exchanges between different ment of a temporal experimental window, which was knowledge domains took place. Some examples include considered "neutral" and "external" to existing organiz- knowledge transfers from the political system to the eco- ations, enabled individuals to detach themselves from nomic system (i.e., knowledge regarding policy, internal restraining organizational structures and collaborate in procedures, the value network, and business model op- a more agile environment, and to stretch the boundar- portunities) and from civil society to both the education- ies of what is generally possible (e.g., temporarily shar- al system (e.g., the interpretation of complex data by ing data sources, talking freely outside the citizens and the relation to their everyday behaviour) governmental organization, providing favourable excep- and the economic system (i.e., regarding needs and ad- tions on the use of public space). option potential). Furthermore, for the local govern- ment, the urban living lab projects also bridged different Mode 3 knowledge production divisions and individuals within the organization (e.g., In the air quality domain (Project A), a lot of knowledge different divisions were working on open data and air is generated in mode 1. Traditionally, research institutes quality for some time, but it took the project to connect obtain grants to study atmospheric particulate matter them and expose the overlap between their efforts). This (e.g., as PM2.5) or ozone concentrations. Most of these bridging can be conceptualized as an intra-organiza- data remain hidden to the public. However, there are tional centripetal force, which is the mobilizing effect of some initiatives that attempt to disseminate these data an urban living lab within an organization to connect to civil society. Most of the time, these initiatives are like-minded individuals beyond organizational struc- built upon open data principles and are, for example, tures. As such, the projects facilitated horizontal and translated in dashboards showing air quality values. In agile collaboration and knowledge exchange on an ad theory, these initiatives distribute and apply mode 1 hoc basis, largely bypassing traditional structures and knowledge (potentially generating mode 2 knowledge). processes. www.timreview.ca 26 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Socio-ecological transition production, the innovation ecosystem as a system of As for the "natural context", both projects aimed to in- subsystems (related to the circulation of knowledge), teract with the socio-ecological environment through and socio-ecological transition to analyze the urban liv- their environmental goals. Against this backdrop, it ing lab approach. Our findings largely support the the- makes sense to conceptually model the innovation eco- oretical assumptions of the quintuple helix model and system using the quintuple helix model. Using this elaborate on the urban living lab approach as a way to framework, it is clear that (urban) innovation is related put this model into practice at the level of a single in- to issues regarding the socio-ecological context in novation development process. Urban living labs can which we live and (co-)develop our common socio- be a way to work with ad hoc collectives, lowering the technological future. Neglecting this dimension is a barriers for collaboration. The project-centric nature is failure to contextualize innovation development in a a catalyst for knowledge exchange and collaborations broader environment. Although this model fits with the within and outside the project and involved organiza- theoretical understanding of urban living labs, they in tions. turn offer an implementation approach for the quin- tuple helix model for innovation. A successful urban living lab can facilitate and balance top-down governance with bottom-up initiatives in the Concerning sustainability, both projects exposed the city. However, some challenges remain. Whereas exper- difficulty of designing viable business models in a imental urban living lab activities activate and reinforce "public" domain. Both civil society and the economic the quintuple helix ecosystem, it is still hard to harness system consider it the duty of the political system to the creation potential within the city in a sustainable take responsibility. However, the political system is fa- way. Nevertheless, urban living labs facilitate urban cing decreasing resources, which makes it hard to de- transitions through an accumulation of experiments, velop a sustainable business model. For Project B, this which allow urban actors to experience change, leading challenge resulted in the establishment of a cooperat- to transitions in the long run. This logic suggests that ive organization with limited liability. Different actors urban living labs contribute to (long-term) sustainable who were previously involved in the urban living lab socio-ecological transition, which is mainly facilitated became members of this organization. As such, some by an interdisciplinary (and transdisciplinary) temporal of the social capital that was generated within the urb- experimental window that promotes collaborative an living lab was leveraged to help sustain the innova- learning and stakeholder engagement. However, al- tion. though value is being created at the meso level (i.e., the project level), there is a need for a more formal value Nevertheless, socio-ecological transition must also be capture and retention processes at the macro level (i.e., considered in a broader sense. Through (series of) ex- the level of ecosystems and the overarching organiza- periments, project-based quintuple helix innovation tion). In the urban context, it makes sense that local can foster long-term change on a more latent level, by governments fulfil such a role. This is to some extent in inspiring and stimulating debate on contemporary urb- line with the conceptualization of the government as a an challenges and solutions. Applied to the socio-ecolo- platform (O'Reilly, 2011). gical systems way of thinking, urban living labs contribute to the resistance of an urban socio-ecologic- The quintuple helix is a useful concept to understand al system. More specifically, this goal is achieved and analyze how knowledge is created and exchanged through the facilitation of flexible and agile experi- in an urban environment, which can be studied as a col- mentation with possible solutions for issues related to laborative innovation development ecosystem, while "system stress" caused by urbanization itself, and by also taking the ecological context into account. Al- doing so, adding to a long-term and latent social trans- though such awareness is growing in most organiza- ition that is closely interrelated with ecological con- tions, this dimension is not present in most distributed cerns and associated knowledge. innovation theories and processes. An urban living lab thus can generate and evolve tacit and codified know- Conclusions and Discussion ledge while focusing on the exchange of knowledge within a natural environment system. In this way, both This article bridges the theoretical propositions of the the innovation outcomes and the urban socio-ecologic- quintuple helix model and the practice-based concept al transition can become more sustainable and recover of urban living labs. More specifically, we discussed the ecological balance, thus ensuring the quality of life for concepts of innovation diplomacy, mode 3 knowledge future generations. www.timreview.ca 27 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez About the Authors Lieven De Marez is Research Director of the iMinds Media & ICT (MICT) research group and teaches on Bastiaan Baccarne is a Research and Teaching As- the topics of innovation research, media, market sistant at iMinds-MICT, a research group within the and ICT, and new communication technologies in communications department of Ghent University, the Department of Communication Sciences at where he works on the topic of user-centric innova- Ghent University in Belgium. MICT is one of 16 re- tion development in the context of (new) media and search groups within iMinds, and Lieven is also part ICT. Bastiaan is also a PhD student working on cit- of the management team of iMinds Living Labs’ fa- izen empowerment through the co-development of cilitating infrastructure for living lab research. socio-technical innovations in an urban environ- ment. Being part of iMinds Living Labs, Bastiaan works as a user researcher for several SME and star- References tup projects, with an overall academic focus on the possibilities and limitations of user-centric innova- Atkinson, R. 1998. Technological Change and Cities. Cityscape, 3(3): 129–170. tion development ecosystems. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20868462 Baccarne, B., Mechant, P., Schuurman, D., Colpaert, P., & De Marez, Sara Logghe obtained a master’s degree in both His- L. 2014. Urban Socio-Technical Innovations With and By Citizens. tory and Communication Sciences with specializa- Interdisciplinary Studies Journal, 3(4): 143–156. tion in New Media and Society at Ghent University. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). 2002. Navigating Her second master's thesis was Cultural Communic- Social–Ecological Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University ation on the Internet: A Study on the Potential of So- Press. cial Media for Cultural Institutions. A three-month http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511541957 internship at iMinds Living Labs encouraged her in- Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (Eds.). 2000. Linking Social and terest in research on living labs, and in May 2013, Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms Sara joint iMinds-MICT as a Junior Researcher. for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Working on cultural projects within living lab re- Bocquier, P. 2005. World Urbanization Prospects. Demographic search, Sara developed a specific interest in the Research, 12: 197–236. changing library scene. http://dx.doi.org/10.4054/demres.2005.12.9 Bogers, M., & West, J. 2012. Managing Distributed Innovation: Dimitri Schuurman holds a PhD (2015) and Mas- Strategic Utilization of Open and User Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1): 61–75. ter's in Communication Sciences (2003) from Ghent http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00622.x University in Belgium. He joined the research group iMinds – MICT – Ghent University in 2005 and star- Buscher, V., Tomordy, M., Ashley, G., & Tabet, M. 2010. Smart Cities: Transforming the 21st Century City Via the Creative Use of ted working at iMinds Living Labs in 2009. Together Technology. London: Arup IT & Communication Systems. with his iMinds colleagues, Dimitri developed a spe- Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. 2012. The Quintuple cific living lab offering targeted at startups and Helix Innovation Model: Global Warming as a Challenge and SMEs, in which he has managed over 50 innovation Driver for Innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, projects. As a senior researcher, Dimitri is currently 1(2): 2. responsible for the methodology and academic val- http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2 orization of living lab projects. He also coordinates a Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. 2009. Mode 3 and Quadruple dynamic team of living lab researchers from iMinds Helix: Toward a 21st Century Fractal Innovation Ecosystem. – MICT – Ghent University. His main interests and International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3): 201–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2009.023374 research topics are situated in the domains of open innovation, user innovation, and innovation man- Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. 2010. Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and How Do Knowledge, Innovation agement. In early 2015, he finished his PhD entitled and the Environment Relate To Each Other? A Proposed Bridging the Gap between Open and User Innova- Framework for a Trans-disciplinary Analysis of Sustainable tion? Exploring the Value of Living Labs as a Means Development and Social Ecology. International Journal of Social to Structure User Contribution and Manage Distrib- Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1): 41–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jsesd.2010010105 uted Innovation. www.timreview.ca 28 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. 2011. Open Innovation Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. 2000. The Place of Universities in the System Diplomacy and a 21st Century Fractal Research, Education and of Knowledge Production. Research Policy, 29(2): 273–278. Innovation (FREIE) Ecosystem: Building on the Quadruple and http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00065-7 Quintuple Helix Innovation Concepts and the “Mode 3” Juujärvi, S., & Pesso, K. 2013. Actor Roles in an Urban Living Lab: Knowledge Production System. Journal of the Knowledge What Can We Learn from Suurpelto, Finland? Technology Economy, 2(3): 327–372. Innovation Management Review, 11(3): 22–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0058-3 http://timreview.ca/article/742 Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. 2012. Mode 3 Knowledge Kviselius, N., Ozan, H., Edenius, M., & Andersson, P. 2008. The Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems. New York, NY: Evolution of Living Labs–Propositions for Improved Design and Springer New York. Further Research. 5th International Conference on Innovation and http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2062-0 Management (ICIM 2008): 842–856. Maastricht, The Netherlands. Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Machlis, G., Force, J., & Burch, W. J. 1997. The Human Ecosystem Part Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business I: The Human Ecosystem as an Organizing Concept in Ecosystem School Press. Management. Society & Natural Resources, 10(4): 347–367. De Moor, K., Berte, K., De Marez, L., Joseph, W., Deryckere, T., & http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941929709381034 Martens, L. 2010. User-Driven Innovation? Challenges of User Niitamo, V., & Kulkki, S. 2006. State-of-the-Art and Good Practice in Involvement in Future Technology Analysis. Science and Public the Field of Living Labs. Proceedings of the 12th International Policy, 37(1): 51–61. Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/030234210x484775 Services through Collaborative Networks: 349–357. Milan, Italy. Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. 2003. Introduction: “Mode 2” Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550. Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 41(3): http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258557 179–194. Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V., Kulkki, S., & Hribernik, K. 2006. Living Labs O’Flynn, J. 2007. From New Public Management to Public Value: as a Multi-Contextual R&D Methodology. 12th International Paradigmatic Change and Managerial Implications. Australian Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and Journal of Public Administration, 66(3): 353–366. Services through Collaborative Networks, ICE 2006. Milan, Italy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00545.x Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. 1995. The Triple Helix: O’Reilly, T. 2011. Government as a Platform. Innovations: Technology, University–Industry–Government Relations: A Laboratory for Governance, Globalization, 6(1): 13–40. Knowledge-Based Economic Development. EASST Review, 14(1): http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00056 14–19. Paskaleva, K. 2011. The Smart City: A Nexus for Open Innovation? Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. 2000. The Dynamics of Innovation: Intelligent Buildings International, 3(3): 153–171. From National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2011.586672 University–Industry–Government Relations. Research Policy, 29(2): 109–123. Pierson, J., & Lievens, B. 2005. Configuring Living Labs for a “Thick” http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00055-4 Understanding of Innovation. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, (1): 114–127. Feurstein, K., Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K., Thoben, T., & Schumacher, J. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-8918.2005.tb00012.x 2008. Living Labs: A New Development Strategy. In J. Schumacher & V. P. Niitamo (Eds.), European Living Labs – A New Approach for Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. 2001. Handbook of Action Research: Human Centric Regional Innovation. Berlin, Germany: Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: Sage Publications. Wissenschaftlicher. Rits, O., Schuurman, D., & Ballon, P. 2015. Exploring the Benefits of Følstad, A. 2008. Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Combining Business Modelling with Living Labs. The XXVI ISPIM Communication Technology: A Literature Review. The Electronic Conference – Shaping the Frontiers of Innovation Management, Journal for Virtual Organisations and Networks, 10: 99–131. Budapest, Hungary on 14-17 June 2015, (June). Foth, M. 2009. Handbook of Research on Urban Informatics: The Schaffers, H., & Budweg, S. 2009. A Living Lab Approach for Practice and Promise of the Real-Time City. Hershey, PA: IGI Enhancing Collaboration in Professional Communities. Global. Proceedings of the International Conference on Concurrent http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-152-0 Enterprising. Leiden, The Netherlands. Franz, Y. 2014. Chances and Challenges for Social Urban Living Labs Schumacher, J., & Niitamo, V. P. (Eds.). 2008. European Living Labs: A in Urban Research. ENoLL OpenLivingLab Days 2014 Conference New Approach for Human Centric Regional Innovation. Berlin, Proceedings: 105–114. Amsterdam, Netherlands. Germany: Fachhochschule Verlag Berlin. Frissen, V., & Lieshout, M. 2004. To User-Centred Innovation Schuurman, D. 2015. Bridging the Gap between Open and User Processes: The Role of Living Labs. Delft, TNO-ICT. Innovation? Exploring the Value of Living Labs as a Means to Structure User Contribution and Manage Distributed Innovation. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University, Belgium. Trow, M. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446221853 www.timreview.ca 29 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Schuurman, D., Baccarne, B., Kawsar, F., Seys, C., Veeckman, C., et al. Viitanen, J., & Kingston, R. 2014. Smart Cities and Green Growth: 2013. Living Labs as Quasi-experiments: Results from the Flemish Outsourcing Democratic and Environmental Resilience to the LeYLab. XXIV ISPIM Conference – Innovating in Global Markets: Global Technology Sector. Environment and Planning A, 46(4): Challenges for Sustainable Growth, (June). Helsinki, Finland. 803-819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a46242 Schuurman, D., Lievens, B., De Marez, L., & Ballon, P. 2012. Towards Optimal User Involvement in Innovation Processes: A Panel- Yin, R. 1984. Case Study Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Centered Living Lab-approach. Proceedings of PICMET’12, Young, O. R., Berkhout, F., Gallopin, G. C., Janssen, M. A., Ostrom, E., 2046–2054. & van der Leeuw, S. 2006. The Globalization of Socio-Ecological Ståhlbröst, A. 2008. Forming Future IT - The Living Lab Way of User Systems: An Agenda for Scientific Research. Global Environmental Involvement. Doctoral dissertation, Luleå University of Change, 16(3): 304–316. Technology, Sweden. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.004 Ståhlbröst, A., & Holst, M. 2012. The Living Lab Methodology Handbook. Luleå, Sweden: Luleå University of Technology and Centre for Distance-Spanning Technology (CDT). Citation: Baccarne, B., Logghe, S., Schuurman, D., & De Marez, L. 2016. Governing Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio- Ecological Entrepreneurship. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(3): 22–30. http://timreview.ca/article/972 Keywords: distributed innovation, quintuple helix innovation, social ecology, socio-ecological entrepreneurship, urban living labs www.timreview.ca http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Technology Innovation Management Review Unpaywall

Governing Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship

Baccarne, Bastiaan; Logghe, Sara; Schuurman, Dimitri; De Marez, Lieven
Technology Innovation Management Review – Mar 30, 2016
Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/unpaywall/governing-quintuple-helix-innovation-urban-living-labs-and-socio-iL08keChYK

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Unpaywall
ISSN
1927-0321
DOI
10.22215/timreview/972
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Governing Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Cities are never random. No matter how chaotic they might seem, everything about them grows out of a need to solve a problem. In fact, a city is nothing more than a solution to a problem, that in turn creates more problems that need more solutions, until towers rise, roads widen, bridges are built, and millions of people are caught up in a mad race to feed the problem-solving, problem-creating frenzy. Neal Shusterman Author of young-adult fiction In Downsiders (2001) Growing urbanization puts pressure on both social and ecological systems. This pressure raises complex and multi-facetted challenges that can only be tackled by collaborative and distributed innovation development processes. However, theoretical frameworks that as- sess such collaborations are often very conceptual, with little focus on the actual gov- ernance mechanisms that facilitate them. This article studies the urban living lab concept as an inter-organizational design and multi-stakeholder innovation development process to govern the quintuple helix model for innovation by means of an action research based multidimensional case study design, which focuses on the concepts of innovation demo- cracy, mode 3 knowledge production, the innovation ecosystem as a system of societal sub- systems, and socio-ecological transition. In this way, we provide a more profound understanding of such innovation processes to tackle socio-ecological challenges by means of public–private interactions driven by eco-entrepreneurship. Introduction however, that these challenges need to be dealt with by a diverse ecosystem of private actors, universities, civil Society is confronted with challenges of an increasingly society, and politics. complex and global nature. It is hard for a single societ- al actor to come up with the right solutions, given that Nevertheless, in innovation management theory, the knowledge and resources are distributed among a wide question is not why, but rather how such challenges can network of stakeholders (Bogers & West, 2012). Thus, in- be tackled. In the collaborative knowledge production novation actors must reach out to external knowledge. and innovation management literature, one of the Among the most pressing and interesting challenges frameworks that attempt to take the natural environ- are those involving public value and market failure. As ment into account is the "quintuple helix model" for in- urbanization continues at a rapid pace, socio-ecologic- novation (Carayannis & Campbell, 2010). Although this al systems are put under heavy pressure, inducing eco- rather recent analytical framework is very promising, logical issues such as global warming, decreasing air only little empirical evidence exists that explores its pos- quality, increasing hazardous emissions, and geological sibilities and limitations. On top of that, this model is instability. Although a sense of urgency for solutions is mainly applied to assess larger innovation ecosystems widespread, society is still struggling to find an ad- such as national or regional innovation systems, and to equate, sustainable, and agile way to react. It is clear, a lesser extent to the innovation development process. www.timreview.ca 22 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Therefore, this article focuses on the specific gov- Nevertheless, these interactions need to be governed ernance mechanisms that can facilitate quintuple helix and in some way be able to connect the traditional top- innovation at the level of the individual innovation de- down approach with a grassroots or bottom-up ap- velopment process. More specifically, the "urban living proach. This strategy is in line with the open or distrib- lab" concept is explored as an inter-organizational R&D uted innovation approach (Bogers & West, 2012; design and multi-stakeholder innovation development Chesbrough, 2003), causing city governments to ques- process to govern the quintuple helix model for innova- tion the dominant paradigm of top-down innovation tion. Hence, this article contributes to a more profound development, and implementation, and to experiment understanding of local collaborative innovation pro- with innovation processes together with, and even by, cesses that are designed to tackle socio-ecological chal- citizens and other organizations in the urban environ- lenges by means of public–private interactions, driven ment (Paskaleva, 2011). by eco-entrepreneurship. In other words: How can urb- an living labs be a way to put quintuple helix innova- Understanding collaborative innovation processes tion into practice? A useful framework for the analysis of such complex col- laborative innovation networks is the "triple helix" First, we discuss the urbanization process to better un- model for innovation (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995), derstand the context in which these challenges occur. which originally focused on collaboration and know- Next, we relate this evolution to collaborative innova- ledge production in university–government–industry tion literature, and elaborate on the (urban) living lab partnerships (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). It was concept as a way to put this into practice. Finally, we later expanded with a fourth helix to incorporate civil develop an analytical framework, which is structured society (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). along the concepts of innovation democracy, mode 3 knowledge production, the innovation ecosystem as a However, from a socio-ecological systems point of system of societal subsystems, and socio-ecological view, the urban evolutions described above also need transition, and apply this framework to two urban liv- to be studied as changes in human–environment sys- ing lab cases. tems (Young et al., 2006). Background Hence, a socio-ecological systems approach integrates social and ecological systems thinking in a holistic way Urbanization, socio-ecological challenges, and urban in- to assess "system threats" (Berkes et al., 2000). Such so- novation cio-ecological systems can be considered complex The speed of urbanization is overwhelming (Bocquier, units in which resources are exchanged and regulated 2005). This rapid evolution puts pressure on social, by social and ecological systems (Berkes et al., 2002; physical, and ecological systems as city populations Machlis et al., 1997), which makes them interesting con- continue to grow and more and more people are live in ceptual frameworks to assess socio-ecological innova- densely populated areas. This pressure, in combination tion in an urban environment. They also encourage the with the associated emergence of grand societal chal- integration of this logic and analytical dimensions in lenges and rapid technological evolutions, forces cities the innovation ecosystem literature. Therefore, a fifth to look for new ways to reinvent themselves (Atkinson, helix should be added to the quadruple helix model, to 1998; Foth, 2009; Viitanen & Kingston, 2014). also take the natural environment into account (Caray- annis & Campbell, 2010). This is what makes the quin- In practice, however, local governments often lack the tuple helix model for innovation an interesting and capability and resources to tackle these challenges in a valuable model to analyze innovation ecosystems. flexible way (O’Flynn, 2007). In the search for new ways to cope with this tension, transparency and close inter- To explain processes of knowledge exchange that take action with grassroots initiatives are increasingly put place in such collaborative innovation ecosystems, forward as solutions to overcome this gap (Buscher et these models apply the concepts of "mode 3" know- al., 2010). This approach involves a wide variety of urb- ledge production and "open innovation diplomacy". an stakeholders (e.g., citizens, universities, enterprises, Mode 3 knowledge production is conceptualized as an non-governmental organizations), thereby potentially extension of mode 1 knowledge production (traditional leveraging the distributed knowledge in the urban en- research by universities) (Godin & Gingras, 2000) and vironment. mode 2 knowledge production (knowledge that is gen- www.timreview.ca 23 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez erated when mode 1 knowledge is applied and put into and remains too much of a "practice-based" concept practice) (Gibbons et al., 1994; Nowotny et al., 2003). (Kviselius et al., 2008; Schuurman, 2015). Quintuple Mode 3 adds a third component to this representation helix (-related) concepts provide potentially valuable of knowledge production by highlighting the overarch- tools and assumptions for the assessment and theoret- ing system in which this knowledge is produced and ex- ical foundation of the more practical oriented living lab changed (i.e., innovation networks and knowledge literature, embedded within a broader socio-ecological clusters). "Open innovation diplomacy", on the other system. On the other hand, the living lab literature hand, is used to describe the way in which different or- might provide a practical framework to put quintuple ganizations and ecosystem are able to collaborate and helix innovation into practice. Furthermore, exploring bridge the divides that exist between traditionally separ- the quintuple helix model in the context of urban in- ated domains (this can be social, organizational, cultur- novation contributes to a more profound understand- al, or technological) (Carayannis & Campbell, 2011). ing of urban innovation in relation with socio-ecological transition in urban areas. Living labs and the urban environment Triple, quadruple, and quintuple helix models have a Methodology strong theoretical nature. One approach that tries to fa- cilitate such models in a structured way is the "living Research design lab" approach, which can be defined as an ecosystem To investigate quintuple helix innovation in relation to approach in which end users and other stakeholders urban living labs, we conducted an action research are involved in the development of an innovation over study (Reason & Bradbury, 2001) in which we purpose- a long period of time, in a real-life environment, follow- fully designed and participated as researchers in two ing an iterative process (Niitamo & Kulkki, 2006; urban living lab projects. This approach allowed us dir- Schuurman et al., 2012) applying multi-method, user- ect access and control over the projects, as well as more centric innovation research with a strong focus on user profound insights on the observed phenomena. The empowerment and real-world experimentation (Føl- analysis is structured following the principles of a multi- stad, 2008; Schuurman et al., 2013; Ståhlbröst, 2008). dimensional case study design (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, Furthermore, it offers a structured process and environ- 1984). The unit of analysis in this design is the individu- ment to govern input from a wide variety of stakehold- al project-centric innovation ecosystem. ers and research methods (Eriksson et al., 2006; Ståhlbröst & Holst, 2012). The two cases had to: i) focus on eco-entrepreneurship, ii) target the urban environment, iii) be open for the re- In the urban environment, living labs gain importance searcher team to shape and mold (cfr. action research), as a way to govern (complex) urban collaborative innov- iv) be collaborative in nature, and v) encompass an in- ation processes (Buscher et al., 2010; Paskaleva, 2011). novation development process. The two selected re- Although the process is similar, urban living labs have a search projects were instigated by start-up distinct nature because the focus is on civic participa- organizations with socio-ecological goals in the urban tion, and the output is aimed at increasing quality of environment, and they were both incubated by a re- life in the city rather than the development of a com- gional incubating organization (funded by the Flemish mercial product or service (Baccarne et al., 2014). As government in order to stimulate innovation in ICT). such, urban living labs are an instrument to include a Both projects involved the set-up of an ad hoc collabor- wide variety of stakeholders (citizens, municipalities, ative network of stakeholders and a structured, semi- entrepreneurs, etc.) in the search for innovations that formal adaptive iterative product development process. meet local socio-ecological challenges (Franz, 2014). Project A was set up around the development of an in- Juujärvi and Pesso (2013) define an urban living labs as teractive platform to engage, collaborate, and commu- “a physical region in which different stakeholders form nicate on the topic of air quality. Project B concerned public–private–people partnerships of public agencies, the development of a peer-to-peer car sharing initiative firms, universities, and users collaborate to create, pro- for electric vehicles. totype, validate, and test new technologies, services, products, and systems in real-life contexts”. Both living lab processes were designed along prin- ciples whereby the living lab project had to: i) incorpor- However, despite strong European support, this re- ate multiple iterations (Pierson & Lievens, 2005; search and development concept is still struggling for Schaffers & Budweg, 2009), ii) involve multiple stake- an adequate and more profound theoretical anchoring holders (Feurstein et al., 2008; Frissen & Lieshout, 2004; www.timreview.ca 24 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Juujärvi & Pesso, 2013), iii) be driven by multi-method resources to the ecosystem, but also mixes, trans- research (De Moor et al., 2010; Eriksson et al., 2006; Niit- lates, and processes resources from others. The quin- amo & Kulkki, 2006), iv) involve real-world experiment- tuple helix model describes five societal subsystems ation (Følstad, 2008; Niitamo & Kulkki, 2006), and v) be (Carayannis et al., 2012): i) the educational system, based on active co-creation by stakeholders (Følstad, which generates and disseminates new knowledge; 2008; Schumacher & Niitamo, 2008; Schuurman et al., ii) the economic system, which controls, possesses, 2012; Ståhlbröst, 2008). In line with the conceptualiza- and generates economic capital; iii) the political sys- tion of an urban living lab, the local government was a tem, which has political and legal capital (e.g., laws, required stakeholder in the innovation development clearances, policy, public goods); iv) civil society, ecosystem. Between each iteration, steering committee which has social capital, and is characterized by tra- meetings were held to evaluate the process and modify ditions, values, and behavioural patterns; and v) the it if necessary. These steering committees consisted of natural environment, which has natural capital (e.g., the researchers, the project managers, and the project natural resources, climate, air quality, geological sta- instigators (eco-entrepreneurs) (see also Rits et al., bility). 2015). 4. Socio-ecological transition: the main contribution of Research framework the quintuple helix model is the integration of the A beneficial aspect of case study design is the opportun- natural environment, which is conceptualized as a ity to include multiple sources of evidence, thus enhan- contextualization of the four helices of the quadruple cing the validity of the analysis through data helix. triangulation (Yin, 1984). The sources of evidence in Assumption: if this context is taken into account, it is this study include ethnographic field notes, in-depth in- possible to achieve sustainable socio-ecological terviews, email communications, meeting reports of transition, creating synergies between economy, soci- steering committees, initial project proposals, project ety, and democracy (Carayannis & Campbell, 2011). reports, and project deliverables. These sources of evid- ence were coded and interpreted by the author team Analysis following an analytical protocol (Yin, 1984) that encom- passed the four dimensions that are key elements in the Quintuple helix innovation in a structured process literature on innovation ecosystems, and in particular An urban living lab follows a structured process in the quintuple helix model and socio-ecological systems: which a central problem, idea, concept, or prototype is at the heart of the collaboration. This innovation devel- 1. Innovation diplomacy: the praxis of bridging barriers opment process implements a combination of different between traditionally separated actors and fields methodologies (e.g., for Project A: interviews, focus (Carayannis & Campbell, 2011). groups, surveys, co-creation workshops, online crowd- Assumption: properly targeted initiatives are able to sourcing, and a field trial) to involve a wide variety of connect know-how, tacit knowledge, creativity, and stakeholders (e.g., for Project A: different local govern- formal knowledge between different domains and ment divisions, citizens, civil society organizations, nurture entrepreneurship. large and small research organizations, and startups). As described earlier, this formal but flexible staged pro- 2. Mode 3 knowledge production: based on a system- cess was, in both cases, instigated by the eco-entrepren- theoretic perspective in which knowledge is molded, eurs, was financially supported by the Flemish remixed, shared, and applied within a knowledge- government, and was managed by iMinds Living Labs, driven society. a semi-public living lab organization, embedded in an Assumption: quintuple helix ecosystems are know- interdisciplinary and cross-university, technology-driv- ledge production, distribution, and application sys- en research centre. The formal living lab process struc- tems in which knowledge is generated through the tured the innovation development and governed exchange of knowledge between actors in the ecosys- stakeholder interaction, knowledge production, and tem (Carayannis & Campbell, 2012). knowledge transfer. For example, the process facilitated steering committees, safeguarded the overall planning 3. A system of subsystems: the quintuple helix ecosystem and resources of the project, leveraged social capital encompasses the different domains that resonate within the different subsystems, provided coaching and and collaborate to solve mutual challenges. implementation resources, and translated knowledge Assumption: each ecosystem actor provides unique between ecosystem stakeholders. www.timreview.ca 25 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Innovation diplomacy However, this information cannot be interpreted by act- The formal commitments within both cases were lim- ors outside the knowledge domain (e.g., regular cit- ited to the eco-entrepreneurs and the semi-public living izens). Even if the raw numbers are translated in visual lab management organization. However, both cases information (e.g., public visualizations of the air quality also had semi-formal commitments from their respect- have been created in the city of Project A), the academic ive local governments. Both projects were unable to complexity was not interpretable for citizens and cit- convince other key actors in the ecosystem to become a izens had no idea how to act upon this information. formal partner of the project because these other actors were not willing to commit themselves to an uncertain Through an iterative, multi-method research approach, and open project. However, once the project gained mo- the (tacit) knowledge of all stakeholders could be cap- mentum and tangibility, collaborations were still pos- tured, exchanged, (re)combined, mixed, and molded. By sible on an ad hoc basis. Not only were key stakeholders distributing and translating fundamental chunks of eventually attracted to the ecosystem, but also several knowledge to actors outside the original knowledge do- unexpected smaller institutions (i.e., research institutes, main, unexpected but valuable interpretations and in- companies, and civic organizations), who were very will- teractions occurred. However, such "sparks" and often ing to contribute and share their knowledge. The ad volatile knowledge must be adequately captured and hoc, open-ended, and semi-formal design of these tem- managed to contribute to the project goal. For Project A, poral collaboration networks served as an risk reducing this process of knowledge capture resulted in the devel- characteristic and helped to overcome collaboration opment a conceptual model for socio-ecological barriers. As such, the collaborative design of the urban change, which served as the basis for design require- living lab stakeholder ecosystem acted as a centripetal ments and the development of the project prototypes. force within the urban environment, as acupuncture to Project B, on the other hand, focused on understanding congregate urban actors with similar goals. Although end-user needs and frustrations in relation to technolo- every collaborator had their own agenda (e.g., lever- gical evolutions and other stakeholder needs and know- aging their own business, connecting with the local gov- ledge, mainly to set-up a field trial experiment that ernment, pushing local change), this did not interfere matched the usage context. These insights were neces- with the overall goals of the project. sary for both practical and substantial reasons in order to be able to test the electric-car sharing system. Finally, when it came to the involvement of the local government, the process facilitated access and interac- The ecosystem and circulation of knowledge tion with different governmental levels. The deploy- In both cases, various exchanges between different ment of a temporal experimental window, which was knowledge domains took place. Some examples include considered "neutral" and "external" to existing organiz- knowledge transfers from the political system to the eco- ations, enabled individuals to detach themselves from nomic system (i.e., knowledge regarding policy, internal restraining organizational structures and collaborate in procedures, the value network, and business model op- a more agile environment, and to stretch the boundar- portunities) and from civil society to both the education- ies of what is generally possible (e.g., temporarily shar- al system (e.g., the interpretation of complex data by ing data sources, talking freely outside the citizens and the relation to their everyday behaviour) governmental organization, providing favourable excep- and the economic system (i.e., regarding needs and ad- tions on the use of public space). option potential). Furthermore, for the local govern- ment, the urban living lab projects also bridged different Mode 3 knowledge production divisions and individuals within the organization (e.g., In the air quality domain (Project A), a lot of knowledge different divisions were working on open data and air is generated in mode 1. Traditionally, research institutes quality for some time, but it took the project to connect obtain grants to study atmospheric particulate matter them and expose the overlap between their efforts). This (e.g., as PM2.5) or ozone concentrations. Most of these bridging can be conceptualized as an intra-organiza- data remain hidden to the public. However, there are tional centripetal force, which is the mobilizing effect of some initiatives that attempt to disseminate these data an urban living lab within an organization to connect to civil society. Most of the time, these initiatives are like-minded individuals beyond organizational struc- built upon open data principles and are, for example, tures. As such, the projects facilitated horizontal and translated in dashboards showing air quality values. In agile collaboration and knowledge exchange on an ad theory, these initiatives distribute and apply mode 1 hoc basis, largely bypassing traditional structures and knowledge (potentially generating mode 2 knowledge). processes. www.timreview.ca 26 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Socio-ecological transition production, the innovation ecosystem as a system of As for the "natural context", both projects aimed to in- subsystems (related to the circulation of knowledge), teract with the socio-ecological environment through and socio-ecological transition to analyze the urban liv- their environmental goals. Against this backdrop, it ing lab approach. Our findings largely support the the- makes sense to conceptually model the innovation eco- oretical assumptions of the quintuple helix model and system using the quintuple helix model. Using this elaborate on the urban living lab approach as a way to framework, it is clear that (urban) innovation is related put this model into practice at the level of a single in- to issues regarding the socio-ecological context in novation development process. Urban living labs can which we live and (co-)develop our common socio- be a way to work with ad hoc collectives, lowering the technological future. Neglecting this dimension is a barriers for collaboration. The project-centric nature is failure to contextualize innovation development in a a catalyst for knowledge exchange and collaborations broader environment. Although this model fits with the within and outside the project and involved organiza- theoretical understanding of urban living labs, they in tions. turn offer an implementation approach for the quin- tuple helix model for innovation. A successful urban living lab can facilitate and balance top-down governance with bottom-up initiatives in the Concerning sustainability, both projects exposed the city. However, some challenges remain. Whereas exper- difficulty of designing viable business models in a imental urban living lab activities activate and reinforce "public" domain. Both civil society and the economic the quintuple helix ecosystem, it is still hard to harness system consider it the duty of the political system to the creation potential within the city in a sustainable take responsibility. However, the political system is fa- way. Nevertheless, urban living labs facilitate urban cing decreasing resources, which makes it hard to de- transitions through an accumulation of experiments, velop a sustainable business model. For Project B, this which allow urban actors to experience change, leading challenge resulted in the establishment of a cooperat- to transitions in the long run. This logic suggests that ive organization with limited liability. Different actors urban living labs contribute to (long-term) sustainable who were previously involved in the urban living lab socio-ecological transition, which is mainly facilitated became members of this organization. As such, some by an interdisciplinary (and transdisciplinary) temporal of the social capital that was generated within the urb- experimental window that promotes collaborative an living lab was leveraged to help sustain the innova- learning and stakeholder engagement. However, al- tion. though value is being created at the meso level (i.e., the project level), there is a need for a more formal value Nevertheless, socio-ecological transition must also be capture and retention processes at the macro level (i.e., considered in a broader sense. Through (series of) ex- the level of ecosystems and the overarching organiza- periments, project-based quintuple helix innovation tion). In the urban context, it makes sense that local can foster long-term change on a more latent level, by governments fulfil such a role. This is to some extent in inspiring and stimulating debate on contemporary urb- line with the conceptualization of the government as a an challenges and solutions. Applied to the socio-ecolo- platform (O'Reilly, 2011). gical systems way of thinking, urban living labs contribute to the resistance of an urban socio-ecologic- The quintuple helix is a useful concept to understand al system. More specifically, this goal is achieved and analyze how knowledge is created and exchanged through the facilitation of flexible and agile experi- in an urban environment, which can be studied as a col- mentation with possible solutions for issues related to laborative innovation development ecosystem, while "system stress" caused by urbanization itself, and by also taking the ecological context into account. Al- doing so, adding to a long-term and latent social trans- though such awareness is growing in most organiza- ition that is closely interrelated with ecological con- tions, this dimension is not present in most distributed cerns and associated knowledge. innovation theories and processes. An urban living lab thus can generate and evolve tacit and codified know- Conclusions and Discussion ledge while focusing on the exchange of knowledge within a natural environment system. In this way, both This article bridges the theoretical propositions of the the innovation outcomes and the urban socio-ecologic- quintuple helix model and the practice-based concept al transition can become more sustainable and recover of urban living labs. More specifically, we discussed the ecological balance, thus ensuring the quality of life for concepts of innovation diplomacy, mode 3 knowledge future generations. www.timreview.ca 27 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez About the Authors Lieven De Marez is Research Director of the iMinds Media & ICT (MICT) research group and teaches on Bastiaan Baccarne is a Research and Teaching As- the topics of innovation research, media, market sistant at iMinds-MICT, a research group within the and ICT, and new communication technologies in communications department of Ghent University, the Department of Communication Sciences at where he works on the topic of user-centric innova- Ghent University in Belgium. MICT is one of 16 re- tion development in the context of (new) media and search groups within iMinds, and Lieven is also part ICT. Bastiaan is also a PhD student working on cit- of the management team of iMinds Living Labs’ fa- izen empowerment through the co-development of cilitating infrastructure for living lab research. socio-technical innovations in an urban environ- ment. Being part of iMinds Living Labs, Bastiaan works as a user researcher for several SME and star- References tup projects, with an overall academic focus on the possibilities and limitations of user-centric innova- Atkinson, R. 1998. Technological Change and Cities. Cityscape, 3(3): 129–170. tion development ecosystems. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20868462 Baccarne, B., Mechant, P., Schuurman, D., Colpaert, P., & De Marez, Sara Logghe obtained a master’s degree in both His- L. 2014. Urban Socio-Technical Innovations With and By Citizens. tory and Communication Sciences with specializa- Interdisciplinary Studies Journal, 3(4): 143–156. tion in New Media and Society at Ghent University. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Eds.). 2002. Navigating Her second master's thesis was Cultural Communic- Social–Ecological Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University ation on the Internet: A Study on the Potential of So- Press. cial Media for Cultural Institutions. A three-month http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511541957 internship at iMinds Living Labs encouraged her in- Berkes, F., Folke, C., & Colding, J. (Eds.). 2000. Linking Social and terest in research on living labs, and in May 2013, Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms Sara joint iMinds-MICT as a Junior Researcher. for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Working on cultural projects within living lab re- Bocquier, P. 2005. World Urbanization Prospects. Demographic search, Sara developed a specific interest in the Research, 12: 197–236. changing library scene. http://dx.doi.org/10.4054/demres.2005.12.9 Bogers, M., & West, J. 2012. Managing Distributed Innovation: Dimitri Schuurman holds a PhD (2015) and Mas- Strategic Utilization of Open and User Innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1): 61–75. ter's in Communication Sciences (2003) from Ghent http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00622.x University in Belgium. He joined the research group iMinds – MICT – Ghent University in 2005 and star- Buscher, V., Tomordy, M., Ashley, G., & Tabet, M. 2010. Smart Cities: Transforming the 21st Century City Via the Creative Use of ted working at iMinds Living Labs in 2009. Together Technology. London: Arup IT & Communication Systems. with his iMinds colleagues, Dimitri developed a spe- Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. 2012. The Quintuple cific living lab offering targeted at startups and Helix Innovation Model: Global Warming as a Challenge and SMEs, in which he has managed over 50 innovation Driver for Innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, projects. As a senior researcher, Dimitri is currently 1(2): 2. responsible for the methodology and academic val- http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2 orization of living lab projects. He also coordinates a Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. 2009. Mode 3 and Quadruple dynamic team of living lab researchers from iMinds Helix: Toward a 21st Century Fractal Innovation Ecosystem. – MICT – Ghent University. His main interests and International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3): 201–234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ijtm.2009.023374 research topics are situated in the domains of open innovation, user innovation, and innovation man- Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. 2010. Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and How Do Knowledge, Innovation agement. In early 2015, he finished his PhD entitled and the Environment Relate To Each Other? A Proposed Bridging the Gap between Open and User Innova- Framework for a Trans-disciplinary Analysis of Sustainable tion? Exploring the Value of Living Labs as a Means Development and Social Ecology. International Journal of Social to Structure User Contribution and Manage Distrib- Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1): 41–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jsesd.2010010105 uted Innovation. www.timreview.ca 28 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. 2011. Open Innovation Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. 2000. The Place of Universities in the System Diplomacy and a 21st Century Fractal Research, Education and of Knowledge Production. Research Policy, 29(2): 273–278. Innovation (FREIE) Ecosystem: Building on the Quadruple and http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00065-7 Quintuple Helix Innovation Concepts and the “Mode 3” Juujärvi, S., & Pesso, K. 2013. Actor Roles in an Urban Living Lab: Knowledge Production System. Journal of the Knowledge What Can We Learn from Suurpelto, Finland? Technology Economy, 2(3): 327–372. Innovation Management Review, 11(3): 22–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0058-3 http://timreview.ca/article/742 Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. 2012. Mode 3 Knowledge Kviselius, N., Ozan, H., Edenius, M., & Andersson, P. 2008. The Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems. New York, NY: Evolution of Living Labs–Propositions for Improved Design and Springer New York. Further Research. 5th International Conference on Innovation and http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2062-0 Management (ICIM 2008): 842–856. Maastricht, The Netherlands. Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Machlis, G., Force, J., & Burch, W. J. 1997. The Human Ecosystem Part Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business I: The Human Ecosystem as an Organizing Concept in Ecosystem School Press. Management. Society & Natural Resources, 10(4): 347–367. De Moor, K., Berte, K., De Marez, L., Joseph, W., Deryckere, T., & http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941929709381034 Martens, L. 2010. User-Driven Innovation? Challenges of User Niitamo, V., & Kulkki, S. 2006. State-of-the-Art and Good Practice in Involvement in Future Technology Analysis. Science and Public the Field of Living Labs. Proceedings of the 12th International Policy, 37(1): 51–61. Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/030234210x484775 Services through Collaborative Networks: 349–357. Milan, Italy. Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. 2003. Introduction: “Mode 2” Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550. Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 41(3): http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258557 179–194. Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V., Kulkki, S., & Hribernik, K. 2006. Living Labs O’Flynn, J. 2007. From New Public Management to Public Value: as a Multi-Contextual R&D Methodology. 12th International Paradigmatic Change and Managerial Implications. Australian Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and Journal of Public Administration, 66(3): 353–366. Services through Collaborative Networks, ICE 2006. Milan, Italy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00545.x Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. 1995. The Triple Helix: O’Reilly, T. 2011. Government as a Platform. Innovations: Technology, University–Industry–Government Relations: A Laboratory for Governance, Globalization, 6(1): 13–40. Knowledge-Based Economic Development. EASST Review, 14(1): http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00056 14–19. Paskaleva, K. 2011. The Smart City: A Nexus for Open Innovation? Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. 2000. The Dynamics of Innovation: Intelligent Buildings International, 3(3): 153–171. From National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2011.586672 University–Industry–Government Relations. Research Policy, 29(2): 109–123. Pierson, J., & Lievens, B. 2005. Configuring Living Labs for a “Thick” http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00055-4 Understanding of Innovation. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, (1): 114–127. Feurstein, K., Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K., Thoben, T., & Schumacher, J. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-8918.2005.tb00012.x 2008. Living Labs: A New Development Strategy. In J. Schumacher & V. P. Niitamo (Eds.), European Living Labs – A New Approach for Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. 2001. Handbook of Action Research: Human Centric Regional Innovation. Berlin, Germany: Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: Sage Publications. Wissenschaftlicher. Rits, O., Schuurman, D., & Ballon, P. 2015. Exploring the Benefits of Følstad, A. 2008. Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Combining Business Modelling with Living Labs. The XXVI ISPIM Communication Technology: A Literature Review. The Electronic Conference – Shaping the Frontiers of Innovation Management, Journal for Virtual Organisations and Networks, 10: 99–131. Budapest, Hungary on 14-17 June 2015, (June). Foth, M. 2009. Handbook of Research on Urban Informatics: The Schaffers, H., & Budweg, S. 2009. A Living Lab Approach for Practice and Promise of the Real-Time City. Hershey, PA: IGI Enhancing Collaboration in Professional Communities. Global. Proceedings of the International Conference on Concurrent http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-152-0 Enterprising. Leiden, The Netherlands. Franz, Y. 2014. Chances and Challenges for Social Urban Living Labs Schumacher, J., & Niitamo, V. P. (Eds.). 2008. European Living Labs: A in Urban Research. ENoLL OpenLivingLab Days 2014 Conference New Approach for Human Centric Regional Innovation. Berlin, Proceedings: 105–114. Amsterdam, Netherlands. Germany: Fachhochschule Verlag Berlin. Frissen, V., & Lieshout, M. 2004. To User-Centred Innovation Schuurman, D. 2015. Bridging the Gap between Open and User Processes: The Role of Living Labs. Delft, TNO-ICT. Innovation? Exploring the Value of Living Labs as a Means to Structure User Contribution and Manage Distributed Innovation. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University, Belgium. Trow, M. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446221853 www.timreview.ca 29 Technology Innovation Management Review March 2016 (Volume 6, Issue 3) Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship Bastiaan Baccarne, Sara Logghe, Dimitri Schuurman, and Lieven De Marez Schuurman, D., Baccarne, B., Kawsar, F., Seys, C., Veeckman, C., et al. Viitanen, J., & Kingston, R. 2014. Smart Cities and Green Growth: 2013. Living Labs as Quasi-experiments: Results from the Flemish Outsourcing Democratic and Environmental Resilience to the LeYLab. XXIV ISPIM Conference – Innovating in Global Markets: Global Technology Sector. Environment and Planning A, 46(4): Challenges for Sustainable Growth, (June). Helsinki, Finland. 803-819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a46242 Schuurman, D., Lievens, B., De Marez, L., & Ballon, P. 2012. Towards Optimal User Involvement in Innovation Processes: A Panel- Yin, R. 1984. Case Study Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Centered Living Lab-approach. Proceedings of PICMET’12, Young, O. R., Berkhout, F., Gallopin, G. C., Janssen, M. A., Ostrom, E., 2046–2054. & van der Leeuw, S. 2006. The Globalization of Socio-Ecological Ståhlbröst, A. 2008. Forming Future IT - The Living Lab Way of User Systems: An Agenda for Scientific Research. Global Environmental Involvement. Doctoral dissertation, Luleå University of Change, 16(3): 304–316. Technology, Sweden. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.004 Ståhlbröst, A., & Holst, M. 2012. The Living Lab Methodology Handbook. Luleå, Sweden: Luleå University of Technology and Centre for Distance-Spanning Technology (CDT). Citation: Baccarne, B., Logghe, S., Schuurman, D., & De Marez, L. 2016. Governing Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio- Ecological Entrepreneurship. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(3): 22–30. http://timreview.ca/article/972 Keywords: distributed innovation, quintuple helix innovation, social ecology, socio-ecological entrepreneurship, urban living labs www.timreview.ca

Journal

Technology Innovation Management Review – Unpaywall

Published: Mar 30, 2016

There are no references for this article.