social media for user innovation in living labs: a ...834556/fulltext01.pdf · this paper was...

This paper was presented at The XXIV ISPIM Conference – Innovating in Global Markets: Challenges for Sustainable Growth in Helsinki, Finland on 16-19 June 2013. The publication is

available to ISPIM members at www.ispim.org.

1

Social media for user innovation in Living Labs: a framework to support user recruitment and commitment

Anna Ståhlbröst* Luleå Univeristy of Technology, 97187 Luleå, Sweden E-mail: [email protected]

Marco Bertoni Blekinge Institute of Technology, 37179 Karlskrona, Sweden. E-mail [email protected]

Luleå University of Technology, 97187 Luleå, Sweden. E-mail [email protected]

Asbjørn Følstad SINTEF, 0314 Oslo, Norway E-mail [email protected]

Esbjörn Ebbesson Halmstad University, 301 18 Halmstad, Sweden E-mail; [email protected]

Jesper Lund Halmstad University, 301 18 Halmstad, Sweden E-mail; [email protected] * Corresponding author

Abstract: Social media are becoming an increasingly relevant channel for user involvement. However, their uptake in Living Labs environments, as a means to engage users in innovation processes, is still limited. The aim of this paper is to explore challenges and opportunities related to the usage of social media for user involvement in co-creative processes, The findings presented emerge both from the available literature and case studies, and emphasise four different dimensions influencing user engagement: content, community, platform and innovation process. Based on these dimensions, the authors propose a basic framework, intended as the point of departure for taking the next step toward the construction and verification of theoretical constructs that can help inform and guide future innovation projects.

Keywords: Living Lab; social media; user motivation; user recruitment; framework; user maintenance; community



2

1 Introduction Social media are becoming an increasingly relevant channel for user involvement. As of 2012, more than 60% of the European population is online, and almost half of them are present on Facebook, the world's most popular social network (http://internetworldstats.com). The potential for using social media to relate to users and customers has been highlighted by several authors (e.g. Granat, 2006, Vasalou et al., 2008, Kaplan and Haenlein, 2009, Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010), and organizations are already using them to involve users in innovation process. Well-known early examples are Starbucks' My Starbucks Idea (http://mystarbucksidea.force.com) and Dell's Idea Storm (http://ideastorm.com), followed by UserVoice (http://uservoice.com) and GetSatisfaction (http://getsatisfaction.com).

Given the appeal and availability of social media, one would expect a broad uptake of these technologies for user involvement in Living Labs. The Living Lab concept, first theorized by Lasher et al., (1991), can be seen as a general approach to innovation that involve users in co-creative processes within the context of the users' everyday life (Ståhlbröst, 2012b). According to (Bergvall-Kåreborn et al., 2009), a Living Lab is, “a user-centric innovation milieu built on every-day practice and research, with an approach that facilitates user influence in open and distributed innovation processes engaging all relevant partners in real-life contexts, aiming to create sustainable values”. In Living Labs users are typically involved through face-to-face methods borrowed from other fields, such as anthropology and human-computer interaction, including observation, focus groups, ethnographic research (Følstad, 2008), cultural probes (Bergvall-Kåreborn et al., 2010), future workshops and prototyping (Svensson et al., 2010).

Currently there are more than 300 Living Labs associated to the European Network of Living Labs, ENoLL (http://openlivinglabs.eu). Nevertheless, apart from the Finnish Open Web Lab (OWELA, http://owela.vtt.fi), the Norwegian RECORD online Living Lab (http://livinglab.origo.no), and a few other presented cases (Cleland et al., 2012) (Laizane and Haukipuro, 2012), very few of them have taken up social media to complement current used methods for involving users in co-creative processes.

Prior work advocates that Living Lab administrators lack a sufficient overview of available solutions for online user involvement (Følstad and Karahasanovic, 2012), which affects the recruitment and maintenance of an actively contributing pool of user participants. In particular, the mobility of social software users suggests that recruitment and maintenance of user communities is highly challenging (Ståhlbröst, 2012a), and there is not sufficient knowledge today with respect to motivating factors in online groups, which are composed of voluntary contributors (Ståhlbröst and Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2013).

The paper aims to shed light on opportunities and threats concerning the application of social media for user recruitment and involvement in Living Lab innovation processes and presents the findings from a research project named SociaLL (http://sociall.origo.no). These findings emerge and further elaborate on seven challenges for user engagement identified in previous research (Ståhlbröst, 2012a). Firstly, the paper provides a presentation of a review of available literature, which is followed by the research context, describing the methodology applied in the research. Thereafter, it presents the results from the data collection phase, and, based on these findings, it proposes and discusses a framework that supports the maintenance of user engagement in online Living Lab communities. Finally, our conclusions are presented.

2 Social Media and User Innovation Processes Social Media can be defined as a group of internet based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that enable the creation and exchange of user-generated content (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010). This user-generated information can be harnessed in the search for innovation, employing both a passive and active approach - netnography and profiling vs. community engagement, idea competitions and participatory design (Helms et al., 2012).

Social media can support user involvement in all phases of the innovation process, for example in idea generation, (e.g. Hutter et al., 2011, Leimeister et al., 2009), software development (e.g. Barcellini et al., 2008), beta-tests (e.g Di Gangi and Wasko, 2009), field evaluations (e.g. Isomursu et al., 2007) and design (Johnson and Hyysalo, 2012). These authors argue that, when planning user involvement by means of social media services, managers should consider the shifts in developer–user social distance, the cumulated user knowledge beyond one project, and the user-generated content, both in the main service and interconnected user-owned services (Johnson and Hyysalo, 2012). Leminen and Westerlund (2012) indicate that actors in Living Labs have both individual and mutual motives to participate in the innovation development network. From an individual viewpoint, the role of extrinsic motivators is crucial. As private persons become sources of ideas and innovations, an appropriate reward and incentive system that secures payback for all the actors involved should be in place (Ståhlbröst and Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2013).

However, Leminen and Westerlund (2012) observed that users do not always mention financial compensation as a significant reason to participate in the project. Conversely, they perceive that participation in a Living Labs initiative enables them to influence companies’ innovation development in a specific area of their personal interests (Leminen and Westerlund, 2012, Ståhlbröst, 2012b). In other words, they could influence something that is meaningful and has an impact on their personal life and consumption habits. Therefore, they might consider a token gift, or mere formal recognition of their efforts in the project, as a sufficient reward (Leminen and Westerlund, 2012).

Along the same line, findings of a study conducted at the Botnia Living Lab show that the most important factors motivating users to participate in an online innovation community are learning, curiosity, and entertainment (Ståhlbröst and Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2011), which are intrinsic motivators. Similarly, Antikainen (2011) indicates new viewpoints, a sense of efficacy, fun, and a sense of community, as the most important factors affecting users’ participation in these communities, with the latter representing a strong strategy for creating a user base (Budweg et al., 2011).

Engaging and invigorating online Living Lab communities has been challenging in many situations, even in cases where social media had clear benefits compared to current, co-located, ways of working. Schaffers et al. (2009) indicates the initial change resistance towards “yet another tool” as a main challenge to be overcome. This is often caused by the tools lack of maturity at the time they are proposed to the users (Budweg et al., 2011), which makes it difficult to sustain their use beyond the initial testing stage (see: Schaffers 2009). Also, it is important that social software support multiple platforms, so that stakeholders can access the Living Lab whenever they see it fits (Ebbesson and Svensson, 2012), for instance when commuting.

Building trust and operational transparency is also a necessity to commit Living Lab users (Leminen and Westerlund, 2012). To feel involved, users should be treated as equal co-creators instead of research objects (Ståhlbröst, 2012b). This poses severe challenges to the Lab administrators with regards of creating an environment where people can be open about their knowledge and still maintain secrecy about their internal issues. Creating a relaxed atmosphere and providing concrete materials to begin idea exploration



4

is a way to cope with this issue (Lucero et al., 2012). Users, on the other end, can be activated in online discussion by well-defined questions and clear guidelines (Beaudin, 1999), problem-centric and curiosity-arousing wording of the tasks (Friedrich et al., 2012) and clear deadlines (Kienle and Ritterskamp, 2007). Hence, the facilitator has to be skilled in managing activation methods, such as e-mails, to maintain pace in users contribution (Friedrich et al., 2012).

One of the most critical tasks is mediating the feedback from users to developers and vice versa (Gumm et al., 2006, Antikainen, 2011, Bergvall-Kåreborn and Ståhlbröst, 2010). The lack of real time interaction makes it harder to govern the participants’ work in the virtual setting than in face-to-face activities. Facilitators have to balance between dominant users and their quieter counterparts to let everyone add to the discussion (Ebbesson and Svensson, 2012). Moderation in this sense doesn’t only mean restricting or allowing certain activities, but also supporting the Living Lab staff in monitoring more conservative users to promote them to become more active. Facilitator skills become crucial in scenarios were different types of user groups interact, especially when there is a great deal of distance between them, not only spatial but also social and (Ebbesson, 2012).

Looking at the innovation process, users seem to be motivated by formal procedures and knowledge of the Living Labs objectives, such as the facilitator ultimate goals, a thorough explanation of the initiative’s background, and more comprehensive role descriptions of the participants (Leminen and Westerlund, 2012). Also, it is important to plan for flexible development goals, to be adjusted and readjusted based on the on-going work throughout the project (Leminen and Westerlund, 2012, Ståhlbröst, 2012b). Setting too strict objectives and tasks in the beginning of the Living Labs project, rather a long-term vision, has shown to be counterproductive (Leminen and Westerlund, 2012). Also, it is important to document and analyse the accumulated knowledge as the process progresses.

3 Research Context and Methodology In this paper we report on the findings from two focus group interviews that were carried out within the realms of the SociaLL project. In that project the objective was to create valuable use of social software for the co-creation in existing Living Lab infrastructures. Hence, these two focus-group gave us further knowledge on recruitment factors and motivators for engaging in Living Lab activities by means of social media. The first with a pool of experts in innovation projects, the second with master degree students within a computer science program.

A focus-group session is an in-depth discussion in which a small number of people (usually 8-12) from the target population, under the guidance of a facilitator (moderator) discuss topics of importance for a particular study/project (Adams and Blandford, 2005). It is basically a qualitative method in which the moderator, with the help of predetermined guidelines, stimulates free discussion among the participants on the subject of inquiry (Bloor et al., 2001, McQuarrie and McIntyre, 1986, O'Heocha et al., 2012). This method is useful for creating interactive communication among newly constituted conversation groups who share characteristics of interest which in our case was innovation by means of social software (Wibeck, 2000, Bloor et al., 2001). The method is especially suitable in investigating people´s views or attitudes on a certain phenomena.

The study was conducted keeping well in mind that the results of focus-group interviews have to be treated with some caution, since they can only suggest plausible

answers, and cannot be indicative of the distribution of attitudes or beliefs in the population.

Focus-group 1 The first focus group was conducted during January 2013 with experts in innovation projects with academic background. The session involved in total 8 people: 5 PhD students, 2 senior researchers and 1 professor (responsible for the subject of Product Innovation) from a division called Innovation and Design. The session, which lasted for about 1 and half hours, was audio-recorded and then transcribed by the moderator, who also covered the role of note-taker during the session. The transcripts were validated with the participants, who, is some cases, provided further elucidations and comments.

The session was kicked-off by a brief introduction from the moderator, to remind purpose and rules of the focus group. The participants were asked to describe themselves, their experience with innovation processes and with social media tools. The discussion was initially oriented toward more general issues, slowly flowing into more specific ones. At the end, a few probing questions were asked to reveal more in-depth information or to clarify earlier statements or responses.

A main topic that drove the discussion was the difference between short-term online innovation initiatives and long-term ones. Short-term initiatives were intended as those executed “una tantum”, and lasting from a few days to several weeks. Long-term initiatives were intended as communities that gather continuously, during a significant amount of time, spanning over several years.

Focus-group 2 A second session was organized with students in the “Organisational development through IT” master degree course. Since most students were not co-located, it was decided to arrange a teleconference focus group to reach out the highest number of possible participants.

Participation was voluntary. In total, 4 people provided availability; however only 3 eventually joined the group. The first participant had children in adult age, worked as GIS engineer in a mapping company and was a debater in local newspapers. The second participant was 50 years old and worked as web administrator. The third participant had worked in the topic of information security for more than 10 years. Overall, they were all knowledgeable in the topics of information sharing, data security and social media, while their experience with innovation projects was not outstanding.

The session lasted for about 1 hour, and was run using Adobe Connect®. The moderator also covered the role of the note-taker during the session, and later transcribed the audio-recordings. The transcripts were validated with the participants, without further elucidations being received.

Following a brief introduction, the students were asked to introduce themselves, describing their experience with innovation processes and social media. The discussion was initially oriented toward generic issues, slowly flowing into more specific ones. In sum, the project aim was not to gain a deep understanding of a specified group, but rather to understand the phenomena in a broad sense. The diversity of the groups made it possible to collect a wide array of experiences and expectations about social media as support for innovation processes. Hence, the findings are mainly indicative, but still show tendencies and aspects relevant for innovation process managers aiming to use social media as a tool to support their processes.

In the pursuit of finding the factors that influence recruitment and commitment, an analysis of the focus-group interviews was carried out. In order to support a holistic and



6

thorough analysis of the results, the interviews were transcribed verbatim before digging into the analysis of the material. This process kicked off with an open analysis where the transcripts were read with an open mind to find patterns and themes in the data (Thomsson, 2002). Thereafter data were color-coded, and by clustering the data four main themes emerged as the most relevant in relation to user recruitment and commitment, which are: innovation process, content, community, and platform.

4 Aspects influencing user engagement in Living Lab online processes

Innovation process Activities in Living Labs aiming to involve online innovation communities need to be organized and guided by a well-defined process, in which objectives, problems and activities needed to carry out the process are defined (Friedrich et al., 2012). This was also an issue that was posed during the focus groups in our study, in which a will to contribute to something concrete was expressed. Immature or high level descriptions might give the feeling that the innovation is too far from the user daily experience. However, an innovation that is experienced as very mature might also be demotivating, because users can feel constrained in the possibility to have a say in technical matters and they might experience that the action span they have are limited. Hence, balancing the maturity level of the innovation that is developed in the Living Lab is an important factor, since the opportunity to have impact on the innovation is a main element for creating commitment and engagement, as one of the participants recognised: “I would like to be able to see any effect, if I would be able to see the results, I would like to contribute. My motivation is not to be credited, but I want things to change, so I want to see what the outcome is”.

The timing of the innovation activity is another important aspect when engaging users in Living Lab online activities, as recognised in previous studies (Ståhlbröst, 2012a). In this study, the expected length of the activity was highlighted as important for user recruitment and engagement. As one of the participant stated: “I would rather take part in short-term initiatives, because they would give me more control and insight on what is going to happen. In a long-term initiative, I have little possibilities to see an outcome: I will probably lack time and resources to hang around long enough”. Long-term initiatives have a somewhat higher threshold for the users to engage. In these processes, the purpose changes from “creating” to “learning”, which also has been recognised as a motivating factor for users engagement in innovation processes in general (Ståhlbröst and Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2011). Another way to create a commitment to the innovation process is to divide it into sub-tasks and goals that are clearly defined with a fixed deadline, because it has been observed that participants contribute more on deadline days (Kienle and Ritterskamp, 2007). Dividing the work into small and well defined tasks is also aligned with the crowdsourcing trend, where the people of the crowd are motivated to contribute to micro tasks rather than grappling with a large task (Muhdi and Boutellier, 2011).

To conclude, in order for users to engage in Living Lab online innovation processes by means of social media, it is important that the goals are defined, the tasks are small, and the timing of their efforts is suitable. The users also want to gain something for themselves when they decide to hang out in the community and to share experience with its members. This gain does not necessarily need to be personal, but can be in terms of visible influence on the final innovation.

Community Creating an online innovation process also requires that the Living Lab organises a functioning community. The objective of a community and its expected life cycle were lively debated in the focus group interviews. Participants stated that it would be beneficial to create separate communities for each specific innovation, with a specified end date. A community could also be set up with the endeavour to run it for a longer period of time not being limited to a specific innovation. It can work either way according to the focus-group participants, but they would probably be more likely to participate in short-term communities since they are motivated to see the impact of their efforts on the final innovation.

To create a lively and vibrant community it is important to create a sense of belonging to it (Bacon, 2009, Ståhlbröst, 2012a). That was also one of the most debated issues in the focus groups. Participants stated that, when the aim it so share experience and passion, they mainly look for groups and individuals that are similar to themselves. Participation is no longer driven by the need to “be part of the crowd”, rather it is more important to feel “part of the tribe”. Only in this way it is believed possible for people to come back to the community and contribute continuously. As expressed by one of the participants: “I would like to be there only if the group is small /…/ It would be better to get invited to a small group that wants to help, that wants to do something… In my ideal world, this community should be quite small”.

Emerging from these inputs, one of the participants also elaborated on the ideal size for an online community for being effective with problem solving: “I think you have to hook up in social media, but if you have to discuss something important you have to narrow it down to something smaller, so it is not open for the all mass. Maybe a conversation group with 4-5 people”. It is also important to get to know each other in the community: “If I do not know the person there is no way I am going to contribute.” Hence, to create commitment among the users, Living Labs need to create small and well-defined communities where people can meet and interact with likeminded individuals.

The creation of commitment to the community and the innovation process is also highly influenced by the feedback the users get. Here the focus group participants stated that: “I would definitively stop sharing if nobody shows interest”, or that “I feel so childish when I post something and nobody likes or give comments”. Here a facilitator can mediate the feedback from the users to the developers, from the developers to the users, and also between the users in the community (Gumm et al., 2006, Antikainen, 2011). In our study, the importance of a facilitator was confirmed. The participants also expanded her/his role to not only guide the tribe, but also to expose himself for creating trust: “I would like to have a facilitator that I know who he is, what he has done, what his/her background is”.

The group further elaborated on the means of interaction between the members in the community, reasoning on the most and least motivating mechanisms. Comments are perceived as more engaging, as they show more interest compared to a “like”. They are preferred to “likes” even if negative, because they show more “effort” from the counterpart. Although less motivating than comments, likes are considered an important form of “confirmation” and “acceptance” within the community. One of the participants said she was even used to remove posts with the least number of likes, in order not to sound as an “uninteresting” person.

Another aspect that creates commitment to the innovation process is the possibility to get rewards. One thing that function as a reward in Living Lab activities can be the possibility to achieve a higher status in the community: “They have also a lot of encouraging methods for the users to contribute, such as badges. I can get a mail saying



8

that I have obtained a badge, because I have contributed so much”. Hence, rewards do not necessarily need to be monetary but can also be in terms of recognitions or status (Ståhlbröst and Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2011, Leminen and Westerlund, 2012). There is also a difference in the nature of the reward is different types of communities such as short-term or long-term communities. In the first, rewards could be linked to problem-solving and to tangible results, for instance to a certain level of completeness in the project. In the latter, rewards are more closely connected to learning objective and personal training (Hars and Ou, 2002, Muhdi and Boutellier, 2011). Based on this discussion, Living Labs who wants to create a lively community around an innovation needs to consider the size of the community, perhaps having small groups that already are familiar with other groups, and that can be expanded with more people by invitations. What is important here is to create and sustain a tribe like feeling to keep the users engaged and committed. Living Labs also need to design a rewarding system that encourages different types of users to become committed to the process.

Content A community is nothing without an appealing content. This was also acknowledged by the focus-group participants as an important factor to get them motivated. As explained by one of the participants: “If you want good inputs you have to get them when something is triggering interest, when something happens”. She further explained that this kind of engagement is not generally lasting for long time: “It works in that moment only, after a while the moment is gone”. It is also important to make the innovation initiative visible. As one of the participants stated: “I would only participate if the topic pops up in my face, if it is debated in the media. I would not go out and search for it.” It is therefore important to advertise and make people interested in the debate and to communicate the content in the community and the process.

However, it is not enough to have appealing and timely content; it also needs to have good quality. One of the participants observed that the amount of likes received on input can have a reverse relationship with the quality of the content. An artistic picture might get a lot of likes, although it provides a minimum contribution from an innovation point of view. On the other end, people often receive a few likes when trying to be more creative and make a point: “You can get trapped in the idea of getting as many likes as possible, and then your only desire is to be seen as a person. What you write is about you to be seen, not the idea to be seen. You can get likes that have nothing to do with the innovation in itself”. Here, the power of the community can work in two directions: an input can get a lot of attention without really being relevant to the innovation, or poor contributions are corrected by the community, as seen in for example the development of Wikipedia (Nov, 2007).

Content providers also need to feel safe, both with the social software platform as well as with the Living Lab behind the community. If they feel safe, their willingness to contribute to the processes becomes strengthened. The focus-group participants highlighted the issue concerning how people are going to use the information uploaded on community. As one of the participants reminded: “Even if I am surrounded by friends, it is a good strategy to think that my worst enemies may see what I contribute with, or talk about”. This attitude triggers self-censorship behaviours, as reminded by some of the participants, who stated: “When you speak open in social media it is hard to be totally honest”. In sum, to engage people, it is vital for Living Labs to stimulate and support the production of quality content and make it visible to a broad audience. In addition, Living Labs needs to stimulate users curiosity and make sure that content being produced in the interaction among the participants are handled with great care.

Platform The online innovation process needs to be situated in a platform that supports, stores, monitors and motivates its operations. O’Brien and Toms (2008) state that user’s subjective experiences with the IT platform are central to user engagement. The choice of social software platform also influences users commitment to the innovation process (Ståhlbröst, 2012a). Here, several aspects are important to consider. Firstly, the social software and its familiarity, its suitability for the task at hand, the possibility to support project specific adjustments and its aesthetic appeal. Secondly, users commitment to the innovation process is also influenced by the selection of social software and the nature of the community it attracts (Ståhlbröst, 2012a).

People also remember enjoyable and useful experiences and want to repeat them and this relates to user’s feelings of being drawn in, interested and having fun during the interaction with the social software platform (O’Brien and Toms, 2012). This means that the social software platform needs to support focused attention among its users. Related to the social software is also the security and control over the information being shared. The focus-group participants recognized that commitment is negatively affected by the lack of control over the information shared in online communities. In the group discussions, Facebook was extensively used to exemplify concerns about the ownership of the material uploaded on the social web. On the one hand, some participants complained about the way material is stored and shared in social media (i.e., their physical location), as well as about how the ownership rights are set by social media providers. On the other hand, participants raised concerns about the way material uploaded in an online community tends to immediately spread over the Internet: thumbnails and links are almost instantly made visible by search engines, making impossible to erase them completely. Hence, when choosing platform to support the innovation process, the Living Lab needs to consider security aspects as well as its power of attraction. In addition, the platform needs to be aesthetically appealing and support communication among the participants.

The four themes emerging from this analysis have been further detailed, and then consolidated in a framework for user recruitment and commitment, which is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Framework for user recruitment and commitment



10

5 Conclusion The study has highlighted the role of human and technical elements to support user recruitment and commitment in online innovation communities, together with the importance of communicating ideas by the means of ad hoc enablers within the Living Lab environment.

These four themes, content, community, innovation process and platform, have to be carefully accounted for when planning and implementing user involvement strategies in Living Lab communities. Also, innovation managers have to consider that some initiatives are short-term and with a strong focus on outputs and results, which emphasise the need for conducting them at the right time, communicating progress and achievements, to keep users tighten to the community. Those initiatives that do not feature the same time constraints, and that are more oriented towards learning, require a careful segmentation of users, to orient them towards topics in which they are most passionate about.

The proposed framework represents a point of departure for taking the next step toward the construction and verification of theoretical constructs that can help inform and guide future innovation projects. Future work will be dedicated to the further development and verification of the framework, which will be conducted both by quantitative and qualitative means. Also, it will be used to guide the development of a collaboration platform to support online Living Lab activities.

References

ADAMS, A. & BLANDFORD, A. (2005) Bridging the gap between organizational and

user perspectives of security in the clinical domain. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 1-2, 175-202.

ANTIKAINEN, M. (2011) Facilitating customer involvement in collaborative online innovation communities. . VTT Publications 760.

BACON, J. (2009) The Art of Community: Building the New Age of Participation, Sebastopol, O'Reilly Media Inc.

BARCELLINI, F., DÉTIENNE, F. & BURKHARDT, J.-M. (2008) User and developer mediation in an Open Source Software community: Boundary spanning through cross participation in online discussions. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 7, 558-570.

BEAUDIN, B. P. (1999) Keeping online asynchronous discussions on topic. Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3, 41-53.

BERGVALL-KÅREBORN, B., HOWCROFT, D., STÅHLBRÖST, A. & MELANDER-WIKMAN, A. (2010) Participating in Living Lab: Designing Systems with Users. I: Human Benefit through the Diffusion of Information Systems Design Science Research : IFIP WG 8.2/8.6 International Working Conference, . Perth, Australia, March 30 - April 1, Berlin : Springer, 2010. s. 317-326 (IFIP International Federation for Information Processing; 318).

BERGVALL-KÅREBORN, B., IHLSTRÖM ERIKSSON, C., STÅHLBRÖST, A. & SVENSSON, J. (2009) A Milieu for Innovation - Defining Living Labs. The 2nd ISPIM Innovation Symposium - Stimulating Recovery - The Role of Innovation Management. New York City, USA.

BERGVALL-KÅREBORN, B. & STÅHLBRÖST, A. (2010) User Expressions Translated to Requirement. Human Technology, 6, 2, 212-229.

BLOOR, M., FRANKLAND, J., THOMAS, M. & ROBSON, K. (2001) Focus Groups in Social Research, London, Sage Publications.

BUDWEG, S., SCHAFFERS, H., RULAND, R., KRISTENSEN, K. & PRINZ, W. (2011) Enhancing collaboration in communities of professionals using a Living Lab approach,. Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, 22, 5, 594-609.

CLELAND, B., MULVENNA, M., GALBRAITH, B., WALLACE, J. & MARTIN, S. (2012) Innovation of eParticipation Strategies Using Living Labs as Intermediaries. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 10, 2, 120-132.

DI GANGI, P. M. & WASKO, M. (2009) Steal my idea! Organizational adoption of user innovations from a user innovation community: A case study of Dell IdeaStorm. Decision Support Systems, 48, 1, 303-312.

EBBESSON, E. (2012) Facilitating Distributed Multi-stakeholder Co-creative Innovation Processes. Proceedings of the 35th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia, IRIS'35. Uppsala, Sweden.

EBBESSON, E. & SVENSSON, J. (2012) Criteria for social software implementation in Living Labs. IN FØLSTAD, A., STÅHLBRÖST, A., EBBESSON, E. & SVENSSON, J. (Eds.) Innovation through Social Media, ISM 2012. Oslo, Norway.

FRIEDRICH, P., FRIEDRICH, P., HUHTAMÄKI, J., KOSKELA-HUOTARI, K., KARPPINEN, K. & STILL, K. (2012) Facilitating active participation in web-based co-development. IN FØLSTAD, A., STÅHLBRÖST, A., EBBESSON, E. & SVENSSON, J. (Eds.) Proceedings of the ISM 2012. Olso, Norway.

FØLSTAD, A. (2008) Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Information and Communication Technology: A Literature Review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organisations and Networks, 10 Special Issue on Living Labs,, 100-131.

FØLSTAD, A. & KARAHASANOVIC, A. (2012) Online applications for user involvement in Living Lab innovation processes. e-Society 2012. IADIS Press.

GRANAT, P. (2006) Strategy first: How to make Web 2.0 work for you. Public Relations Tactics, 13, 11, 38-38.

GUMM, D. C., JANNECK, M. & FINCK, M. I. (2006) Distributed Participatory Design - A Case Study. Proceedings of NordiCHI 2006.

HARS, A. & OU, S. (2002) Working for free? Motivations for Participating in Open-Source Projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6, 3, 25-39.

HELMS, R. W., BOOJI, E. & SPRUIT, M. R. (2012) Reaching Out: Involving Users in Innovation Tasks Through Social Media. ECIS 2012. Barcelona, Spain.

HUTTER, K., HAUTZ, J., FÜLLER, J., MUELLER, J. & MATZLER, K. (2011) Communitition: The Tension between Competition and Collaboration in Community-Based Design Contests. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20, 1, 3-21.

ISOMURSU, M., TAHTI, M., VAINAMO, S. & KUUTTI, K. (2007) Experimental evaluation of five methods for collecting emotions in field settings with mobile applications. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 4, 404-418.

JOHNSON, M. & HYYSALO, S. (2012) Lessons for participatory designers of social media: long-term user involvement strategies in industry. 12th Participatory Design Conference (PDC). Roskilde, Denmark.



12

KAPLAN, A. M. & HAENLEIN, M. (2009) The fairyland of Second Life: Virtual social worlds and how to use them. Business Horizons, 52, 6, 563-572.

KAPLAN, A. M. & HAENLEIN, M. (2010) Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53, 1, 59-68.

KIENLE, A. & RITTERSKAMP, C. (2007) Facilitating asynchronous discussions in learning communities: the impact of moderation strategies. Behaviour & Information Technology,, 26, 1, 73-80.

LAIZANE, S. & HAUKIPURO, L. (2012) Preliminary experiences with the online PATIO in a multi-contextual Living Lab environment. Proceedings of the international workshop on innovation through social media (ISM2012). Oslo, Norway, Akademika forlag.

LASHER, D. R., IVES, B. & JARVENPAA, S. L. (1991) USAA-IBM Partnerships in Information Technology: Managing the Image Project. MIS Quarterly, 15, 4, 551-565.

LEIMEISTER, J., HUBER, M., BRETSHNEIDER, U. & HELMUT, K. (2009) Leveraging Crowdsourcing: Activation-Supporting Components for IT-Based Ideas Competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 1, 197-224.

LEMINEN, S. & WESTERLUND, M. (2012) Towards innovation in Living Labs networks. International Journal of Product Development, 17, 1/2, 43-59.

LUCERO, A., VAAJAKALLIO, K. & DALSGAARD, P. (2012) The dialogue-labs method: process, space and materials as structuring elements to spark dialogue in co-design events. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 8, 1, 1-23.

MCQUARRIE, E., F. & MCINTYRE, S., H. (1986) Focus groups and the development of new products by technologically driven companies: Some guidelines. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 3, 1, 40-47.

MUHDI, L. & BOUTELLIER, R. (2011) MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS AFFECTING PARTICIPATION AND CONTRIBUTION OF MEMBERS IN TWO DIFFERENT SWISS INNOVATION COMMUNITIES. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15, 3, 543-562.

NOV, O. (2007) What Motivates Wikipedians. Communication of the ACM, 50, 11, 60-64.

O'HEOCHA, C., WANG, X. & CONBOY, K. (2012) The use of focus groups in complex and pressurised IS studies and evaluation using Klein & Myers principles for interpretive research. Information Systems Journal, 22, 3, 235-256.

O’BRIEN, H. L. & TOMS, E. G. (2008) What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. JASIST, 59, 6, 938-955.

O’BRIEN, H. L. & TOMS, E. G. (2012) Examining the generalizability of the User Engagement Scale (UES) in exploratory search. Information Processing & Management, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 22 October 2012.

SCHAFFERS, H., BUDWEG, S., KRISTENSEN, K. & RULAND, R. (2009) A Living Lab approach for enhancing collaboration in professional communities. 15th international conference on concurrent enterprising, ICE 2009. Leiden.

STÅHLBRÖST, A. (2012a) Challenges with Social Media for User Involvement IN FØLSTAD, A. (Ed.) Innovation through Social Media, ISM 2012. Oslo, Norway.

STÅHLBRÖST, A. (2012b) A Set of Key-Principles to Assess the Impact of Living Labs. International Journal of Product Development, 17, 1-2, 60-75.

STÅHLBRÖST, A. & BERGVALL-KÅREBORN, B. (2011) Exploring Users Motivation in Innovation Communities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 14, 4, 298-314.

STÅHLBRÖST, A. & BERGVALL-KÅREBORN, B. (2013) Voluntary Contributors in Open Innovation Processes. IN ERIKSSON LUNDSTRÖM, J. S. Z. W., M.; HRASTINSKI, S.; EDENIUS, M.; ÅGERFALK, P.J (Ed.) Managing Open Innovation Technologies.

SVENSSON, J., ESBJÖRNSSON, E. & ERIKSSON, C. I. (2010) User Contribution in Innovation Processes - Reflections from a Living Lab Perspective. HICCS 2010, the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Maui, Hawaii, New York, NY: IEEE.

THOMSSON, H. (2002) Reflexiva intervjuer, Lund, Studentlitteratur. VASALOU, A., JOINSON, A., BÄNZIGER, T., GOLDIE, P. & PITT, J. (2008) Avatars

in social media: Balancing accuracy, playfulness and embodied messages. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66, 11, 801-811.

WIBECK, V. (2000) Fokusgrupper - Om fokuserade gruppintervjuer som undersökningsmetod, Lund, Studentlitteratur.

social media for user innovation in living labs: a ...834556/fulltext01.pdf · this paper was...

Documents