IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i12p5496-d1679002.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Exploring Challenges and Mitigation Strategies of Applying a Living Lab Approach in an Innovation Project

Author

Listed:
  • Elias Blanckaert

    (imec-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1050 Ixelles, Belgium)

  • Louise Hallström

    (imec-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1050 Ixelles, Belgium)

  • Iris Jennes

    (imec-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1050 Ixelles, Belgium)

  • Wendy Van den Broeck

    (imec-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1050 Ixelles, Belgium)

Abstract

The living lab methodology is widely used in innovation projects to drive user-centered development. While its benefits, such as co-creation and real-world validation, are well known, its implementation presents challenges that remain underexplored. This study examines these challenges by using the Horizon 2020 Möbius project as a case study. While the Möbius project itself aimed to modernize European book publishing through an immersive reading application and a data visualization tool, this study reflects on the implementation process of the living lab approach within that context, using an action research approach. After project completion, a structured brainstorming session reviewed identified challenges and mitigation strategies. Findings highlight three key challenges. First, misalignment between assumed and actual stakeholder needs hindered industry engagement. Second, recruitment was complicated by the ambiguous use of “prosumer”, causing confusion among participants. Third, communication gaps and personnel changes disrupted the integration of user feedback into development cycles. These challenges underscore the need for early and continuous stakeholder alignment, adaptive communication, and structured knowledge management. Based on these findings, the study proposes strategies to improve engagement and integrate user insights more effectively, ultimately enhancing the impact of living lab-based innovation projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Elias Blanckaert & Louise Hallström & Iris Jennes & Wendy Van den Broeck, 2025. "What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Exploring Challenges and Mitigation Strategies of Applying a Living Lab Approach in an Innovation Project," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-20, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5496-:d:1679002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5496/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5496/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Francesca Toso & Rens Brankaert & Niels Hendriks & Lieke Lenaerts & Andrea Wilkinson, 2023. "Reflecting on Living Labs as Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Networks to Evaluate Technological Products for People Living with Dementia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Nguyen, Huong Thu & Marques, Pilar & Benneworth, Paul, 2022. "Living labs: Challenging and changing the smart city power relations?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    3. Krassimira Paskaleva & Ian Cooper & Per Linde & Bo Peterson & Christina Götz, 2015. "Stakeholder Engagement in the Smart City: Making Living Labs Work," Public Administration and Information Technology, in: Manuel Pedro Rodríguez-Bolívar (ed.), Transforming City Governments for Successful Smart Cities, edition 127, pages 115-145, Springer.
    4. Marcel Bogers & Ann-Kristin Zobel & Allan Afuah & Esteve Almirall & Sabine Brunswicker & Linus Dahlander & Lars Frederiksen & Annabelle Gawer & Marc Gruber & Stefan Haefliger & John Hagedoorn & Dennis, 2017. "The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 8-40, January.
    5. Kelly Bronson & Rachana Devkota & Vivian Nguyen, 2021. "Moving toward Generalizability? A Scoping Review on Measuring the Impact of Living Labs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, January.
    6. Paskaleva, Krassimira & Cooper, Ian, 2021. "Are living labs effective? Exploring the evidence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abi Saad, Elie & Agogué, Marine, 2024. "Living Labs in science-industry collaborations: Roles, design, and application patterns," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    2. Franzò, Simone & Doppio, Nicola & Natalicchio, Angelo & Frattini, Federico & Mion, Luca, 2023. "Designing innovation contests to support external knowledge search in small and medium-sized enterprises," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    3. Marina Van Geenhuizen, 2023. "Knowledge Advancing Shopping Mall Living Labs and Customer Value Co-Creation, with a Focus on Social Integration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-14, November.
    4. Marchesani, Filippo & Ceci, Federica, 2025. "A quadruple helix view on smart city: Exploring the effect of internal and external open innovation on public services digitalization," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    5. Baldwin, Carliss Y. & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Kapoor, Rahul & West, Joel, 2024. "Focusing the ecosystem lens on innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(3).
    6. Spaniol, Matthew J. & Rowland, Nicholas J., 2022. "Business ecosystems and the view from the future: The use of corporate foresight by stakeholders of the Ro-Ro shipping ecosystem in the Baltic Sea Region," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    7. Bertschek, Irene & Kesler, Reinhold, 2022. "Let the user speak: Is feedback on Facebook a source of firms’ innovation?," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    8. Lindsay P. Galway & Charles Z. Levkoe & Rachel L. W. Portinga & Kathryn Milun, 2021. "A Scoping Review Examining Governance, Co-Creation, and Social and Ecological Justice in Living Labs Literature," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-16, December.
    9. Radziwon, Agnieszka & Bogers, Marcel, 2019. "Open innovation in SMEs: Exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 573-587.
    10. Paskaleva, Krassimira & Cooper, Ian, 2021. "Are living labs effective? Exploring the evidence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    11. Luciana Cingolani & Tim Hildebrandt, 2022. "Incentive Structures for the Adoption of Crowdsourcing in Public Policy: A Bureaucratic Politics Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-16, October.
    12. Anna Maria Lis & Marita McPhillips & Adrian Lis, 2020. "Sustainability of Cluster Organizations as Open Innovation Intermediaries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Gerd Lupp & Aude Zingraff-Hamed & Josh J. Huang & Amy Oen & Stephan Pauleit, 2020. "Living Labs—A Concept for Co-Designing Nature-Based Solutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-22, December.
    14. Cenamor, Javier, 2021. "Complementor competitive advantage: A framework for strategic decisions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 335-343.
    15. Molinari, Marco & Anund Vogel, Jonas & Rolando, Davide & Lundqvist, Per, 2023. "Using living labs to tackle innovation bottlenecks: the KTH Live-In Lab case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 338(C).
    16. Haruo Awano & Masaharu Tsujimoto, 2022. "Mechanisms for Business Ecosystem Members to Capture Value through the Strong Network Effect," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-13, September.
    17. David Doloreux & Luisa Kraft, 2019. "A Taxonomy of Eco-Innovation Types in SMEs: Exploring Different Firm Profiles in the Canadian Wine Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-14, October.
    18. Parjanen, Satu & Hyypiä, Mirva, 2019. "Innotin game supporting collective creativity in innovation activities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 26-34.
    19. Dolata, Ulrich, 2023. "Industrieplattformen: Eine neue Form der Handlungskoordination in der Wirtschaft," Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies, SOI Discussion Papers 2024-01, University of Stuttgart, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies.
    20. Siegel, Donald & Bogers, Marcel L.A.M. & Jennings, P. Devereaux & Xue, Lan, 2023. "Technology transfer from national/federal labs and public research institutes: Managerial and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5496-:d:1679002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.