Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Living Lab Perspective on Information Systems Development Process

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Information Systems Development (ISD 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation ((LNISO,volume 63))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 154 Accesses

Abstract

This article explores the information systems development (ISD) process when ISD follows a living lab approach. A living lab is an innovation development approach in which stakeholders are involved in cocreating, implementing, testing and adopting innovations in a real-life setting. Several aspects of living lab settings, such as the voluntary nature of user engagement, the real-life context of innovation development and the resulting difficulty of observation, and the immaturity of innovation in living lab activities, influence the ISD process in living lab settings. Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to understand how the ISD process is shaped when ISD follows a living lab approach. The aim will be achieved by conducting four participatory knowledge generation workshops as the primary sources of empirical data in the context of three European projects (namely, AdaptUrbanRail, UNaLab, and LiLaCC) as well as an international conference (DLLD20). A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis of the ISD process following the living lab approach will also be presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bannon, L., Bardzell, J., & Bødker, S. (2018). Introduction: Reimagining participatory design—Emerging voices. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 25(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3177794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bano, M., & Zowghi, D. (2015). A systematic review on the relationship between user involvement and system success. Information and Software Technology, 58, 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bansler, J. (1989). Systems development research in Scandinavia: Three theoretical schools. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baskerville, R. L., & Myers, M. D. (2002). Information systems as a reference discipline. MIS Quarterly, 26(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/4132338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bergvall-Kareborn, B., Hoist, M., & Stahlbrost, A. (2009). Concept design with a living lab approach. In 2009 42nd Hawaii International conference on system sciences (pp. 1–10). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Ståhlbrost, A. (2008). Participatory design: One step back or two steps forward? In Proceedings of the tenth anniversary conference on participatory design (pp. 102–111). Luleå University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bjerknes, G., & Bratteteig, T. (1995). User participation and democracy: A discussion of Scandinavian research on system development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 7(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2010). Participatory design and “democratizing innovation”. In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial participatory design conference (pp. 41–50). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brønnum, L., & Møller, L. (2013). The dynamics and facilitation of a living lab construct. In ISPIM conference proceedings (p. 1). ISPIM.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chang, H.-H., & Huang, W.-C. (2006). Application of a quantification SWOT analytical method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 43(1), 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2005.08.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting, from technology. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chronéer, D., Ståhlbröst, A., & Habibipour, A. (2019). Urban living labs: Towards an integrated understanding of their key components. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1224.

  13. Clemmensen, T., Rajanen, D., Rajanen, M., & Abdelnour-Nocera, J. (2019). Introduction to the special issue on HCI in a sharing society. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 11(3), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.17705/1thci.00115.

  14. Dell’Era, C., & Landoni, P. (2014). Living lab: A methodology between user-centred design and participatory design. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Di Gangi, P. M., & Wasko, M. (2009). The co-creation of value: Exploring user engagement in user-generated content websites. In Proceedings of JAIS theory development workshop. Sprouts: Working papers on information systems (pp. 9–50).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gulliksen, J., Göransson, B., Boivie, I., Blomkvist, S., Persson, J., & Cajander, Å. (2003). Key principles for user-centred systems design. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(6), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001624329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gurl, E., & Tat, M. (2017). SWOT analysis: A theoretical review. The Journal of International Social Research, 10, 994–1006. https://doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1832.

  19. Habibipour, A. (2020). User engagement in living labs: Issues and concerns. Doctoral dissertation, Luleå University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Habibipour, A., Lindberg, J., Runardotter, M., Elmistikawy, Y., Ståhlbröst, A., & Chronéer, D. (2022). Rural living labs: Inclusive digital transformation in the countryside. Technology Innovation Management Review, 11(9/10), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1465.

  21. He, J., & King, W. R. (2008). The role of user participation in information systems development: Implications from a meta-analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(1), 301–331. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222250111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Herrmann, T. (2009). Systems design with the socio-technical walkthrough. In B. Whitworth & A. de Moor (Eds.), Handbook of research on socio-technical design and social networking systems (pp. 336–351). IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. K. (2012). A glorious and not-so-short history of the information systems field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(4), 188–235. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00294.

  24. Ismagilova, E., Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Raman, K. R. (2019). Smart cities: Advances in research—An information systems perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 47, 88–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jespersen, K. (2010). User-involvement and open innovation: The case of decision-maker openness. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(3), 471–489. https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391961000274X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaplan, B., & Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research methods for evaluating computer information systems. In J. G. Anderson & C. E. Aydin (Eds.), Evaluating the organizational impact of healthcare information systems (pp. 30–55). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1998). Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7(3), 167–185. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008689307411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A.-G. (2012). Living labs as open-innovation networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/602.

  29. McNeese, M. D., Perusich, K., & Rentsch, J. R. (2000). Advancing socio-technical systems design via the living laboratory. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (pp. 2–610). SAGE Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mulder, I. (2012). Living labbing the Rotterdam way: Co-creation as an enabler for urban innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/607.

  31. Mumford, E. (2000). A socio-technical approach to systems design. Requirements Engineering, 5(2), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00010345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pilemalm, S., Lindell, P.-O., Hallberg, N., & Eriksson, H. (2007). Integrating the rational unified process and participatory design for development of socio-technical systems: A user participative approach. Design Studies, 28(3), 263–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Robertson, T., & Simonsen, J. (2012). Challenges and opportunities in contemporary participatory design. Design Issues, 28(3), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schaffers, H., Merz, C., & Guzman, J. G. (2009). Living labs as instruments for business and social innovation in rural areas. In 2009 IEEE International technology management conference (ICE) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Schuurman, D. (2015). Bridging the gap between open and user innovation? : Exploring the value of Living Labs as a means to structure user contribution and manage distributed innovation. Ghent University

    Google Scholar 

  37. Schuurman, D., Marez, L., & Ballon, P. (2013). Open innovation processes in living lab innovation systems: Insights from the LeYLab. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(11), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/743.

  38. Shin, D. (2019). A living lab as socio-technical ecosystem: Evaluating the Korean living lab of internet of things. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ståhlbröst, A. (2008). Forming future IT—The living lab way of user involvement. Doctoral dissertation, Luleå Tekniska Universitet.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ståhlbröst, A., & Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. (2013). Voluntary contributors in open innovation processes. In J. S. Z. Eriksson Lundström, M. Wiberg, S. Hrastinski, M. Edenius, & P. J. Ågerfalk (Eds.), Managing open innovation technologies (pp. 133–149). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Takey, S. M., & Carvalho, M. M. (2016). Fuzzy front end of systemic innovations: A conceptual framework based on a systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tiwana, A., & McLean, E. R. (2005). Expertise integration and creativity in information systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 13–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Vines, J., Clarke, R., Wright, P., McCarthy, J., & Olivier, P. (2013). Configuring participation: on how we involve people in design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 429–438). ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  45. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 55(1), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-004-0002-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. (2014). Open innovation: The next decade. Research Policy, 43(5), 805–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary—the new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0322

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by Vinnova in the context of AdaptUrbanRail (Grant Agreement No. 2021-02456), the European Commission in the context of the Horizon 2020 project UNaLab (Grant Agreement No. 730052), and Erasmus+ LiLaCC—Living Laboratory in Climate Change project (Grant Agreement No. 618209), which is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information Systems, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden

    Abdolrasoul Habibipour & Anna Ståhlbröst

Authors
  1. Abdolrasoul Habibipour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Ståhlbröst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdolrasoul Habibipour .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Business Informatics Research Center, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Gheorghe Cosmin Silaghi

  2. Business Informatics Research Center, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj Napoca, Romania

    Robert Andrei Buchmann

  3. Department of Computer Science, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Virginia Niculescu

  4. Department of Computer Science, Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Gabriela Czibula

  5. Business Information Systems Discipline, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland

    Chris Barry

  6. Business Information Systems Discipline, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland

    Michael Lang

  7. Department of Human-Centred Computing, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia

    Henry Linger

  8. IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona, Spain

    Christoph Schneider

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Habibipour, A., Ståhlbröst, A. (2023). A Living Lab Perspective on Information Systems Development Process. In: Silaghi, G.C., et al. Advances in Information Systems Development. ISD 2022. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, vol 63. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32418-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation