Date & Time

1 October 2026, 14:00 – 15:30

Room

Galapagos

Chaired by

Teemu Santonen

Principal Lecturer, Laurea University of Applied Sciences

Type of Session

Research Session

Description

Following a rigorous evaluation process, the OLLD26 evaluation committee has accepted the research papers for this year’s conference. All accepted papers engage with the conference theme, “Living Labs Impacts and Values for a Changing World,” and have been classified into five sub-tracks:

  • Track 1: Living Labs for Grand Societal Challenges
  • Track 2: Living Labs for Policies, Governance, Collaboration, and Innovation Ecosystems
  • Track 3: Living Labs for Inclusive Soci(et)al Engagement
  • Track 4: Living Labs for Business and Emerging Technology
  • Track 5: Living Labs Operations, Methods, Tools, and Impact

Papers selected by the Evaluation Committee

From participation to co-ownership? Stakeholder engagement in the Montado Living Lab

Abstract:

Living Labs (LLs) are increasingly promoted as collaborative platforms supporting innovation and sustainability transitions through stakeholder participation and real-life experimentation. However, participation does not necessarily evolve into shared ownership or distributed leadership.  

This paper examines this challenge through the case of the Montado Living Lab (Portugal), a multi-actor initiative focused on regenerating the Montado agro-silvo-pastoral system. Drawing on qualitative document analysis of governance materials, meeting minutes, stakeholder surveys, and participatory workshop reports produced between 2024 and 2026, the study analyses stakeholder engagement through participation, co-creation, and co-ownership.  

The findings show that while the Montado Living Lab successfully promotes participation and collaborative experimentation, the transition towards co-ownership remains limited, with coordination and initiative concentrated within the initiating research institutions. The paper identifies a “missing transition” between co-creation and co-ownership associated with centralized coordination, role ambiguity, and uneven stakeholder agency. The findings suggest that Living Labs should be understood not only as participatory platforms, but also as socio-organizational processes requiring governance arrangements capable of supporting distributed agency and shared responsibility.

Susana Filipe

CEO, Global Change and Sustainability Institute (CHANGE)

The living lab as cumulative infrastructure: four mechanisms from a fashion and textile case

Abstract:

Living labs are widely recognised as infrastructures for collaborative experimentation, yet the learning they generate often remains confined within single initiatives and dissipates once project funding cycles end. This contribution addresses that gap by asking how a living lab can move beyond the logic of projectification and operate as a cumulative infrastructure.  

The study draws on the three-year trajectory of the Fashion & Textile Living Lab Too Cool to Go Wasted, developed as part of the MUSA Innovation Ecosystem (NRRP, 2022–2025) and now permanently based at Politecnico di Milano, Department of Design. Three initiatives are analysed as components of a single portfolio: a multi-actor circular fashion festival, a longitudinal narrative device on the people-garment relationship, and a toolkit for developing product-service systems for sustainable retail.  

Evidence gathered through participant observation, artefacts, interviews and internal documentation allows the identification of four operational mechanisms of cumulative impact: physical space as active memory, recurring iterations, inter-organisational transfer and cross-initiative ambient learning. From these, the paper derives design orientations and policy implications for living labs seeking continuity beyond the project cycle.

Valeria Ianilli

Full Professor, Politecnico di Milano

Alessandra Spagnoli

Associate Professor, Politecnico di Milano

From use events to value signals: A need–accuracy–duration framework for assistive technologies in Living Labs

Abstract:

Assistive technologies are often evaluated at delivery or in short-term testing, although their practical value depends on sustained integration into everyday life. Longitudinal monitoring can address this gap, but research in Ambient Assisted Living, smart homes, telecare, and digital health indicates that acceptance varies with perceived need, sensing modality, informational detail, trust, control, health status, and experience. Such research can also be affected by selective recruitment and retention.  

This Research in Progress paper presents Need–Accuracy–Duration (NAD) as a framework for proportionate longitudinal evaluation. Need specifies the stakeholder decision that warrants observation; Accuracy, the level of evidence required; and Duration, how long observation is needed and remains justified. Drawing on Gadamer’s account of health as characteristically receding from explicit attention, NAD treats observability as requiring justification rather than as an inherent methodological advantage. Sparse object-use events can then be contextualized as longitudinal value signals that support adaptation, investigation, continuation, or discontinuation.

Sebastian Günnel

Founder and Researcher, Alika System

Living Labs as distributed configuration: Sensemaking, knowledge flow, and the role of university Living Labs in agri-food innovation

Abstract:

Living Labs are described as user-centered, multi-stakeholder innovation ecosystems operating in real-life settings; however, studies show that Living Lab definitions and characteristics are enacted unevenly across cases.  

This paper examines how stakeholders in a project-funded vertical farming set-up frame and enact the Living Lab concept at a publicly accessible space, and how those framings shape collaboration and knowledge exchange across a distributed configuration of actors. Based on semi-structured in-depth interviews with diverse actors with key roles in the project, we analyse (1) how “Living Labs” are interpreted in practice; (2) how collaboration configurations, drivers, and barriers shape knowledge flow and learning; and (3) what a constructive, modular support role for a university living lab could look like in future innovation projects.  

The paper presents how stakeholder sensemaking of “Living Labs” becomes consequential for collaboration and learning infrastructure. It also argues for context-sensitive methodological support that helps align expectations, orchestrate collaboration, and enable knowledge exchange, without prescribing a single fixed participation model. The paper contributes to Living Lab research by conceptualising project-based technical Living Labs as distributed configurations in which spatial, testbed-like, public-facing, and methodological support functions may coexist but require deliberate translation work to become productive for collaboration and learning. 

Senem Turhan

Senior Lecturer School of Innovation, Design and Engineering (IDT), Mälardalen University

Why Living Labs Fail: A Conceptual Taxonomy of Operational Failure Modes

Abstract:

Living Labs are largely perceived as frameworks for open innovation and user-centered co-creation. However, the existing literature is mostly focused on success stories. When failure does occur, it is often treated as an isolated incident rather than as a phenomenon worth exploring.  

This research-in-progress paper proposes a conceptual framework that categorizes operational failure conditions in Living Labs. The framework is developed through conceptual synthesis of existing Living Lab research, case-based evidence, project outputs, and practitioner reports. Five main categories are identified: 1) Stakeholder disengagement, 2) Governance ambiguity, 3) Sustainability breaking point, 4) Methodology-context misalignment, and 5) Impact legitimacy deficit. For each, the paper describes the trigger condition and the early-warning signals to watch for. The taxonomy is presented as both a practical diagnostic tool for practitioners and a foundation for failure-informed research.  

The next phase of the research will empirically validate and refine the taxonomy through semi-structured interviews with Living Lab practitioners across Europe, including representatives of both active and discontinued initiatives.

Dr. Abdolrasoul (Rasoul) Habibipour

Associate Professor in Information Systems, Luleå University of Technology, Sweden, and Managing Director of Botnia Living Lab

What drives innovation performance in urban Living Labs? Evidence from European cities and implications for practice

Abstract:

Urban Living Labs (ULLs) are increasingly recognised as important environments for experimentation, co-creation, and innovation in European cities. However, empirical evidence on the factors associated with their innovation performance across different urban contexts remains limited. Existing Living Lab research is still dominated by qualitative and case-based approaches, which makes it difficult to identify broader patterns relevant for research, practice, and policy.  

This Innovation Presentation reports results from the authors’ original survey shared with managers of ULLs located in European cities and affiliated with the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). The study examines whether ULL innovation performance is associated with three groups of factors: city ecosystem capabilities, ULL internal innovation capacity, and multistakeholder collaboration intensity. These dimensions capture the enabling conditions of the urban environment, the organisational capacity of the ULL, and the breadth and intensity of collaboration across key stakeholder groups. Innovation performance is understood as the introduction of new or significantly improved goods, services, and processes.  

The presentation will focus on the main findings and their implications for research, practice, and policy, and will open a broader discussion within the ENoLL community on how to strengthen the conditions supporting higher innovation performance in Urban Living Labs. 

Joanna Karas

Researcher, World Economy Research Institute at SGH Warsaw School of Economics