USER-CENTERED INNOVATION: TOWARDS A CONCEPTUAL INTEGRATION OF LEAD USERS AND LIVING LABS Schuurman, Dimitri and De Marez, Lieven MICT-IBBT, University of Ghent, Korte Meer 7-9-11, 9000 Ghent, Belgium Dimitri.Schuurman@ugent.be, Lieven.DeMarez@ugent.be Abstract Within the current approaches towards innovation research the role of the user or consumer is increasingly emphasized, giving momentum to user-centered research methodologies. Two research concepts occur at the forefront of this evolution: the ‘lead user’-concept and the ‘living lab’-concept. Both have already received a lot of academic attention, resulting in an impressive corpus of literature and interesting implementations. However, up till now, living labs and lead users are rarely studied together in an integrative research approach, as proven by their largely distinct literature and advocates. By means of a literature review and a SWOT-analysis of both concepts and their associated methods, this paper wants to explore the (in)compatibility of these two approaches for user-centered innovation research, and propose some guidelines and conceptual ideas to integrate them. This is driven by the feeling that both concepts share a lot of common ground and that a conceptual integration should further stimulate knowledge into innovation practices and processes involving the user, especially in the field of ICT and in the light of the trend towards open and contextual innovation. Keywords lead users, living labs, open innovation , user-centered research, user involvement, ICT-innovation. 1 INTRODUCTION In general, more and more attention is devoted to innovation research. An innovation can be characterized as an invention put to productive use. [29]. In recent years, the end-user is more and more involved within innovation research. This involvement goes further than the use of possible end-users as respondents or testers; within user- centered research, knowledge and ideas of end-users are also valued and put to use. This can be done throughout multiple stages of the R&D process and in different ways: design for users, design with users and design by users. [23]. When a product is designed for users, data and theories regarding the users are used as a knowledge base for design. A design with users denotes an approach were user studies are included, together with feedback from the users on different solutions or concepts. When users are actively involved in the design of the product or service, the term design by users can be applied. This user involvement holds out advantages not only for the quality of the technology, product or service, but also for sales and marketing of the innovation. [1]. Especially in the field of information and communication technologies (ICT), we witness a trend towards this so-called ‘user-centered innovation’. Two research concepts occur at the forefront of this evolution: the ‘lead user’- concept and the ‘living lab’-concept. Both concepts have already received a lot of academic attention, resulting in an impressive corpus of literature and interesting implementations. However, up till now, living labs and lead users are rarely studied together, as proven by their largely distinct literature and advocates. By means of a literature review and a SWOT-analysis of these concepts, this paper wants to explore the (in)compatibility of these two approaches for user centered innovation research, and propose some guidelines and conceptual ideas to integrate them. This is driven by the feeling that both concepts share a lot of common ground and that an conceptual integration should further stimulate knowledge into innovation practices and processes involving the user, especially in the field of ICT. We first outline the context of innovation research and user studies that have led to both the lead user- and living lab-concepts. Then, both concepts are discussed and differentiated from related concepts such as ‘innovators’ for lead users and various other test- and experimentation platforms (TEPs) for living labs. For both concepts, this is followed by an outline of the research methodologies that are associated with them: the lead user-method and the living lab-approach. We conclude both sections with a SWOT-analysis for both research approaches. Eventually, these two concepts are compared and similarities and differences are explored. This leads us to some thoughts towards a further unification of these two concepts in order to stimulate future user centered-research and innovative research designs in the light of open and contextual innovation.