This is an outdated version published on 2023-12-06. Read the most recent version.
Using Living Lab concept in the practice of management (with) project stakeholders
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33119/SIP.2023.193.6Keywords:
project management, project stakeholders, Living LabAbstract
inspiracje z praktyk stosowanych w living labach.This article is conceptual in nature and its aim is to present the issue of Living Lab (LL) and possible areas of using LL tools in project management practice, especially in project stakeholder management. Using the methods and practices of cooperation and co-creation with stakeholders offered by Living Labs can strengthen successful implementation of complex projects. LLs operate in the quadruple helix model, which assumes that cooperation is undertaken between the scientific, business, public and social sectors. At the same time, what is distinctive about LLs, as compared to other forms of cooperation, is the foundation on which they are based: open, social innovation and the participatory nature of cooperation. In project management, the increasingly frequent move away from the waterfall model towards the agile one offers many opportunities to use participatory methods. Understanding the needs of project stakeholders, managing their expectations, and involving them in the decisionmaking process can be more successful when project managers draw inspiration from the practices used in Living Labs.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
1. Achterkamp M. C., Vos J. F. J. [2008], Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 26 (7), s. 749–757, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.001.
2. Almirall E., Wareham J. [2011], Living Labs: arbiters of mid- and ground-level innovation, „Technology Analysis & Strategic Management”, vol. 23 (1), s. 87–102, doi:10.1080/0953732 5.2011.537110.
3. Axelsson K., Melin U., Lindgren I. [2010], Exploring the importance of citizen participation and involvement in e‐government projects, „Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy”, vol. 4 (4), s. 299–321, doi:10.1108/17506161011081309.
4. Bajgier S. M., Maragah H. D., Saccucci M. S., Verzilli A., Prybutok V. R. [1991], Introducing Students to Community Operations Research by Using a City Neighborhood As A Living Laboratory, „Operations Research”, vol. 39 (5), s. 701–709, doi:10.1287/opre.39.5.701.
5. Bartelt V. L., Urbaczewski A., Mueller A. G., Sarker S. [2020], Enabling collaboration and innovation in Denver’s smart city through a living lab: a social capital perspective, „European Journal of Information Systems”, vol. 29 (4), s. 369–387, doi:10.1080/0960085X.2020.1762127.
6. Bronson K., Devkota R., Nguyen V. [2021], Moving toward Generalizability? A Scoping Review on Measuring the Impact of Living Labs, „Sustainability”, vol. 13 (2), s. 502.
7. Chung K. S. K., Eskerod P., Jepsen A. L., Zhang J. [2023], Response strategies for community stakeholder engagement on social media: A case study of a large infrastructure project, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 41 (5), s. 102495, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijproman.2023.102495.
8. Cleland D. [1986], Project stakeholder management, „Project Management Journal”, vol. 17, s. 36–44.
9. Dekker R., Franco Contreras J., Meijer A. [2020], The Living Lab as a Methodology for Public Administration Research: a Systematic Literature Review of its Applications in the Social Sciences, „International Journal of Public Administration”, vol. 43 (14), s. 1207–1217, doi:10.1080/01900692.2019.1668410.
10. Eskerod P., Jepsen A. L. [2013], Project Stakeholder Management, Routledge, Burlington.
11. European Network of Living Labs [2023], ENoLL – Jagiellonian University Training. Training conducted by Francesca Spagnoli and Joanna Karaś, Presentation, Kraków, 21–23 March.
12. Grant M. J., Booth A. [2009], A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies, „Health Information & Libraries Journal”, vol. 26, s. 91–108.
13. Hoffman E. J., Kohut M., Prusak L. [2022], The Smart Mission: NASA’s Lessons for Managing Knowledge, People, and Projects, The MIT Press.
14. Hong Huang J., Thomas E. [2021], A Review of Living Lab Research and Methods for User Involvement, „Technology Innovation Management Review”, vol. 11 (9/10).
15. Ika L. A., Pinto J. K. [2022], The “re-meaning” of project success: Updating and recalibrating for a modern project management, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 40 (7), s. 835–848, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.08.001.
16. Kier C., Aaltonen K., Whyte J., Huemann M. [2023], How projects co-create value with stakeholders: The role of ideology and inquiry in spanning the temporary-permanent boundary, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 41 (5), s. 102482, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102482.
17. Kroh J., Schultz C. [2023], In favor or against: The influence of skeptical stakeholders in urban innovation projects for green transformation, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 41 (7), s. 102515, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102515.
18. Lehmann V., Dubé P., Frangioni M. [2017], Are Living Labs a relevant approach for actual project management? Paper presented at the IRNOP, Boston.
19. Lehmann V., Frangioni M., Dubé P. [2015], Living Lab as knowledge system: an actual approach for managing urban service projects? „Journal of Knowledge Management”, vol. 19 (5), s. 1087–1107, doi:10.1108/JKM-02-2015–0058.
20. Lupp G., Zingraff-Hamed A., Huang J. J., Oen A., Pauleit S. [2021], Living Labs – A Concept for Co-Designing Nature-Based Solutions, „Sustainability”, vol. 13 (1), s. 188.
21. Marone L., Onofrio R., Masella C. [2020], The Italian Case of Lecco Innovation Living Lab: Stakeholders’ Needs and Activities to Contribute to the Technological Innovation Process in Healthcare, „Sustainability”, vol. 12 (24), s. 10266.
22. Mastelic J. [2019], Stakeholders’ engagement in the co-design of energy conservation interventions: The case of the Energy Living Lab, University of Lausanne.
23. Mok K. Y., Shen G. Q., Yang J. [2015], Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: A review and future directions, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 33 (2), s. 446–457, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.007.
24. Morkan B., Bertels H. M. J., Sheth A., Holahan P. J. [2023], Building megaproject resilience with stakeholders: The roles of citizenship behavior and critical transition mechanisms, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 41 (5), s. 102485, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102485.
25. de Oliveira G., Rabechini Jr R. [2019], Stakeholder management influence on trust in a project: A quantitative study, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 37 (1), s. 131–144, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.11.001.
26. Pargar F., Kujala J., Aaltonen K., Ruutu S. [2019], Value creation dynamics in a project alliance, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 37 (5), s. 716–730, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.12.006.
27. PMI [2013], A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), Fifth Edition, Project Management Institute.
28. Sanabria J., Davidson A.‑L., Romero M., Quintana T. [2020], Macro-dissemination of Maker Cultures: 21st century competencies through an Ideaton, „Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED)”, vol. 20 (62), doi:10.6018/red.398381.
29. Snis U. L., Olsson A. K., Bernhard I. [2021], Becoming a smart old town – How to manage stakeholder collaboration and cultural heritage, „Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development”, vol. 11 (4), s. 627–641, doi:10.1108/JCHMSD-10-2020-0148.
30. Trocki M., Grucza B. [2009], Zarządzanie interesariuszami projektu, w: Trocki M., Sońta--Drączkowska E. (red.), Strategiczne zarządzanie projektami, Bizzare, Warszawa.
31. Urbinati A., Landoni P., Cococcioni F., De Giudici L. [2021], Stakeholder management in open innovation projects: a multiple case study analysis, „European Journal of Innovation Management”, vol. 24 (5), s. 1595–1624, doi:10.1108/EJIM-03-2020–0076.
32. Wallace K., Michopoulou E. [2023], Stakeholder Requirements and Value Cocreation in Events, „Event Management”, vol. 27 (2), s. 281–299, doi:https://doi.org/10.3727/152599521X16367300695744. 33. Wolsink M. [2010], Contested environmental policy infrastructure: socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities, „Environmental Impact Assessment Review”,vol. 30 (5), s. 302–311.
34. Wyrozębski P. [2017], Badanie panelowe metodologicznych aspektów angażowania interesariuszy na przykładzie metodyki PMbok guide, „Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej”, nr 114, s. 617–634.
35. Wyrozębski P. [2021], Zwinność. Od zwinnych zespołów do zwinnego zarządzania, Oficyna
Wydawnicza SGH, Warszawa.
2. Almirall E., Wareham J. [2011], Living Labs: arbiters of mid- and ground-level innovation, „Technology Analysis & Strategic Management”, vol. 23 (1), s. 87–102, doi:10.1080/0953732 5.2011.537110.
3. Axelsson K., Melin U., Lindgren I. [2010], Exploring the importance of citizen participation and involvement in e‐government projects, „Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy”, vol. 4 (4), s. 299–321, doi:10.1108/17506161011081309.
4. Bajgier S. M., Maragah H. D., Saccucci M. S., Verzilli A., Prybutok V. R. [1991], Introducing Students to Community Operations Research by Using a City Neighborhood As A Living Laboratory, „Operations Research”, vol. 39 (5), s. 701–709, doi:10.1287/opre.39.5.701.
5. Bartelt V. L., Urbaczewski A., Mueller A. G., Sarker S. [2020], Enabling collaboration and innovation in Denver’s smart city through a living lab: a social capital perspective, „European Journal of Information Systems”, vol. 29 (4), s. 369–387, doi:10.1080/0960085X.2020.1762127.
6. Bronson K., Devkota R., Nguyen V. [2021], Moving toward Generalizability? A Scoping Review on Measuring the Impact of Living Labs, „Sustainability”, vol. 13 (2), s. 502.
7. Chung K. S. K., Eskerod P., Jepsen A. L., Zhang J. [2023], Response strategies for community stakeholder engagement on social media: A case study of a large infrastructure project, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 41 (5), s. 102495, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijproman.2023.102495.
8. Cleland D. [1986], Project stakeholder management, „Project Management Journal”, vol. 17, s. 36–44.
9. Dekker R., Franco Contreras J., Meijer A. [2020], The Living Lab as a Methodology for Public Administration Research: a Systematic Literature Review of its Applications in the Social Sciences, „International Journal of Public Administration”, vol. 43 (14), s. 1207–1217, doi:10.1080/01900692.2019.1668410.
10. Eskerod P., Jepsen A. L. [2013], Project Stakeholder Management, Routledge, Burlington.
11. European Network of Living Labs [2023], ENoLL – Jagiellonian University Training. Training conducted by Francesca Spagnoli and Joanna Karaś, Presentation, Kraków, 21–23 March.
12. Grant M. J., Booth A. [2009], A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies, „Health Information & Libraries Journal”, vol. 26, s. 91–108.
13. Hoffman E. J., Kohut M., Prusak L. [2022], The Smart Mission: NASA’s Lessons for Managing Knowledge, People, and Projects, The MIT Press.
14. Hong Huang J., Thomas E. [2021], A Review of Living Lab Research and Methods for User Involvement, „Technology Innovation Management Review”, vol. 11 (9/10).
15. Ika L. A., Pinto J. K. [2022], The “re-meaning” of project success: Updating and recalibrating for a modern project management, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 40 (7), s. 835–848, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2022.08.001.
16. Kier C., Aaltonen K., Whyte J., Huemann M. [2023], How projects co-create value with stakeholders: The role of ideology and inquiry in spanning the temporary-permanent boundary, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 41 (5), s. 102482, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102482.
17. Kroh J., Schultz C. [2023], In favor or against: The influence of skeptical stakeholders in urban innovation projects for green transformation, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 41 (7), s. 102515, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102515.
18. Lehmann V., Dubé P., Frangioni M. [2017], Are Living Labs a relevant approach for actual project management? Paper presented at the IRNOP, Boston.
19. Lehmann V., Frangioni M., Dubé P. [2015], Living Lab as knowledge system: an actual approach for managing urban service projects? „Journal of Knowledge Management”, vol. 19 (5), s. 1087–1107, doi:10.1108/JKM-02-2015–0058.
20. Lupp G., Zingraff-Hamed A., Huang J. J., Oen A., Pauleit S. [2021], Living Labs – A Concept for Co-Designing Nature-Based Solutions, „Sustainability”, vol. 13 (1), s. 188.
21. Marone L., Onofrio R., Masella C. [2020], The Italian Case of Lecco Innovation Living Lab: Stakeholders’ Needs and Activities to Contribute to the Technological Innovation Process in Healthcare, „Sustainability”, vol. 12 (24), s. 10266.
22. Mastelic J. [2019], Stakeholders’ engagement in the co-design of energy conservation interventions: The case of the Energy Living Lab, University of Lausanne.
23. Mok K. Y., Shen G. Q., Yang J. [2015], Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: A review and future directions, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 33 (2), s. 446–457, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.007.
24. Morkan B., Bertels H. M. J., Sheth A., Holahan P. J. [2023], Building megaproject resilience with stakeholders: The roles of citizenship behavior and critical transition mechanisms, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 41 (5), s. 102485, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2023.102485.
25. de Oliveira G., Rabechini Jr R. [2019], Stakeholder management influence on trust in a project: A quantitative study, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 37 (1), s. 131–144, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.11.001.
26. Pargar F., Kujala J., Aaltonen K., Ruutu S. [2019], Value creation dynamics in a project alliance, „International Journal of Project Management”, vol. 37 (5), s. 716–730, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.12.006.
27. PMI [2013], A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), Fifth Edition, Project Management Institute.
28. Sanabria J., Davidson A.‑L., Romero M., Quintana T. [2020], Macro-dissemination of Maker Cultures: 21st century competencies through an Ideaton, „Revista de Educación a Distancia (RED)”, vol. 20 (62), doi:10.6018/red.398381.
29. Snis U. L., Olsson A. K., Bernhard I. [2021], Becoming a smart old town – How to manage stakeholder collaboration and cultural heritage, „Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development”, vol. 11 (4), s. 627–641, doi:10.1108/JCHMSD-10-2020-0148.
30. Trocki M., Grucza B. [2009], Zarządzanie interesariuszami projektu, w: Trocki M., Sońta--Drączkowska E. (red.), Strategiczne zarządzanie projektami, Bizzare, Warszawa.
31. Urbinati A., Landoni P., Cococcioni F., De Giudici L. [2021], Stakeholder management in open innovation projects: a multiple case study analysis, „European Journal of Innovation Management”, vol. 24 (5), s. 1595–1624, doi:10.1108/EJIM-03-2020–0076.
32. Wallace K., Michopoulou E. [2023], Stakeholder Requirements and Value Cocreation in Events, „Event Management”, vol. 27 (2), s. 281–299, doi:https://doi.org/10.3727/152599521X16367300695744. 33. Wolsink M. [2010], Contested environmental policy infrastructure: socio-political acceptance of renewable energy, water, and waste facilities, „Environmental Impact Assessment Review”,vol. 30 (5), s. 302–311.
34. Wyrozębski P. [2017], Badanie panelowe metodologicznych aspektów angażowania interesariuszy na przykładzie metodyki PMbok guide, „Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej”, nr 114, s. 617–634.
35. Wyrozębski P. [2021], Zwinność. Od zwinnych zespołów do zwinnego zarządzania, Oficyna
Wydawnicza SGH, Warszawa.
Downloads
Published
2023-12-06
Versions
- 2024-03-20 (2)
- 2023-12-06 (1)
How to Cite
Jałocha, B. . (2023). Using Living Lab concept in the practice of management (with) project stakeholders. Studies and Work of the Collegium of Management and Finance , (193), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.33119/SIP.2023.193.6
Issue
Section
Articles
