Ferney Osorio

Mauricio Camargo

Laurent Dupont

José Ismael Peña

Constellation of Innovation Laboratories: A Scientific Outlook

Keywords: innovation labs, bibliometric analysis, innovation intermediaries, strategic management

Digital transformation and technology democratization are demanding new organisational structures led by trust, transparency and openness. For some years now, innovation laboratories have been embraced as unique and enabling environments acting as facilitators for the evolution of our communities, business and territories. However, as they are being embodied under different names and shaped by their context, they also seem to operate freely under multiple-related innovation approaches. This is leading to a grey-zone within the universe of innovation laboratories, making them difficult to study and manage. In this paper, Innovation laboratories are studied as innovation intermediaries that fulfil the purpose of creating communities of knowledge imbued with values of sharing and collaborating towards a common objective or project. Through a bibliometric study, a scientific outlook for the constellation of Innovation laboratories is built. Research affinities and distinctions between the most common concepts often related to these innovation intermediaries are discussed. And lastly, the grounds for a research agenda on the strategic management and assessment of this phenomenon are set.

I. INTRODUCTION

Significant changes in our society are being introduced by the fourth industrial revolution. Digital transformation and technology democratization are enabling the creation of new business models that lead to new ways to connect, share and monetize almost everything. Likewise, values such as trust, transparency and openness are becoming more and more present at all socio-economic instances by means of modern collaboration. These are just some of the characteristics of this transformative moment we are living on and which challenges the traditional foundations of our society [START_REF] Schwab | The fourth industrial revolution[END_REF]. Precisely, it is through the emergence of new organisational structures the way we can bring out our collective responsibility to lead the evolution of our communities, business and territories [START_REF] Bloom | Innovation spaces: lessons from the United Nations[END_REF].

For some years now, organisational structures to foster innovation processes through unique designed environments, creative and inspiring cultures, and high-tech equipped, have emerged all around the world. These type of innovation intermediaries also known as Innovation Laboratories are considered as semi-autonomous organizations within real complex contexts [START_REF] Gryszkiewicz | Innovation Labs: Leveraging Openness for Radical Innovation?[END_REF] allowing all related actors to interact under a "somewhere else feeling" -away from everyday problems- [START_REF] Pecheanu | Initiatives Towards an Education for Creativity[END_REF] with the purpose of creating communities of knowledge, strengthening people's innovative and technological competences and imbuing values of sharing and collaboration towards a common objective or project [START_REF] Morel | Innovation spaces: new places for collective intelligence?[END_REF].

Innovation labs are embodied in different ways as they are shaped by their local context including their team experiences and their partners' interests [START_REF] Bloom | Innovation spaces: lessons from the United Nations[END_REF]. Each one of them differs from their configuration, the practices they perform and the outcomes they achieve [START_REF] Osorio Bustamante | Spaces to foster and sustain innovation: Towards a Preprint -Authors' version -Cite final version[END_REF]. This leads to a fuzzy distinction among other well-known innovation-friendly structures (or labels) such as Living Labs, FabLabs, Makerspaces, Hackerspaces, Enabling spaces, Innovation spaces, Coworking spaces or even Third-places. Evidence has shown that innovation laboratories perform analogously to all these innovation intermediaries [START_REF] Memon | Inter-InnoLab collaboration: An investigation of the diversity and interconnection among Innovation Laboratories[END_REF], making it more difficult to notice the boundaries among all these concepts. Whereas this grey-zone allows managers to freely operate under multiplerelated innovation approaches, it seems that at the same time they are struggling to clearly define a strategic intention for their own laboratory [START_REF] Osorio | Design and management of innovation laboratories: Toward a performance assessment tool[END_REF].

In that sense, the phenomenon of innovation laboratories has captivated the attention of multiple scholars' communities, increasing the research efforts during the last decade [START_REF] Memon | Inter-InnoLab collaboration: An investigation of the diversity and interconnection among Innovation Laboratories[END_REF], [START_REF] Fecher | Innovation labs from a participants' perspective[END_REF]- [START_REF] Skiba | A space for innovation process acceleration, supporting collaborative citizens workshops[END_REF]. Given the recent nature of this issue, most research publications are exploratory with empirical results and qualitative analysis. Thus, we have noticed these contributions come from communities' experiences dealing with their own innovation laboratory (or innovation laboratories' network) sharing their own practices, insights and challenges according to their own context. This motivated us to conduct a bibliometric analysis on the literature of innovation laboratories looking for connections, proximities and trends between the most common concepts of these innovation intermediaries.

Our goal with this paper is to provide a scientific outlook on the constellation of innovation laboratories. This is done by presenting insights on where research efforts have been concentrated during last years, which concepts are more positioned among researchers, how they have related to each other and finally, which opportunities we identified towards the consolidation of a research agenda in the strategic management of innovation laboratories. The remainder of this document is structured as follows. First, an overview of the innovation intermediaries' structures is given. Then, the methodological approach is explained including the research parameters and criteria selection. Afterwards, results and analysis are discussed leading finally, to our conclusion

II. EXISTING THEORIES AND PREVIOUS WORK

The challenges often posed by the uncertainty and complexity of innovation processes have led to the creation, consolidation and general recognition of innovation intermediaries. Such organisations have historically been used to denote a number of actors such as brokers, third parties or agencies, as a way of bringing together all the entities that support the innovation process [START_REF] Howells | Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation[END_REF]. Over time, this perception has evolved from mere supporters, to "animateurs" (or facilitators) and even to be considered carriers of innovation [START_REF] Howells | Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation[END_REF], [START_REF] Katzy | Innovation intermediaries: A process view on open innovation coordination[END_REF]. However, in general terms, innovation intermediaries are recognised for seeking to improve innovation capacity. This is usually done through interorganizational networking, technology development and financing activities that are meant to reduce the innovation gap between actors and innovation ecosystems [START_REF] Dalziel | Why do innovation intermediaries exist[END_REF].

A group of innovation intermediaries that are receiving increasing attention are the innovation laboratories. In the past, from the point of view of intermediaries, laboratories were considered chambers or test beds whose main objectives were testing, validation and training [START_REF] Howells | Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation[END_REF]. Nowadays, as new paradigms transform the way innovation is carried out, so the notion of laboratories as "mediators" of innovation has evolved to become active agents during the development phase of an innovation project [START_REF] Katzy | Innovation intermediaries: A process view on open innovation coordination[END_REF]. From then on, a whole set of innovation laboratories under different concepts and catchy labels have started to emerge all around the world.

As in this paper, we seek to better understand the research connections between the universe of innovation laboratories, it is important to first make a general review on some of the most influential concepts. Starting with Living Lab, it is the broadest and most developed concept in the literature. This notion of laboratory is defined as the place in which all stakeholders from public-private-people partnerships collaborate to create, prototype, validate and test new technologies, products, services or systems in real-life contexts [START_REF] Hossain | A systematic review of living lab literature[END_REF].

Alongside this are the spaces where sophisticated manufacturing technologies are available to non-specialists. FabLabs are also a very popular concept (and label) worldwide. Inspired by the maker movement, they are conceived as the cultural seedbed for sharing knowledge, experimenting with new technologies and exploring interdisciplinary projects while at the same time achieving personal achievement and enjoyment [START_REF] Mortara | How do fab-spaces enable entrepreneurship? Case studies of "makers" -entrepreneurs[END_REF]. Closely related are the Makerspaces, which are defined as community workshops where members (known as makers) share access to tools for professional benefit and hobbyist pursuits [START_REF] Van Holm | Makerspaces and Contributions to Entrepreneurship[END_REF]. In the same way, Hackerspaces appears as a place with a spirit of equality, non-profit and open, where people share tools and ideas with a strong emphasis on digital technologies [START_REF] Moilanen | Emerging hackerspaces -Peer-production generation[END_REF]. As FabLab, Makerspace and Hackerspace are strongly influenced by the maker movement, they are frequently understood as the same kind of space.

The Third-place concept is also recently being used as a term associated with innovation, although this is not a new concept at all. Third places are usually described as social settings separated from the first place (home) and second place (workplace). In addition, they are given some characteristics as anchors of community life and promoters of creative interactions [START_REF] Oldenburg | Celebrating the third place: Inspiring stories about the great good places at the heart of our communities[END_REF]. When these elements are compared to other innovative spaces is easy to see the similarities. That is the case of the Coworking spaces which are envisaged as the places for the "third way" of working, halfway between the well-delimited traditional workplace and independent working life as a freelancer, where the worker stays at home in an isolated way. This third way is known as 'coworking' to indicate the practice of working individually in a shared environment [START_REF] Gandini | The rise of coworking spaces: a literature review[END_REF].

Moving forward, in the literature exists the notion of Enabling space, which addresses the mediation role in the innovation of such spaces as enabling rather than controlling. In this respect, innovation processes are seen as the creation of knowledge and hence, enabling spaces are conceived as multidimensional, in which social, cognitive, cultural, technological and other factors are considered [START_REF] Peschl | Designing and Enabling Spaces for collaborative knowledge creation and innovation: From managing to enabling innovation as socio-epistemological technology[END_REF]. Similarly, the concept of Innovation space has been used as an attempt of bringing together the main characteristics of the favourable spaces for innovation. Thus, they have been defined as physical environments that promote community, learning and making, providing opportunities to engage people and technologies, experience participatory culture and acquire modern skills [START_REF] Stercken | Cultivating Serendipity and Efficacy Beliefs: The Impact of (Caireen) Innovation Spaces on Human Development[END_REF]. However, the Innovation space concept seems to go further and is used as much as in the overarching context in which knowledge creation occurs [START_REF] Badilescu-Buga | Knowledge behaviour and social adoption of innovation[END_REF], as well as a knowledge-based urban development strategy [START_REF] Pancholi | Place making facilitators of knowledge and innovation spaces: insights from European best practices[END_REF].

Besides the plethora of definitions, there is one common aspect that all these types of innovation laboratories share. As innovation intermediaries they all face the challenge of their impact may not be directly perceived due to their "intermediate" nature [START_REF] Howells | Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation[END_REF]. More attention, therefore, needs to be paid to observing the effects they have on their context, community and partners.

III. METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN

Since the proliferation of these particular set of innovation intermediaries, it could be difficult to distinguish the differences between the concepts under so many laboratories are covered. Often, it is possible to see among researchers that they refer to them indistinctly as a group of similar innovation structures and practitioners seem to use them interchangeably. Even though we showed that literature provides specific concepts for each one of them, we believe that a broader view of the scientific outlook around the ensemble of innovation laboratories could be useful for establishing further paths of research.

In that sense, we felt motivated to perform a bibliometric content analysis as this method helps to discover up-andcoming fields as well as identifying trends in the observation of extended periods [START_REF] Ellegaard | The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?[END_REF]. This approach favours the theorising phase during research, since mapping the literature works as a brainstorming stimulus, bringing out the researcher's assumptions to the surface. In addition, if these assumptions are followed by a bibliography discussion by means of selection processes, code structures and concepts' representations, then the accuracy of these representations is increased [START_REF] Sinkovics | Enhancing the foundations for theorising through bibliometric mapping[END_REF]. Also, this process can be supported by technology. In this case, a search strategy was executed using the Scopus database. Then, the literature mapping was supported by VOSviewer and finally, content analysis was performed using NVIVO. This process is explained below. This search strategy was defined by a set of keywords, representing the most common concepts that are used referring to innovation laboratories or spaces according to our experience. Then, as preliminary searches were done, the observation window was defined from 2000 to 2018. Finally, title and keywords were the search fields selected as well as only articles and conferences papers. The strategy employed is summarised in TABLE I.

TABLE I. SEARCH SPECIFICATION

Specifications Description

Keywords "innovation laboratory" OR "innovation lab" OR "innovation space" OR "enabling space" OR "living lab" OR "fablab" OR "fab lab" OR "makerspace" OR "hackerspace" OR "coworking space" OR "third place" Afterwards, data visualization and analysis were performed under 2 stages. First, results from Scopus are exported in a CSV file in order to harvest all the keywords from the articles and papers retrieved. Then, the data is uploaded to VOSviewer software, where keywords can be mapped and clustered as a way to visualize how structures or concepts are composed by means of co-occurrence analysis [START_REF] Ellegaard | The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?[END_REF], [START_REF] Van Eck | Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping[END_REF].

At the second stage, aiming to provide a more detailed content analysis, a sample of most recent articles is imported to NVIVO software. There, titles, abstracts and keywords are analysed by a coding process where key issues can be identified and classified. The synthesized process is shown in Fig. 1.

IV. FINDINGS

As a result of applying the search strategy described before, 1307 publications were retrieved from the Scopus database. In Fig. 2 it is possible to observe the increasing interest among scholars in this phenomenon during the last years. In any case, it is not until 2005 that a real growth begins to become visible, reaching 198 publications by 2016.

From a general perspective, it is worth to remark that around 58% of the publications are conference papers while the rest correspond to journal articles. Additionally, Computer Science, Social Sciences, Engineering, Business and Mathematics are the five main disciplines more actively involved within our search topics. Likewise, the countries that are publishing the most are United States, Germany, Italy, France and United Kingdom accounting 644 papers during the range established.

A. Network Visualization TABLE II. shows the conditional specification defined for network construction. The total of 1307 references retrieved from Scopus was uploaded to VOSviewer as bibliographical data. The co-occurrence type of analysis was selected based on the authors' keywords as a unit of analysis. Additionally, the full counting method was chosen in order to maintain the full weight of keywords [START_REF] Perianes-Rodriguez | Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting[END_REF]. Due to variations among the way scholars have labelled some concepts, a data cleaning process was necessary to merge different variants of keywords for the same concept, e.g. innovation laboratory, innovation labs, innovation lab. Thus, a thesaurus file was created which was included in the conditions. Finally, the minimum number of occurrences was set at 8 ensuring that we could observe all the keywords included in the search equation. In this case, enabling space was the one with the lowest number of occurrences.

The network visualization is shown in Fig. 3. The circles are a representation of the number of occurrences of each keyword. The higher the number of keywords, the larger the label and the circle of each item. The distance between two keywords indicates their relatedness in terms of co-occurrence links. In general terms, the closer two keywords are located to each other, the stronger their relatedness is.

B. Cluster Analysis

The colours in Fig. 3. show the cluster to which the keywords belong. Clusters that are located near to each other indicate closely related fields. For this case, eight clusters were created as a result of the co-occurrence analysis. As can be seen in the map, Clusters 1 (red) and 2 (green) are the largest while the rest of them are located around them. Here some relations can be remarked between our laboratory concepts and the composition of the clusters (TABLE III. ).

First, Cluster 1 groups together research subjects related to education, DIY (do-it-yourself), making, maker movement, digital fabrication, prototyping, 3d printing and academic libraries. Also, this cluster gathers three of our laboratory concepts: fablab, makerspace and hackerspace. Here, such laboratories and spaces appear to be more involved in studies that combine learning and academic areas with the maker movement and prototyping technologies.

Following this, living lab is by far the largest keyword in terms of weight and links across the network. Although living lab is connected with the majority of all other keywords, the concepts in Cluster 2 are the ones with the strongest relation to it. In this sense, areas such as ambient assisted living, cocreation, experimentation, internet of things, service design, smart city, social innovation, sustainability, urban living lab and user involvement are those which are leaning the most on living lab, whether as a laboratory concept, a methodology or an approach. In any case, it is possible to say that experimentation of new technologies in diverse contexts through user involvement and co-creation is what seems to distinguish the research around Living Labs. Subsequently, Clusters 5 (purple) and 6 (cyan) appear in the middle of Cluster 1 and 2. Specifically, Cluster 5 looks to be interlaced with the Cluster 1 in terms of the distribution in the map but still, certain research areas are clustered as follows: innovation, co-design, participatory design, older adults, methodology and enabling space. In this case, the term enabling space does not seem to have a strong presence in the network, relating only to areas on participatory design, cocreation and innovation. On the contrary, cluster 6 shows welldefined relations among its keywords conveying a clearer line around social interaction, entrepreneurship, community and social media, highly linked to the coworking space and third place concepts. Furthermore, on the top of the map is the Cluster 3 (blue) where keywords are concentrated around open innovation. In this cluster are found in our last two laboratory concepts: innovation lab and innovation space. However, they are not even related to the same keywords in the cluster. That is, innovation lab is closer to creativity and collaboration areas whereas innovation space has a stronger relation to innovation system and SME subjects.

Lastly, on the right and the bottom of the map are located Clusters 4 (yellow), 7 (orange) and 8 (brown). These clusters, mainly composed of new technologies and evaluation techniques seem to be more distant from the rest of the network elements, are almost solely related to the living lab keyword. This is to be expected insofar as the living lab concept is also widely used as a methodology for the design and user experience evaluation of new technologies [START_REF] Hossain | A systematic review of living lab literature[END_REF]. Therefore, we can identify not only the shared links between the areas and laboratories we have analysed but also, those issues that seem to be more distant and exclusively related.

Once the cluster network has been explored, understanding the evolution in time of our research subject is a useful approach to identify trends as well as some missing issues in our network. As shown before in Fig. 2, publications regarding our selected issues are very recent. Nevertheless, we can still take a closer look at what are the trends in recent years. Using the overlay visualization of VOSviewer, Fig. 4 presents the same network distribution but in this case, colours are defined by the average publication per year of each keyword, with yellow for the most recent and dark blue for the oldest. The keywords to the left of the map seem to be the most popular since 2016. In particular, fablab, makerspace, maker movement and making appear to be capturing the attention of researchers recently. This shows a clear tendency for making practices to become more connected to educational and academic environments. Following this, coworking space looks like an issue that is developing closely to entrepreneurship in recent years.

Regarding living lab's side of the map, we can find that there is a recent interest in addressing the user experience of older adults who interact with ICT (Information and Communication Technologies). Likewise, it is possible to note that the concept of urban living lab is gaining attention from scholars and is becoming independent of the living lab issue. Moreover, the sustainability keyword appears an emergent subject which not only is related to living lab, some technologies and approaches, but also to some of the laboratories we seek to understand. This makes us wonder how researchers are addressing the sustainability issues in relation to the operation and continuity of laboratories initiatives.

C. Towards a research agenda

As we have stated in previous works, we are interested in understanding what are the factors and practices that most influence the designing and managing innovation laboratories [START_REF] Osorio Bustamante | Spaces to foster and sustain innovation: Towards a Preprint -Authors' version -Cite final version[END_REF], [START_REF] Osorio | Design and management of innovation laboratories: Toward a performance assessment tool[END_REF]. One thing that is worth noting from the present analysis is the absence of keywords oriented to management, strategy or assessment issues. Although, if we look thoroughly among the 1307 publications retrieved from Scopus it is possible to find some related work to these topics. Therefore, we decided to take a sample of 53 publications to which we analysed the content of their titles, abstracts and keywords, with the aim of identifying some more detailed information that we could not see with the co-occurrence analysis of keywords. The 53 publications were found by including the management keyword as a condition in our main search equation, focusing only on documents between 2017 and 2019. In performing content analysis, several categories can be identified by coding e.g., the goal of the research, the context in which it was developed, the methods or tools that were used and the main findings the authors claim they achieved. With this in mind, we concentrate our analysis on retrieving from the sample what type of publication they are, the main method or tool, and the contributions. The results of this process are summarized in TABLE IV.

Although the search condition is linked to management keywords, it is possible to see different trends in researches and applications of a significant variety of methods. Thus, we choose to group the contributions in six categories that can also be seen as trends in this matter (Fig. 5). First, it seems that several studies are presenting lessons for technologies testing or user validation. Next to this, there is a prominent category related to urban and public matters where researches are providing insights on the process of implementing collaborative approaches and the digitalization of public practices. Similarly, there is a smaller category specifically related to the collaboration phenomenon in which applications of collaborative methods and practices are being tested across a broad spectrum. In addition, only four documents are categorized as 'other contributions' where knowledge management, learning techniques, intellectual property and energy policies subjects are addressed. The last two categories identified are the ones we will take into account for the remainder of this paper. There is a specific set of contributions that focus on management issues from the perspective of the laboratory to which the corresponding authors are linked. Makerspaces and Living labs seem to be the spaces that have recently been the object of analysis by the scientific community in this matter. In this sense, it is possible to find studies that share experiences mainly on management models, design experiences, context comparisons and even recommendations on health and work balance. This body of literature shows that understanding the operation of this kind of organisational structures is a matter of current interest, but even so, they all seem to remain exploratory and scarce.

However, there are some authors who are addressing the challenge of pinpointing the results and evaluating the performance of these types of innovation laboratories. For this reason, our last category is called laboratory assessment. As one of our research objectives is to contribute to the strategic management of these innovation intermediaries, identifying which method (or set of tools) are suitable for this purpose is a key step in our path. Then, by taking a closer look at the methods used by authors in this category, we have some qualitative ones, such as semi-structured interviews and crosscase analysis. Moreover, we also have SWOT analysis, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Service-based taxonomy and Job-demands-resources (JDR) model as prominent methods to consider. Now, once this set of methods has been identified, it would be interesting to explore in more detail what kind of results they are achieving. To this end, all contributions retrieved from the abstracts of the 53 documents were coded, allowing us to identify the six categories previously mentioned. Furthermore, as a result of this coding exercise, it is possible to visualise through a hierarchical chart the proportion represented by each category, composed of the codes extracted from the corpus analysed. Fig. 5 shows the contributions of each study distributed under the mentioned categories. Here it can be appreciated how research related to the management of innovation laboratories focuses mainly on project applications, since the categories of technology testing (TT), urban & public experiences (UE), collaborative project applications (CA) and other contributions (OC) represent 34 of our sample of 53 documents (64%). However, it is also important to underline that the remaining 19 studies (36%) deal in some way with the understanding of this issue, either their management practices (LM) or the assessment of their impacts (LA), highlighting a prominent interest in this regard.

Based on Fig. 5 and the way in which these categories are composed, it is possible to pinpoint some of the axes on which research is being oriented around the management of innovation laboratories. These axes are described below:

Innovation labs for product development in accordance with the qualitative analysis of papers that provide TT contributions: Traditionally, one of the reasons for the existence of laboratories was to support the development, testing and market introduction of new technologies, as products or services. Regardless of the evolution of these intermediary structures, this is something that has a strong presence in this bibliometric study. Today, research around innovation laboratories is leading, for example, to the development of digital platforms, hybrid network services, recommender systems or data processing. This is a clear line that scholars should keep in mind as a path for research in innovation laboratories. Innovation labs for collaboration in accordance with the qualitative analysis of papers that provide CA contributions: Collaborative approaches are inherent to innovation laboratories, regardless of how they are embodied. Nevertheless, there is also a specific tendency that focuses on studying the application of collaborative methods in a wide scope, such as service-oriented project management, supplierdriven innovation, open innovation engineering or interactive collaborative learning. In this aspect, there is a vast outlook for innovation laboratories to be studied as mediators of knowledge creation and interinstitutional collaboration.

Innovation labs for territories in accordance with

Managing Innovation labs according to the qualitative analysis of papers which provide LM contributions:

Design and creation processes, framework and management models, as well as component configurations, are being discussed in the literature through case studies that share laboratory management experiences. Such contributions are valuable inputs for teams seeking inspiration in terms of examples, practices and challenges. Furthermore, laboratory teams willing to share their experiences will allow future researchers interested in this topic to access more enriching information.

Assessing Innovation labs according to the qualitative analysis of papers which provide LA contributions: It is noteworthy that studies dealing with the assessment of innovation laboratories are already feeding the literature. In this respect, laboratory success factors, positive and negative aspects, characterizations, assessment plans or even roadmaps and impacts on firms' innovation capabilities are all issues being explored. The importance of seeing this matter as a research area is founded not only on the possibility of measuring results and appreciating impacts but also on the opportunity to create new knowledge in terms of how to make the most of these dynamic innovation structures. This is an emerging topic of interest that still has a long way to go before establishing itself in the literature.

V. CONCLUSIONS

A scientific outlook of the constellation of innovation laboratories was presented in this paper. This was done through a bibliometric study based on co-occurrence analysis of keywords and content analysis. The results provide a network of 8 clusters in which it is possible to observe both research affinities and distinctions between the most common concepts often related to innovation labs. This will prove helpful for scholars and practitioners, as they can observe which areas of research are most prominent as valuable insights to guide further studies. Furthermore, as the content analysis was based solely on title, abstract and keywords, this could be seen as a limitation due to the way the authors present some abstracts. This could result in a possible loss of valuable information that otherwise could only be retrieved from complete documents. However, the corpus was constructed solely from peer-reviewed publications in order to mitigate this issue. Also, the inclusion of results from other databases such as Web of Science and Google Scholar could serve as input to enrich this study. Lastly, we have set the ground for a research agenda on the strategic management and assessment of innovation laboratories. Tools and methods were identified, as well as whether they are being used to analyse, characterise or evaluate this phenomenon. Future research paths should be oriented towards the consolidation of a strategic methodological framework through which host teams of the innovation laboratories can unlock the potential of the collective intelligence of the surrounding communities as proposed by [START_REF] Morel | Innovation spaces: new places for collective intelligence?[END_REF]. In this way, we would be favouring the consolidation of collaborative open spaces that would help us to keep pace with technological and social transformations.

Fig. 1

 1 Fig. 1. Methodological design

Fig. 3 .

 3 Fig. 3. Network visualization

Fig. 4 .

 4 Fig. 4. Evolution over time of keywords

Fig. 5 .

 5 Fig. 5. Hierarchical chart of contributions

  the qualitative analysis of papers that provide UE contributions: Every day more laboratories are conceived in order to transform the way in which public management and urban development have historically been done. Cities digitalization, public goods management, crisis response, open public innovation and sustainable development are examples of promising research areas where innovation laboratories have a key role to fulfil.

TABLE II

 II

	.	CO-OCCURRENCE ANALYSIS PARAMETERS
	Specification	Condition
	Total of documents		1307
	Total of keywords		3240
	Counting method		Full counting
	Thesaurus		Yes
	Minimum occurrences		8
	Keywords meeting threshold	55

TABLE IV

 IV

	[7]	2018	Article	Service-based taxonomy	LA	[43]	2017	Article	Participatory Design	LM
	[69]	2018	Article	Living Lab method	CA	[44]	2017	Conf Paper	Cloud Ecosystems & IoT	TT
	[70]	2018	Conf Paper	Value Chain Mapping	CA	[45]	2017	Article	Interviews	LA
	[71]	2018	Conf Paper	Interviews	CA	[46]	2017	Article	Results assessment	TT
	[72]	2018	Conf Paper	Smart space system management	TT	[47]	2017	Conf Paper	Recommender platform	TT
	[73]	2018	Conf Paper	SWOT Analysis	LA	[48]	2017	Article	Conceptual framework	UE
	[74]	2018	Conf Paper	Km4City Tools	TT	[49]	2017	Conf Paper	Interviews	UE
	[75]	2018	Conf Paper	Living Lab method	TT	[50]	2017	Conf Paper	Wireless Power Transfer	TT
	[76]	2018	Article	Conceptual framework	LM	[51]	2017	Article	Analytic Hierarchy Process	LA
	[77]	2018	Conf Paper	Dynamic System Modeling	OC	[52]	2017	Article	Community-based approach	UE
	[78]	2018	Article	Conceptual framework	LM	[53]	2017	Conf Paper	Focus group	UE
	. Technology testing (TT), Urban & public experiences (UE), Collaborative METHODS AND CONTRIBUTIONS COMPARISON project applications (CA), Lab management (LM), Lab assessment (LA), [79] 2018 Article Job-demands-resources Model LA	[54]	2017	Article	Living Labs Harmonization Cube	LM
	Ref. [80] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [81]	Year 2019 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2019	Other contributions (OC) Type Article Semi-structured interviews Method/Tool Article Article Article Model Structural Equation Theory Actor-Network Paper ISM Modeling Conf development Planning Paper IP protection Conf Paper Didactic process Conf Conf Paper Digital Healthcare platform	LA Type of Contrib. UE UE LM LM OC LM TT	[55] [61] [60] [59] [58] [57] [56]	2017 2018 2018 2018 2018 2017 2017	Article Article Conf Paper Paper Conf Paper Conf Conf Paper Article	Structural Equation Model Community assessment Outcomes-based Analysis Productivity Creation process User's behaviour Processing Data Stream Design management	LM LA LM LM TT TT CA
	[36]	2017	Conf Paper	Psychosocial & behavioural analysis	UE	[62] [63]	2018 2018	Article Conf Paper	participation & logic framework Living Lab method	UE CA
	[37]	2017	Article	SECI Model	OC
	[38] [39] [40] [41]	2017 2017 2017 2017	Article Conf Paper Conf Paper Conf Paper	Participatory Co-design Digital platform Cross-case analysis Comparative analysis	UE TT LA LM	[64] [65] [66] [67]	2018 2018 2018 2018	Conf Paper Conf Paper Article Conf Paper	Interactive Collaboration Research through Design Smart City IoT platform Virtual Collaboration Innovation capacity	CA CA UE OC
						[68]	2018	Article	analytical
	[42]	2017	Conf Paper	Value Chain Impact Analysis	TT				framework

UE Preprint -Authors' version -Cite final version as: Osorio, F., Dupont, L., Camargo, M., & Pena, J. I. (2019). Constellation of Innovation Laboratories: A Scientific Outlook. 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2019.8792816


Ferney Osorio

Laurent Dupont

Mauricio Camargo

José Ismael Peña

Making the strategic intent of innovation labs operational: A process perspective on the case of the Lorraine Fab Living Lab

Keywords: innovation lab, strategic intent, strategy-making, case study

This paper examines through a single case study the process in which strategic intent is built within an innovation lab. As collaborative innovation structures, innovation labs are sensitive to collision of visions leading to misalignments that could undermine their purpose. Therefore, this study explores from a managerial point of view the way in which an innovation lab is designed, implemented, and sustained in a university context. Results depict the different manifestations of strategic intent that (1) led to the reorganization of existing capabilities under the original idea that gave life to the lab, (2) drove the experimentation and adaptation stages that shaped our case, and (3) favored the institutionalization of the practices and routines resulting from the lab to its ecosystem. This suggests the potential use of the framework to be applied as a coherence-building tool from which strategic intent could be made recognizable and operational.

Introduction

In times of disruptive changes, the "labification" phenomenon has found its place allowing organizations and entrepreneurs to work collaboratively under a conjunction of knowledge, cultures, technologies, and expertise [START_REF] Rayna | Open Social Innovation Dynamics and Impact: Exploratory Study of a Fab Lab Network[END_REF][START_REF] Mcgann | Innovation Labs and Co-Production in Public Problem Solving[END_REF]. Innovation labs are the embodiment of the will of a group of people or organizations to create a favorable environment for facilitating innovation processes [START_REF] Lewis | The Organizational Innovation Laboratory[END_REF]. They usually do so by implementing collaborative processes and experimentation that ultimately seek to strengthen people's and stakeholders' innovative and technological competences while fostering the creation of new solutions to demanding challenges [START_REF] Mortara | Through Entrepreneurs' Eyes: The Fab-Spaces Constellation[END_REF]. This means that the people in charge of assuring the functioning of such places find themselves in a conjunction of expertise, cultures, mindsets, and interests that change depending on the project or activity that takes place [START_REF] Rayna | Open Social Innovation Dynamics and Impact: Exploratory Study of a Fab Lab Network[END_REF]. Lab teams need therefore to be able to deal with constant conditions of uncertainty and complexity [START_REF] Osorio | Shaping a Public Innovation Laboratory in Bogota: Learning through Time, Space and Stakeholders[END_REF].

Scholars have already raised concerns on how the lack of a clear thematic focus and shared intentions among its stakeholders undermines an innovation lab purpose [START_REF] Moultrie | Innovation Spaces: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Role of the Physical Environment in Innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Osorio | Design and Management of Innovation Laboratories: Toward a Performance Assessment Tool[END_REF]. Defining a strategic intent is indeed a proactive mode in strategy-making, providing a north for everyone in an organization from which resources, competences and evolutionary processes are then guided [START_REF] Mantere | Strategic Intent as a Rhetorical Device[END_REF]. Although it is well-known that strategy-making processes are key to successful innovation endeavors (O'Shannassy 2016), there is a lack of understanding of how these processes are carried out within innovation collaborative structures as innovation labs. Even though concerns have been raised about the importance for collaborative structures to have a clear thematic focus and shared intent for their success, literature is scarce in how strategic intent is built within an innovation lab.

Therefore, this study proposes to move forward in this direction by setting up a processual case study based on an innovation lab located in Nancy (France), the Lorraine Fab Living Lab® -LF2L. As part of an ongoing research on the design and management of innovation labs, this study builds on the works developed by Osorio et al. (2019;[START_REF] Osorio | Shaping a Public Innovation Laboratory in Bogota: Learning through Time, Space and Stakeholders[END_REF] to explore to what extent analyzing the evolutionary stages of innovation labs allows to understand how strategic intent around such structures is built and changes in time. Results show the chosen approach is useful to understand the sensemaking process that is carried out within an innovation lab, by looking at the collective intent from team members, how resources and competences are configured, and the subsequent conducted actions.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, the theoretical background around innovation labs and strategic intent is introduced. Next, the research design along with characteristics of our case are explained. Then, results of the case study are presented followed by a discussion of the main findings and further implications.

Theoretical Background

Innovation Labs background Amid a variety of definitions, innovation labs are defined as dedicated organizational forms for the facilitation of innovation processes through uniquely designed environments, creative and inspiring cultures, and high-tech facilities [START_REF] Lewis | The Organizational Innovation Laboratory[END_REF][START_REF] Moultrie | Innovation Spaces: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Role of the Physical Environment in Innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Osorio | Design and Management of Innovation Laboratories: Toward a Performance Assessment Tool[END_REF]. According to [START_REF] Lewis | The Organizational Innovation Laboratory[END_REF], an innovation lab is the embodiment of the innovation will of an organization. They argue that benefits of implementing an innovation lab initiative are beyond specific outcomes and consist in fact of a learning process for both users (individuals, groups or projects) and their parent institutions. To this end, innovation labs are usually used to implement collaborative processes and experimentation that ultimately seek to strengthen people's and stakeholders' innovative and technological competences while fostering the creation of new solutions to demanding challenges [START_REF] Mortara | Through Entrepreneurs' Eyes: The Fab-Spaces Constellation[END_REF][START_REF] Osorio | Design and Management of Innovation Laboratories: Toward a Performance Assessment Tool[END_REF].

When referring to the creation of favorable environments to support innovation, there are several additional concepts that can be found in the literature and are often used interchangeably. Living labs, fablabs, makerspaces, hackerspaces or third places are some of the prominent concepts that are used to address the emergence and diversity of these innovative spaces [START_REF] Osorio | Constellation of Innovation Laboratories: A Scientific Outlook[END_REF]. Even though previous research has focused on establishing differences between these innovation structures [START_REF] Capdevila | Typologies of Localized Spaces of Collaborative Innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Schuurman | Innovation in the Public Sector : Exploring the Characteristics and Potential of Living Labs and Innovation Labs[END_REF], studies such as the one by [START_REF] Memon | Inter-InnoLab Collaboration: An Investigation of the Diversity and Interconnection among Innovation Laboratories[END_REF] show how living labs, fablabs, coworking space and the like, seem to perform analogously to innovation labs. In this study we therefore look at the vein of innovation labs as an integrating approach that helps us to address the organizational perspective as originally conceptualized by [START_REF] Lewis | The Organizational Innovation Laboratory[END_REF].

Design and Management of Innovation Labs

Despite the relative freedom in which innovation labs usually operate, they still need to respond to their partners interest and goals [START_REF] Lewis | The Organizational Innovation Laboratory[END_REF]. In this sense, lab managing teams are deemed to continuously strive to create favorable conditions for creativity and collaboration while at the same time they are embedded in traditional environments driven by broader political and economic interests [START_REF] Tõnurist | Innovation Labs in the Public Sector: What They Are and What They Do?[END_REF][START_REF] Mcgann | Innovation Labs and Co-Production in Public Problem Solving[END_REF][START_REF] Rayna | Open Social Innovation Dynamics and Impact: Exploratory Study of a Fab Lab Network[END_REF]. This means that innovation labs are semiautonomous organizations strongly shaped by their local context and their team experiences [START_REF] Gryszkiewicz | Innovation Labs: Leveraging Openness for Radical Innovation?[END_REF][START_REF] Osorio | Shaping a Public Innovation Laboratory in Bogota: Learning through Time, Space and Stakeholders[END_REF]. This is why authors have raised awareness that the designing and management of innovation labs goes beyond the implementation of fancy spaces and instead a more meaningful purpose is required for this kind of initiatives to thrive [START_REF] Moultrie | Innovation Spaces: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Role of the Physical Environment in Innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Osorio | Design and Management of Innovation Laboratories: Toward a Performance Assessment Tool[END_REF].

While the innovation lab phenomenon has been present in the academic literature for several years now, few works have focused on the management perspective. The authors of this study have previously contributed to the literature by proposing a strategic-oriented maturity assessment approach as a basis to build guidelines for the design and management of innovation labs [START_REF] Osorio | Design and Management of Innovation Laboratories: Toward a Performance Assessment Tool[END_REF]. Building on the propositions by [START_REF] Moultrie | Innovation Spaces: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Role of the Physical Environment in Innovation[END_REF], they argue that by looking at the stages in which a lab is conceived (strategic intent), implemented (process of creation and physical embodiment), operated (process of use) and valued (outcomes), lab teams can reflect on their journey and potentially envision new strategies to get the best out of their labs (See Figure 1) which coupled with a longitudinal perspective allows also to have an evolutionary perspective [START_REF] Osorio | Shaping a Public Innovation Laboratory in Bogota: Learning through Time, Space and Stakeholders[END_REF]. Below a summarized description of this framework is shared:

Strategic Intent

The strategic intent concept is often understood as a proactive mode in strategizing, which symbolizes the organization's will about a desired future [START_REF] Hamel | Strategic Intent[END_REF]. It gives a common target to which intraorganizational evolution processes are oriented and the necessary competences accumulated [START_REF] Mantere | Strategic Intent as a Rhetorical Device[END_REF][START_REF] Gratton | Implementing Strategic Intent: Human Resource Processes as a Force for Change[END_REF]). More specifically, strategic intent has the potential for uniting organizational action into a coherent pattern, especially in those situations where organizations need to be sensitive to environmental changes while being able to exploit bottom-up ideas [START_REF] Mantere | Strategic Intent as a Rhetorical Device[END_REF]. However, according to O'Shannassy (2016) in order to avoid multiple intents dissonance and fragmentation, one needs to be aware when are the right moments to use strategic intent to increase discipline and coordination and when to allow "chaotic" management processes to foster innovation and learning.

This is why [START_REF] Moultrie | Innovation Spaces: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Role of the Physical Environment in Innovation[END_REF] assign a fundamental role to the existence of an underpinning strategic intent, so a desired innovation lab initiative does not become a vacuous space with a superficial focus. In addition, given the conjunction of interests, mindsets, cultures and expertise that often collide in today's more open and social innovation labs, it is of paramount importance to not only to use intent to provide a meaningful purpose but to help ensuring strategic alignment in time [START_REF] Rayna | Open Social Innovation Dynamics and Impact: Exploratory Study of a Fab Lab Network[END_REF][START_REF] Osorio | Shaping a Public Innovation Laboratory in Bogota: Learning through Time, Space and Stakeholders[END_REF]. [START_REF] Mantere | Strategic Intent as a Rhetorical Device[END_REF] argue that strategic intent and its temporal unfolding is a tool for building coherence between multiple intents by creating purpose, switching perspective, emphasizing context or reaching consistency.

Research Design

Building from the works conducted by [START_REF] Moultrie | Innovation Spaces: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Role of the Physical Environment in Innovation[END_REF]) and [START_REF] Osorio | Design and Management of Innovation Laboratories: Toward a Performance Assessment Tool[END_REF], the theoretical framework originally proposed for assessing innovation [START_REF] Osorio | Making the strategic intent of innovation labs operational: A process perspective on the case of the Lorraine Fab Living Lab[END_REF]. Making the strategic intent of innovation labs operational: A process perspective on the case of the Lorraine Fab Living Lab. R&D Management Conference 2021 Innovation in an Era of Disruption, 1-13. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03285670 lab performance has been already adapted for exploring the evolutionary stages of such structures [START_REF] Osorio | Shaping a Public Innovation Laboratory in Bogota: Learning through Time, Space and Stakeholders[END_REF]. Here, we intend to advance in this research by setting up a processual single case study [START_REF] Langley | Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data[END_REF] to explore to what extent such an approach could help us to understand how an innovation lab's strategic intent is built and changes in time.

The process data from which this study relies is based on the experience of a collaborative innovation space located in Nancy (France), the Lorraine Fab Living Lab® -LF2L. The LF2L is the result of a joint effort between the ERPI Laboratory and the National School of Innovation and Systems Engineering (ENSGSI) of the Université de Lorraine, the city government and companies (SME network and energy firms). Originally conceived to provide a platform for evaluating uses and innovation acceptability, the LF2L is today a reference in the innovation ecosystem of the Greater East region in France.

We then build our case upon four main sources of data: First, 12 semi-structured interviews with the LF2L team members and representatives from the ERPI and ENSGSI. Second, a compilation of archival data composed mainly by original draft proposals and early designs of the lab as well as technical and management reports between 2014 and 2020. And third, 2hour prospective workshop with 16 participants composed by professors, researchers, administrative staff and students. The ensemble of this data represents a comprehensive view of the history of the lab since its early conceptualization back in 2005 up to 2020 and its concerns about the future.

Results

This section shares the results of our case study. They are presented according to the four main periods identified for our case, taking into consideration the five dimensions of our theoretical framework. In Table 1 a summary of the main elements that characterize each stage is provided. Although the LF2L officially started to operate in 2014, it was only the result of a discovery and conceptualization process that began several years before. Back in the time, professors from both the ENSGSI and ERPI were seeking to provide the engineering school and research institute with novel mechanisms to help materialize the innovation knowledge that was being created. Therefore, this period was mostly characterized by a strong conceptualization and development of emerging approaches such as (1) fabrication laboratory or fablab to stimulate prototyping and implementation, and (2) living lab methodologies to facilitate collaboration and user validation.

This intent was manifested by two parallel initiatives. On the one hand, there was the implementation of Cre@ction in 2005, the prototyping room conceived to support student projects located within the ENSGSI building. The allocation of these resources and the dynamic created there will eventually lead to creation of the GSI Lab in 2011 as one of the first fablabs in France. On the other hand, there was INOCITE, a user innovation platform created in 2009 to foster territorial innovation open to public servants, citizens and companies. This initiative will be the carrier of the Lorraine Smart Cities Living Lab (LSCLL) project officially recognized by the European Network of Living Labs (ENOLL).

The simultaneous functioning of both structures naturally sparked complementary interactions as explained by one of the interviewees "the fablab side helped me to make mock-ups to model mobility stations so that we could have other ways of getting users to work with more representative or novel objects to bring another form of creativity to the citizen workshops" (interviewee 4, personal communication, June 24, 2020). The development of this dynamic is perhaps one of the most important outcomes of this period, since it was this reciprocity between initially independent approaches that will establish the methodological basis for the future operation of the LF2L.

Stage 2: 2014-2016

A remarkable aspect of the context around this case is the strategic alignment between ENSGSI and ERPI. Both the engineering school and the research institute have clearly coincided in their common interest in jointly promoting the necessary actions and resources to support and foster their scientific and pedagogical processes. A key strategy in this regard has been their determination to interact and collaborate with the different actors in their territory to constantly bring new projects so students from all levels and young researchers have a real milieu to work in.

As result of this dynamic, in 2013 the Chaire REVES project, a public private partnership between the UL, Greater Nancy and two energy firms -Electricité Réseaux Distribution France (ERDF) and Électricité de France (EDF) -to reinforce their actions for sustainable urban transformations started operations. The public focus and scale of the project, the favorable political environment, in addition to methodological knowledge developed in the preceding years were the conditions that led to the implementation in 2014 of the LF2L in a new dedicated facility to host both, the collaborative space along with the fabrication lab. Although the context was determined by a specific project, the vision of the research institute and the engineering school was to establish an integrated environment with a triple purpose: (1) support research and pedagogy through collaborative innovation processes;

(2) facilitate interface with the territory; (3) be a showcase of their expertise.

While this new vision followed the same line as before, its materialization represented a major change in perspective due to the reorganization of resources and competencies: going from two independent sites with different ways of operating to assembling everything into a single one. Something that helped to give meaning to the new organization was the construction of a unified methodological model that reflected the learning and aspirations sought for this new stage. The Fab Living Lab approach is then presented as the innovation continuum expressed by the stages 2D -3D -4D as a depiction of the desired way of working around which the different activities and human and technological resources would begin to be guided.

Another important characteristic of this period was the conformation of the lab team composed by a scientific coordinator, a fab manager and a research assistant. Even though the LF2L was conceived to function as a support platform for the ERPI and ENSGSI, undoubtedly the management of the space itself and the activities it was intended to perform required a dedicated team. Support for modeling and prototyping activities, facilitation of co-design workshops and access to immersive environments were some of the main activities that the platform offered to its users in order to provide an experience under the 4D model. All these activities rapidly allowed the development of an active use of the space, measured mainly by the number of events with citizens and the number of student projects supported. In addition, capitalizing on the experience acquired through scientific publications derived from the laboratory's activity was a key result that would help disseminate and gain legitimacy in the region's ecosystem.

Stage 3: 2017-2020

The positioning of the LF2L in the city, as well as the growth of the ERPI and the ENSGSI triggered a virtuous circle where new projects were increasingly housed in the lab, professors and students were using the space for their undergraduate and master courses, and doctoral thesis were being conducted. In this way, LF2L has become the place where the work of the institute and the school "converge as a place to bring innovation to life" (interviewee 6, personal communication, June 30, 2020).

Moving from implementing LF2L as a new concept to scaling up was what characterized this period. This was evidenced by the increase in the number of personnel installed on the platform from 3 to 5 people along with the formalization of functions. While in the early days the lab team members felt that "because one was here you had to do everything" (interviewee 9, personal communication, June 25, 2020), over time the operational needs became clearer and more defined roles were created. This reorganization did not only involve a redistribution of functions, but also the building of new competencies in areas such as plastic recycling, circular economy, virtual and augmented reality, biometric sensors, etc.

Under this new configuration, a service-based operation began to be more explicitly defined, mainly around the reservation of spaces and technological resources, design of experimentation environments, design of testing protocols, and the facilitation of innovation workshops. As a result of all these conditions, LF2L today plays an essential role as a support platform for research and pedagogy. On the one hand, it supports the ERPI in the implementation of research projects with regional, national and European funding. On the other hand, it provides a place and complementary resources for the academic activities offered by the ENSGSI, including the hosting of master's and doctoral students in need of an experimental environment.

Stage 4: 2020-Future

The history of LF2L has been marked by continuous institutional support and ownership by its parent institutions. Although throughout these years there have been changes in the leadership of both institutions, the professors recognize the strategic role that this has for their ecosystem. However, 2020 was a year with important changes in the political, social and regulatory context. At the local level, it was an election year that would call into question whether the agreement for the use of the space where the LF2L is installed could be renewed.

In addition, a quality certification process for the different platforms offering research and pedagogical services was beginning to gain momentum within the UL. These factors, together with the health and social crisis caused by Covid19, triggered a phase of institutionalization of processes and activities that until then had taken place organically.

The purpose of LF2L has never been in doubt, however issues at this new stage have centered on how to move from growing to sustaining, how to preserve the dynamics of a convergence space for all stakeholders, ensure an increasingly social thematic focus, and institutionalize all these capabilities within the university. Hence, the concerns for the future of LF2L seem to be oriented towards how to formalize the operation of the platform within the structure of the university and to what extent the administrative conditions allow or not to maintain the competencies acquired so far. Questions such as what are the organizational boundaries between the LF2L and the ERPI and ENSGSI, if any; to what extent the platform should be measured by its financial performance or not; or even how the positioning of LF2L in the local ecosystem should be better oriented to reinforce the visibility of its parent institutions, appear as some of the key aspects to work on for the future.

Unfolding the strategic intent of Innovation Labs

From this case we can see how the intent of an innovation lab emerges. Yet, this intent is also changing and relies heavily on the physical and intangible manifestations of the surrounding environment. According to [START_REF] Mantere | Strategic Intent as a Rhetorical Device[END_REF] the temporal unfolding of strategic intent along with the logical interconnections of its components makes strategic intent understandable and recognizable. Further, they theorized on how strategic intent can be used to build coherence between multiple stakeholders by helping in finding purpose, offering a different perspective, emphasizing context or creating consistency. In this section, we use [START_REF] Mantere | Strategic Intent as a Rhetorical Device[END_REF] propositions to explain our case intent evolution, laying the foundation towards an innovation lab intent meter as a tool for summarizing innovation lab value and trigger retrospective sensemaking process (See Figure 2).

Finding purpose:

The first stage of our case highlights the importance of finding a purpose for the innovation Lab: the desire of two institutions from the same university to develop new capabilities and to have an interface that would facilitate interactions with the territory.

Although the path to the official start of LF2L took several years, the conceptualization undertaken during that time was the seed of a desired future towards which subsequent actions would be related.

Switching perspective: There is no doubt that having the will to create the right conditions to foster some form of innovation is the basis for innovation lab initiatives. However, from having a purpose to putting it into practice is quite a journey, and the path to that purpose can often lead to a change in perspective. Although the competencies of the FabLab and Living Lab were already under development, it was not until the implementation of LF2L that a thorough reorganization took place, providing a unified cause from which new efforts would be channeled. While this triggered a new phase of rediscovery and adaptation, this new perspective served as a guide for all.

Emphasizing context: Once the LF2L was operational, it became a beacon for its parent institutions and stakeholders. Therefore, it was important to emphasize what the laboratory was all about, so that users could realize its potential and increase its scope. Stage 3 of our case represented a period of increased awareness of the potential of the LF2L, whereby more and more professors, partners and students were making use of the space and its resources. During this period people were encouraged to use the lab according to their own point of view.

Building consistency: Disturbances and contradictions are bound to arise along the way of managing an innovation laboratory. Despite the positive results and perceived impact, LF2L is entering a stage where external conditions are adding pressure to a so far mostly organic dynamic. Organizational boundaries, institutionalization of competencies and financial performance are some of the issues driving the debate on the future of the platform. This is where innovation lab initiatives tend to have difficulties in maintaining strategic alignment with their stakeholders. Consequently, one must be aware of when dissonances need to be collectively addressed in order to strengthen engagement around the lab.

Conclusion

This study explored, from a managerial point of view, the way in which an innovation lab is designed, implemented, and sustained in a university context. It expands from the works of [START_REF] Osorio | Shaping a Public Innovation Laboratory in Bogota: Learning through Time, Space and Stakeholders[END_REF][START_REF] Osorio | Design and Management of Innovation Laboratories: Toward a Performance Assessment Tool[END_REF] by not only adding insights to the evolutionary process of the management of an innovation lab but also to the way in which the strategic intent around the lab is built. An emphasis is made in how the constitutive pillars of the theoretical framework (strategic intent, process of creation, physical embodiment, process of use and outcomes) help to elicit logical interconnections that emerge among the lab team members and ultimately give shape to the lab strategy.

Results allows us to depict the different manifestations of strategic intent that (1) led to the reorganization of existing capabilities under the original idea that gave life to the lab, (2) drove the experimentation and adaptation stages that shaped our case, and (3) favored the institutionalization of the practices and routines resulting from the lab to its ecosystem (university, public and private sectors). Results also show the chosen approach is useful to understand the sensemaking process that is carried out within an innovation lab, by looking at the collective intent from team members, how resources and competences are configured, and the subsequent conducted actions. This suggests the potential use of the framework to be applied as a coherence-building tool from which strategic intents could be made recognizable and operational.

Through this research we seek to draw attention to the different issues that influence an innovation lab performance beyond infrastructural and operational ones. Public and private practitioners and policy makers will therefore find a framework that, in practice, constitutes a methodological approach from which innovation lab performance assessments can be tailored. Furthermore, we explore the potential of this approach to become a proactive strategy-making tool to help an innovation lab team and its stakeholders find common ground for building a collective intent.

We acknowledge the importance of collaborative innovation structures in fostering R&D and entrepreneurial innovation. However, we also realize the complex and uncertain conditions in which these structures develop often leading to tensions and bottlenecks. While focus is mostly set on the outcomes and impacts that they may have on their users and ecosystems, we believe that understanding their intra-organizational processes is fundamental for ensuring their success and continuity.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Innovation lab intent gauge

Process of Use:

  The way the lab supports and facilitates the innovation focus of its stakeholders in relation to what it was originally intended

	• Context: Expectations, needs and culture of lab's hosting organization and/or
	stakeholders
	• Strategic Intent: Stakeholders' willingness to innovate translated into the lab's
	strategic and symbolic goals, common values, culture and lifespan
	• Process of Creation: The way innovation is intended to be supported within the lab,
	i.e., stages of the innovation process, methods or activities, type of users, facilitators,
	events and, available resources and constraints
	• Physical Embodiment: The lab's physical manifestation in terms of space design,
	infrastructure, technologies, limitations and reconfigurability
	•

• Outcomes: The tangible and intangible results that are new, useful and duplicable according to the lab's context and strategic intent Figure 1. Innovation lab framework outline. Adapted from Osorio et al. (2019)

Lorraine Fab Living Lab 2005 -2013 2014 -2017 2017 -2020 2020 -… Context

  [START_REF] Osorio | Making the strategic intent of innovation labs operational: A process perspective on the case of the Lorraine Fab Living Lab[END_REF]. Making the strategic intent of innovation labs operational: A process perspective on the case of the Lorraine Fab Living Lab. R&D Management Conference 2021 Innovation in an Era of Disruption, 1-13. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03285670 Dupont, L., Camargo, M., & Peña, J. I. (2021). Making the strategic intent of innovation labs operational: A process perspective on the case of the Lorraine Fab Living Lab. R&D Management Conference 2021 Innovation in an Era of Disruption, 1-13. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03285670

	Osorio, F., Strategic Intent -Demonstrate tangible innovation approaches to boost pedagogic and research processes -Foster links with territory -Increase ENSGSI and ERPI visibility and recognition Osorio, F., Stage 1: 2005-2013	-From parallel initiatives to a unified platform to support research and pedagogic processes -Concept implementation -Facilitate interaction with stakeholders in the territory -Showcase ENSGSI & ERPI Competencies	-From concept l'innovation" -The place to "faire vivre and research processes -Support of pedagogic Stakeholders ENSGSI, ERPI & -Convergence space for scaling-up implementation to	issues -Focus on societal platform -Institutionalize the dynamic convergence -Keep sustain -From scaling-up to
				-Fab Living Lab 4D	-Fab Living Lab 4D
			-Fab Living Lab	Model	Integrated
			approach	-Green FabLab	Innovation Model
	Process of Creation	-FabLab and Living Lab as parallel approaches -Prototyping to support pedagogical activities -Co-design to support citizen workshops	-Innovation process structured in 2D -3D -4D stages -Lab Team composition: scientific coordinator, fab	-Immersive collaborative environment -Reconfiguration of Lab Team competences -Lab Team composition: scientific coordinator,	-Green FabLab -Immersive collaborative environment --Lab Team competency
			manager & research	fab manager, research	inventory
			assistant	associates and technical	-Strengthen digital
				assistant	& facilitation skills
	Physical Embodiment	-Cre@ction room as FabLab within the school building (50m2) -INOCITE as facilities for developing living lab approach (250m2)	-LF2L as single space hosting FabLab and Living Lab setups (400m2) -Nomad'Lab as FabLab mobile	-Same facilities -Continuous technological upgrades -3D printing and recycling technologies -Immersive technologies and biometric sensors	-Scenario building to explore possibilities to: -Facilities Reconfiguration -New facilities -Facilities expansion
			-Support of pedagogic
	Process of Use Outcomes	From INPL to UL Close relationship ENSGSI -ERPI Strategic relationship UL -Metropolitan Government -Cre@ction: Creativity and prototyping support for pedagogy -INOCITE: Urban innovation workshops -Conceptualization of methodological approach on collaborative spaces -Student projects & innovation workshops Labels: Fab Foundation, ENoLL, France Living Labs	UL-ENSGSI-ERPI Strategic Alliance through Chaire REVES project (UL -Metropolitan Government -French Energy Firms) and research activities through: -CAD & Prototyping to support pedagogy -Co-design & immersive environments -Collaboration with communities of practice through open days -Industrial & Territorial Partnerships -Student & research projects -Scientific publications -Nomad'Lab deployments in the territory	-Formalization of pedagogic and research support services: -Experimentation protocol design -Experimentation setups -Facilitation of innovation workshops UL-ENSGSI-ERPI Strategic relationship UL -Nancy Metropolitan Government -Industrial & Territorial Partnerships -National & European Funded Projects -Participation at annual metropolitan fair -Scientific publications & press articles	UL-ENSGSI-ERPI continued institutional -Improvement of welcome experience -Strengthening of pedagogic and scientific services -Diversification industrial partnerships commitment Changes in metropolitan government Facilities agreement renewal Infra+ Certification Process at UL -Keep developing new strategic partnerships -Financial performance -Reenforce visibility of parent institutions -Sustain Lab Team competencies


Zoë Dubus

Pierre Leger

-nin-and-the-vocabulary-of-the-psychedelic-experience

Compared to other psychotropic drugs available in the 1950s, LSD induced "something phenomenal, … of unimaginable intensity," according to its creator Albert Hofmann. Speaking in an interview in 2004, he continued, "There is a vast difference between the emotional experience of this sensation and its purely abstract, philosophical description. It would be like trying to describe colours to a blind person: words alone will never make it possible to see what they are." How can the psychedelic experience be described when it eludes translation into language?

Authors involved in the early study of LSD had been forced to resort to new concepts to explain what the experience was like. A specific vocabulary had to be invented in order to describe these phenomena. Following a tradition established by the psychiatrist Jacques-Joseph Moreau de Tours (1802-1884) with his work on cannabis, where he used the insights of writers and artists, this process was not just a scientific endeavour: intellectuals such as Aldous Huxley (who helped coin the word "psychedelic" with Humphry Osmond), Anaïs Nin, Ernst Jünger, Gérard Heard, and Henri Michaux all participated in the development of these concepts, thanks to their ties with the scientific community.

For inspiration, researchers, artists, and writers turned to Eastern philosophy-with its heightened attention to the body, in contrast to the Judeo-Christian tradition-since it seemed to foster a better understanding of the psychedelic experience. As the late Martin Fortier has emphasized, the Indo-Tibetan tradition in particular addressed "the philosophical and psychological questions associated with altered states of consciousness… in great detail." In a 1967 article, the German psychiatrist Hanscarl Leuner explained this pursuit as follows: "The therapeutic mechanism does not correspond to any of our current psychological concepts. … Practitioners have no choice but to use these old concepts to interpret the results of their therapeutic trials." Anaïs Nin Among the intellectuals whom doctors consulted in an effort to improve their understanding of the effects of LSD was Anaïs Nin . The French writer owes her fame to the publication of her diaries, which she began writing at the age of 11 and continued for her entire life. They offer a deep insight into her private life and her romantic, artistic, and intellectual relationships. Nin had ties with various psychoanalytical communities and, in particular, with Otto Rank, who was her psychoanalyst. In the fall of 1955, she took part in an LSD experiment conducted by the psychiatrist Oscar Janiger in which a musician and a biologist also participated.

Nin's account of her experience appears at the end of Volume 5 of her Diary: "Gil [Henderson, the painter] asked me if I wanted to participate in an experiment because Dr. Janiger was hoping a writer would be more articulate about the experience." She goes on to describe the session in some detail: "It seemed strange to be coming to a psychiatrist's office for such an adventure. Dr. Janiger took Gil and me into his private office, which was lined with books and very dark. I had little time to form an impression of him, for he immediately dispensed a number of blue pills, five or eight, I do not remember, with a glass of water. Then he conducted us to the waiting room, where the biologist sat already with a pad on his knee, pen in hand." She recounts how "[a]ll rigidities disappeared. It was as if I had been plunged to the bottom of the sea, and everything had become undulating and wavering." The experience was peaceful, radiant, and pleasant: "My body was both swimming and flying. I felt gay and at ease and playful. There was perfect connection between my body and everything that was happening." Marveling at these exotic visions, she was suddenly tormented by a thought: everything was appearing and changing too quickly, preventing her from remembering each scene, but most of all she realized that she would not be able to describe what she had seen.

As she was lying down to catch her breath, she had a peak experience:

"The walls turned to gold, the bedcover was gold, my whole body was becoming GOLD, liquid gold, scintillating, warm gold. I WAS GOLD. It was the most pleasurable sensation I had ever known, like an orgasm. It was the secret of life, the alchemist's secret of life."

Later, as the effects of LSD began to wear off, she observed: "I felt I could capture the secret of life because the secret of life was metamorphosis and transmutation, but it happened too quickly and was beyond words. … Ah, I cannot capture the secret of life with WORDS. Sadness. The secret of life was BREATH. That was what I always wanted words to do, to BREATHE." She was very struck by her experience, and reflected on the nature of the LSD's effects. According to her, the substance did not reveal an "unknown world" but rather allowed individuals to give in to their dreams and fantasies without the interference of the real world. LSD acted as a facilitator, allowing faster access to extraordinary experiences that could still be got at using other ways: "Obviously, by way of writing, reveries, waking dreams, and night dreams, I had visited all those landscapes."

Finally, frustrated at not being able to recreate her LSD experience through language, Nin concluded that it had not been particularly positive. She became dubious about psychedelics' widely assumed creative and spiritual potential, and wrote that, in fact, psychedelic trips had the potential to make individuals passive:

"So the drugs, instead of bringing fertile images which in turn can be shared with the world (as the great painters, great poets, great musicians shared their abundance with the unfertile ones, enriched undernourished lives), have instead become a solitary vice, a passive dreaming which alienates the dreamer from the whole world, isolates him, ultimately destroys him. It is like masturbation. The one who wrestles his images from experience, from his smoky dreams, to create, is able then to build what he has seen and hungered for. It does not vanish with the effects of the chemical. … And that is the conflict. The drug effect does not strengthen the desire to turn the dream, the vision, into reality. It is passive."

Her stark rejection of the significance of the psychedelic state raises interesting questions. Notably, we find in her account an idea entrenched in the Western unconscious whereby forms of knowledge considered to be superior (artistic, intellectual, or spiritual) may only legitimately be accessed after a long and painful initiation. LSD and the other psychedelic substances were so many easy shortcuts. Any strategies meant to reduce the effort required to achieve such a superior state were considered pathetic and cheap.

Anaïs Nin therefore judges Huxley's psychedelic writings harshly: "Huxley was a scientist. These visions came from chemicals. They were controlled. There was no danger of a Rimbaud walking out of his poetic world." LSD also plays an important role in the sixth volume of her Diary. Following on her earlier ideas, she continues to examine the links between psychedelics and creativity, imagination, and religious belief. Nin had ties with some of the great personalities involved in psychedelic research, including Aldous Huxley, Betty Eisner, Timothy Leary, and Richard Alpert (Ram Dass), and she was critical of what she saw to be their overly scientific approach. She concluded that it was possible for artists and poets to describe the experience, but that these types of visionary works were not accessible to the majority of people, who preferred factual and clinical reports over "poetic niceties." During the of 1963, she had written:

"No one had taught them [Western scientifically minded experimenters] to dream, to transcend outer events and read their meaning. They had been deprived of all such spiritual disciplines. It was a scientific culture, a technological culture. It was logical that they would believe in drugs, drugs of all kinds: curative, tranquilizing, stimulating and (logically) dream-inducing drugs… they were going in their own scientific way into their other reality. At one party, Leary discussed a statement he had made, that there was no language, no way to describe the LSD experience. I did not agree. I mentioned the poets; I mentioned Michaux; I mentioned the surrealists. All unknown to them. They were scientists, not poets. Huxley's plain, precise, methodical report was more trustworthy. They were making links with ancient religions but not with literature, I felt." Anaïs Nin's account may be somewhat of a caricature, but it nevertheless shows a semantic divide between cold and technical scientific language and the often-inexpressible fullness of a psychedelic experience. It also highlights the difficulty many non-academic intellectuals faced when describing the effects of these substances: their attempts were too far removed from the scientific culture of psychiatrists, who were the only recognized experts on these substances.

Betty Eisner dedicated one of her articles to Nin with the following: "To Anaïs Nin, who knows more about this than any of the scientists do." Eisner recognized the significance of Nin's insights and perhaps offered this dedication as a subtle nod to the need for nurturing these critical perspectives. Eisner was well aware of the complex network of players influencing the history of psychedelic science and its resistance to these critical, tempered, or even embodied perspectives.

Nin was familiar with the Tibetan Book of the Dead, but felt that Americans were not versed enough in poetry and myth to receive these Eastern concepts. She believed that Americans, with their thinking "blocked both by puritanism and by materialism" had no access to their inner world without the intervention of "a jolt, a shock, a violent tearing away from the earth" enabled by the consumption of LSD. She regretted that Leary and his followers adapted the language of Eastern religions without seeking in Western culture the means to describe these states (in surrealism, for example). According to her, because of their lack of sensitivity to poetry, Americans were unable to make sense of their psychedelic experiences, which led to negative experiences: "And what happened to those who had not become familiar with the meaning of the unconscious, of the dream, of creation through poetry, myths, psychology? They were frightened, confused; they were passive under the shock of dreams, visions, hallucinations. They could not integrate the visions with the art of living or the art of language." However, concepts from Eastern philosophies, when adopted by Western science, had become devoid of their original meaning and lost their usefulness. Moreover, these borrowings had a very negative connotation to many at the time, as the anthropologist Michel Perrin explains: "The words that Westerners use to talk about these phenomena, which come from cultures far removed from their own, do not have the same meaning and can be pejorative or even sound ridiculous, all of which influences the understanding that the uninitiated may have."

The use of this language mixing concepts from the Indo-Tibetan tradition with scientific terms largely contributed to the growing perception among the public, political actors, and the scientific community that LSD and the researchers associated with it were intimately linked to the formation of a counterculture threatening the established order. Consequently, the "psychedelic" vocabulary would have a decisive influence on the stigmatization of LSD studies and contribute to their eventual halt.

Translated by Robert Savery.


Martina Tuscano
email: martina.tuscano@inra.fr

Claire Lamine
email: claire.lamine@inra.fr

The Emergence of Norms and Accountability in Food Consumption: Experimentation of New Consumption Practices within a Public Program

food practices -sustainable consumption -public policies This paper provides an analysis of an experimental action about sustainable consumption and discusses its learning and normative effects based on a case study in France. At the national level (EGalim law, 2018, Territorial Food Projects, 2014) and at the local level, public policies are part of a process of greening food production and consumption.These processes are pushed by societal expectations that are expressed in national and transnational initiatives and networks. Previous analyses have shown how sustainable consumption has become a new object of the "governability" of consumption (Rumpala, 2009) and that the empowerment of individuals requires a reflexive capacity that can be supported through different instruments (Dubuisson-Quellier, 2016). Our hypothesis is that some social experimentation programs set up by public policies can provide a support for collective learning of new norms and practices among consumers. Therefore, these programmes would provide a tool to support sustainable consumption but also to manage the related learning processes. How are these new food consumption norms co-constructed or rather imposed in this kind of experimentation? What relationship to responsibility is established between public institutions and citizens? We explore this topic by studying an initiative promoted by public policies to test new consumption practices aimed at making food consumption more responsible. The experience, called Positive Food Families, was first tested in 2012 by a civil society organisation in Lyon and in our case set up by a municipality in the south of France. It involves 17 families over a period of a school year through practical workshops and becomes a place for direct experimentation with new normative expectations. Our approach, based on a ethnographic study combined with the analysis of individuals' food trajectories, aims to question the normative scope of public policies pursued with this action as well as the learning and empowerment processes that it allows (or not).


Draft version -to cite this article, please use the following reference: Dupont Laurent, « Agile innovation: Creating value in uncertain environments », Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 2019/1 (n° 28), p. 1-5. DOI : 10.3917/jie.028.0001. URL : https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2019-1-page-1.htm

Agile innovation: Creating value in uncertain environments

Laurent DUPONT 1 1 Université de Lorraine, ERPI Laboratory, France, l.dupont@univ-lorraine.fr Companies or other organizations combine incremental innovation activities with increasingly successful or even disruptive innovation projects to create value in uncertain environments [START_REF] Margaria | Simplicity as a driver for agile innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Morris | Agile Innovation: The Revolutionary Approach to Accelerate Success, Inspire Engagement, and Ignite Creativity[END_REF]. This is reflected today in the integration of the concept of "agile innovation". [START_REF] Aaen | Essence: Facilitating Agile Innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Margaria | Simplicity as a driver for agile innovation[END_REF][START_REF] Pirola-Merlo | Agile innovation: The role of team climate in rapid research and development[END_REF][START_REF] Wilson | Agile innovation: a footprint balancing distance and immersion[END_REF][START_REF] Morris | Agile Innovation: The Revolutionary Approach to Accelerate Success, Inspire Engagement, and Ignite Creativity[END_REF][START_REF] Mergel | Agile innovation management in government: A research agenda[END_REF]. Agility can be defined as the ability of an organization to effectively immerse itself in its ecosystem, understood as all the entities that interact in a technological, economic, societal and cultural environment. The structures concerned therefore systematically involve all stakeholders in the development of new products and/or services, in order to accelerate the understanding of the various needs and thereby develop an innovation and added value creation that specifically meets them. To reach this level of maturity in terms of innovation, organizations must adapt their strategies, business models, projects, and even redefine their role within their "ecosystem" [START_REF] Morris | Agile Innovation: The Revolutionary Approach to Accelerate Success, Inspire Engagement, and Ignite Creativity[END_REF]. Whatever the context of emergence and development, these situations generate a high degree of uncertainty both in the implementation of innovative projects and in their prospects of success. The establishment of flexible and adaptive, i. e. agile, organisations is one of the responses to better integrate all stakeholders and their needs. The term "agile" is now commonly used to describe organizations that are able to adapt and function well in rapidly changing environments [START_REF] Overby | Enterprise Agility and the Enabling Role of Information Technology[END_REF]. "Flexibility" or "lean" are other terms [START_REF] Sharifi | A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing organisations: An introduction[END_REF][START_REF] Edin Grimheden | Can agile methods enhance mechatronics design education[END_REF] to describe similar approaches. In fact, since the early 2000s, agile methods have popularized the concept of agility, in particular through the dissemination of the 'Agile Manifesto' designed for software development and advocating three fundamental principles (Agile Alliance, 2001;[START_REF] Highsmith | The agile manifesto[END_REF]. By adapting the principles of the Agile Manifesto, it is possible to go beyond strict technological developments and disseminate the following three agile innovation practices within organizations: (1) Foster interactions between individuals supported by agile processes and tools. Indeed, from an agile perspective, the team is much more important than the tools (structuring or control) or the operating procedures. It is preferable to have a united team that communicates rather than a team of experts working in isolation. (2) Encourage collaboration with customers in the form of flexible contracting. The client must be involved throughout the development. It makes no sense to negotiate and freeze a contract at the beginning of the project. While the client's demands can evolve with the understanding of his needs and the framework of possibilities. In this context, the very notion of customer can undoubtedly be rethought. Customers are actors in the project and must be considered as a stakeholder to be satisfied. Including them in the process is one of the pillars of a "robust agility". (3) Focus on adapting to change, or even embodying change, rather than monitoring a plan. In a changing context, where the "ecosystem" can inhibit leads or offer new opportunities in short time, the initial planning and structure of the product or service must be flexible to allow adapting the customer demand (Or the market demand). It is necessary to be pro-active together. The aim of agility is therefore to enable organizations to create value by making its operation more flexible by developing a culture of change and collaboration. Agility thus transforms organizations on three levels: (1) the implementation of innovative projects that benefit from agile methods since the latter make it possible to reduce fears and uncertainties by integrating them directly into design and development processes and considering them as opportunities for progress; (2) the establishment of a creative environment and accelerator of innovation that will make it possible to transform a starting idea into an innovative product, to refine it, to shape it according to the evolving requirements of customers or markets; (3) the more effective management and evaluation of the innovation process itself that can transform the organizational model, or even the supply chain in which the organization adopting agility is integrated. Through four articles illustrating the diversity of areas of expertise in which agility can be studied, this special issue of Innovations provides a subtle and complementary insight into the principles presented above. Christian Dianoux and his colleagues, describes how the flexibility, adaptability and low cost of nudges strengthen the ability of the organizations that use them to improve their agility. Stéphane Goria explores the relationship between creativity and economic monitoring. He suggests using an OODA loop (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action) to estimate its agility. Using a multiple-case-study analysis of co-design in the field of energy, Laurent Dupont and his co-authors identify the agile levers in Living Lab favouring the trust between stakeholders. Finally, on the basis of the illustrated case of the Swatch watch, Brunelle Marche and her colleagues, focusing on innovative supply chain, highlight that the both concepts of agile supply chain and agility of supply chain support innovation. Agile innovation is colored and thus approached differently according to the scale and contexts considered. Nevertheless, the articles presented here all describe a way of linking actors, organisations or territories. It is about identifying or creating new paths. This is undoubtedly one of the main properties of agile innovation: getting closer to the other. Similarly, the questions proposed here create a dialogue between concepts and paradigms to strengthen knowledge and understanding of agile innovation. For researchers and practitioners, these reflections are modestly an invitation to explore other horizons with kindness and flexibility...