Received: 26 February 2022 Revised: 13 September 2022 Accepted: 23 April 2023

DOI: 10.1111/caim.12557

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Physical interaction platforms: A taxonomy of spaces for

interactive value creation

Maximilian Perez Mengual 1,2,3 | Frank Danzinger1,4 | Angela Roth2

1
Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits
IIS, Nuremberg, Germany Physical interaction platforms (PIPs) such as living labs, innovation hubs and fab labs
2
Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen- can play a key role for complex innovation tasks in the context of grand challenges.
Nuremberg (FAU), Nuremberg, Germany
3
Although research focuses predominantly on aspects like collaboration within and
Günther Rid Stiftung für den bayerischen
Einzelhandel, Munich, Germany organization of these spaces, little research has shed light on the development pro-
4
Technische Hochschule Augsburg, Augsburg, cess of the PIP itself. This paper aims to contribute to innovation literature by identi-
Germany
fying essential dimensions for the design and sustainable operation of PIPs. We use
Correspondence and transfer conceptual knowledge and empirical evidence in an iterative taxonomy
Maximilian Perez Mengual, Günther Rid
development process. Five iterations were performed: (1) initial screening of PIPs,
Stiftung für den bayerischen Einzelhandel,
Munich, Germany. (2) an expert workshop, systematic literature reviews on (3) platform classifications
Email: perez@ridstiftung.de
and (4) on platform-mediated value creation, and (5) a taxonomy evaluation by practi-
Present address tioners. The resulting PIP taxonomy consists of 18 design dimensions summarized in
Maximilian Perez Mengual, Günther Rid
five groups: physical architecture, platform actors, key-value propositions, value crea-
Stiftung für den bayerischen Einzelhandel,
Munich, Germany. tion and revenue logic. It contributes with (1) a tangible framework for PIP concept
development building on established design dimensions from platform-, business
model- and value creation literature. (2) It emphasizes criteria that require thorough
reflection in the design phase (e.g., IP rights), enabling practitioners to identify and
overcome critical issues early.

KEYWORDS
innovation, innovation labs, living labs, platform, taxonomy

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N maker spaces, fab labs and co-working spaces (Hossain et al., 2019,
Mortara & Parisot, 2018; Nevens et al., 2013)—that serve as plat-
The collaboration of actors and the exchange of experiences, exper- forms, bringing together actors and facilitating the exchange of goods,
tise and knowhow is essential when facing complex innovation tasks services or social currency, such as information (Yablonsky, 2018). We
in the context of grand challenges, such as enhancing the welfare and refer to these spaces as physical interaction platforms (PIPs). For
health of our society or tackling environmental issues (Engels scholars seeking to understand and practitioners seeking to design
et al., 2019; Neely et al., 2018). This collaboration is highly sensitive such spaces, two challenges arise. First, due to the heterogeneous
to the context in which it takes place, requiring specific spaces that nature of interaction spaces, it has become increasingly difficult to
allow for interaction among various actors (Fritzsche et al., 2020). As a navigate through the diverse names, concepts and operationalizations
result, most large organizations are either running or planning interac- of PIPs (Bogers et al., 2017; Enkel et al., 2020). Second, for
tion spaces—incubators, experience labs, innovation hubs, living labs, practitioners seeking to build such places, it remains unclear what

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2023 The Authors. Creativity and Innovation Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Creat Innov Manag. 2023;1–12. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/caim 1

 14678691, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/caim.12557 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [03/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 PEREZ MENGUAL ET AL.

dimensions are essential for the design and sustainable operation of while orchestrating and defining the rules of engagement. Meanwhile,
PIPs. Most research focuses on specific aspects of these interaction co-working spaces bring together heterogeneous co-workers and
spaces, for example, the collaboration that takes place there (Greve facilitate interaction through network events and opportunities for
et al., 2016) or how collaborative innovation is organized (Ollila & the famous ‘water cooler talk’. Further, innovative retail concepts,
Yström, 2016). However, little is known about the design process such as blaenk,2 are blurring the boundaries among store, testbed and
required to build a PIP from scratch. As platform design processes innovation spaces. Instead of selling goods via traditional retail
have been described as a structured exploration of alternatives avenues, they serve as platforms for market research and product
(Le Masson et al., 2009), we seek to contribute by developing a taxon- innovation, connecting manufacturers and customers.
omy for conceptualising PIPs. The research questions we address in PIPs can be particularly useful in the context of grand challenges.
this article are as follows: (1) what are design dimensions of PIPs that They bring together actors at times when there are persistent prob-
enable interactive value creation and (2) how can we group these lems, when disruptive changes are imminent or when a crisis requires
design dimensions to provide a useful tool for PIP designers? close collaboration to be solved (Westley et al., 2014). PIPs can serve
as authentic environments in which to develop and test novel
technologies and services to solve persistent problems. Torvinen and
2 | R E S E A R C H B A C KG RO U N D Jansson (2022) explore in their study on public sector innovation that
PIPs can be influential in tackling the innovation barriers of participat-
PIPs are researched in concepts, such as living labs and innovation labs ing organizations by facilitating interaction and mutual learning. In
(cf. Bergvall-Kåreborn et al., 2009; Hossain et al., 2019), co-working addition, PIPs correspond to current developments in innovation
spaces, makerspaces, hackerspaces and fab labs (cf. Mortara & policy aiming to direct innovation systems to face ‘grand challenges’
Parisot, 2018; Van Holm, 2015). Thus, it has become increasingly chal- or ‘missions’ so they can be addressed productively (Kuhlmann &
lenging to navigate these conceptualizations, as their different manifes- Rip, 2018; Mazzucato, 2018). In this context, PIPs are often initiated
tations are heterogeneous, for example, no two living labs are alike. in collaboration with governmental bodies or non-governmental
However, there are several unifying elements found in the literature. organizations when there is a need for concerted action (Engels
Scholarly work describes such spaces as approaches centred around et al., 2019). For example, UNICEF (2012) set up an ambitious
activities of innovation (Hossain et al., 2019), education, learning, knowl- network of innovation labs in 2010 to understand challenges at the
edge and co-creation (Van Holm, 2015). PIPs are shaped by the partici- grassroots level and address them together with local actors. Further,
patory culture and the ability to facilitate engagement among people, Save the Children founded the Uganda Response Innovation Lab in
ideas and technologies (Osorio et al., 2019). They can foster collabora- 2018, intending to support and coordinate the humanitarian response
tive processes (Lewis & Moultrie, 2005; Wycoff & Snead, 1999), influ- to refugees from East Africa by fostering innovative approaches,
ence workplace culture (Shirahada & Hamazaki, 2013) and even systems, technologies and products. According to Westley et al.
improve the innovative potential of entire regions (Otto, 2019). As such, (2014), these PIPs enable sensemaking to understand what is happen-
PIPs are often characterized by geographical embeddedness and the ing and why, infuse motivation to act or identify opportunities to
provision of environments for experimentation and learning (Scholl & solve problems and allow the formation of new partnerships.
Kemp, 2016; Steen & van Bueren, 2017).
In summary, we characterize PIPs as follows: (1) they are physical
places that bring together actors, (2) they enable and foster value cre- 2.1 | What is known about designing PIPs
ation through interactions among actors and (3) they orchestrate an
ecosystem of actors by providing and enforcing rules. These criteria Due to their increasing popularity, PIPs have received widespread
fit various spaces found in the literature, as shown in Table 1. For scholarly attention. Research has explored how PIPs can facilitate
example, innovation labs, such as JOSEPHS,1 connect organizations collaborative innovation (Ollila & Yström, 2016; Peschl &
with end users to engage in collaborative innovation and prototyping Fundneider, 2014) and how they are used for developing, testing and

TABLE 1 Overview of different physical interaction platform (PIP) concepts.

Purpose Associated PIP concepts Selected references

User-led innovation and testbeds Innovation labs, innovation hubs, open Bergvall-Kåreborn et al., 2009; Dell'Era & Landoni, 2014; Greve
for technology, products and innovation labs and living labs et al., 2016; Hossain et al., 2019; Leminen et al., 2012; Roth
services et al., 2014
Collaboration, networking and Incubators, co-working spaces, maker Capdevila, 2019; Kraus et al., 2022; Lewis & Moultrie, 2005; Mortara
tinkering spaces, hacker spaces, fab labs and & Parisot, 2018; Sarpong et al., 2020; Van Holm, 2015; You
DIY labs et al., 2020
Marketplaces Pop-up stores, innovative retail Alexander & Blazquez Cano, 2020; Danzinger et al., 2020;
concepts and trading zones González, 2020; Warnaby & Shi, 2019
 14678691, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/caim.12557 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [03/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PEREZ MENGUAL ET AL. 3

commercialising innovations (Steen & van Bueren, 2017). Several exist- actors before realising these self-reinforcing effects, and they must
ing typologies seek to describe the nature of PIPs, either based on the develop mechanisms to control and capitalize on the interactions
actors that drive innovation (Leminen et al., 2012), the type of PIP own- among actors. To do so, platform operators fulfil new roles, such as
ership and actor engagement (e.g., temporary or continuous; Roth orchestrator of the platform ecosystem, determiner of governance
et al., 2014) or their purpose (e.g., explorative or exploitative; Dell'Era & rules to balance platform control and provider of value creation and
Landoni, 2014). Yet information on how to develop, build and operate value appropriation mechanisms leading actors to engage with the
PIPs is scarce. Chronéer et al. (2019) emphasized key components, such platform (Ghazawneh & Henfridsson, 2013; Mukhopadhyay &
as leadership, management and business models, to secure the sustain- Bouwman, 2019; Tiwana, 2014). These aspects represent key
ability and financing of PIPs. Further, Greve et al. (2016) describe criti- dimensions in platform design.
cal factors for facilitating co-creation, such as customer engagement, 2. The value creation perspective focuses on the concept of value
relationship management and design layout. In the more practitioner- itself. To explain how platforms create value, Ramaswamy and
oriented literature, for example, in such books as Creating Innovation Ozcan (2018) draw on the literature in the field of value (co-)crea-
Spaces (Nestle et al., 2021) or Make Space: How to Set the Stage for Cre- tion (e.g., Vargo & Lusch, 2017). By enabling and orchestrating
ative Collaboration (Doorley & Witthoft, 2012), we find insights into interaction, platforms facilitate interactive value creation among all
how to develop innovative mindsets, enable entrepreneurship or design actors. As such, Ramaswamy and Ozcan (2018) perceive the locus
interior and room layouts necessary for collaborative innovation. All this of a platform's value creation in the interactions among people,
research highlights the various design dimensions of PIPs, but it is fix- artefacts, interfaces and processes. This perspective adds another
ated on a description of the space itself. However, the space itself does layer that highlights which design dimensions must work together
not create value. Instead, it enables an ecosystem of networked actors to create value for the actors in the first place. They combine the
to create value through interaction (Peschl & Fundneider, 2014)—it is a platform perspective, which focuses strongly on the orchestration
platform where people meet, become inspired and support each other of interactions, and the value creation perspective, which focuses
in various activities (Bessant, 2020). on the interaction itself.
3. These theoretical foundations are enriched with practical implica-
tions, for example, by Parker et al. (2016), who provide detailed
2.2 | What can be learned from (digital) platforms strategies for creating platform businesses. Whereas Ramaswamy
and Ozcan (2018) explain how value creation takes place in inter-
The existing literature on PIPs tells us little about how they can be actions, Parker et al. (2016) offer guidance on how to design these
designed and operated. In response, we are looking for insights in the interactions. In their book The Platform Revolution, they explain
vast literature on digital platforms, where current research is seeking how any platform design requires the definition and optimization
to understand how digital platforms are shaping business models and of core interactions and the creation of governance structures to
organizations (de Reuver et al., 2018). There are several different exercise control and balance openness. The book also provides
streams found in the platform literature, with some that are particu- information on how a platform can be operated, that is, what per-
larly interesting for the process of developing platforms: (1) the formance indicators exist, how pricing can be designed and how a
market-oriented perspective, (2) the value-creation perspective and platform can be scaled.
(3) strategies for launching and scaling platforms.

1. The market-oriented perspective explores the soaring success of 3 | R E S E A R C H A P P R O A C H : TA X O N O M Y

platform business models, such as Uber and Airbnb, transforming DE VE L OPME N T
entire industries (de Reuver et al., 2018). The secret lies in their
strategy, including how they use the logic of multi-sided platforms This paper seeks to contribute by providing a tool in the form of a tax-
to conquer markets (Gawer & Cusumano, 2002). In contrast to tradi- onomy that logically orders the design dimensions of PIPs. This taxon-
tional enterprises, platforms do not capitalize on physical assets omy shall provide both structure for the analysis of PIPs as well as
(Van Alstyne & Parker, 2017). Instead, they represent the core that guidance for PIP development. With researchers and practitioners as
enables and mediates the interaction among platform actors. The users in mind, the resulting artefact should be easy in its application
main asset of a platform thus lies in its network of actors, assuming and complexity. We apply the taxonomy development method of
there are heterogeneous groups of ‘consumers’ and ‘providers’ Nickerson et al. (2013), which results from a comprehensive review of
(Van Alstyne & Parker, 2017). The more extensive the network of 73 papers and their individual approaches to developing taxonomies.
platform actors, the better the matchmaking among them. This As a synthesis of these approaches, Nickerson et al.'s (2013) method
means that the more actors present on one side of the platform, the is an iterative process that allows researchers to develop taxonomies,
more interesting platform entry will be for the other side. These so- both conceptually (based on theoretical knowledge) and empirically
called network effects explain the self-reinforcing nature of plat- (based on observations). The method is rigorous by clearly describing
forms (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014; McIntyre & Srinivasan, 2017). the development steps and ending conditions that lead to the termi-
The critical issue is that platforms must first reach a critical mass of nation of the taxonomy development process. It has been applied in
 14678691, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/caim.12557 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [03/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 PEREZ MENGUAL ET AL.

several contexts (Gimpel et al., 2018; Nakatsu et al., 2014; Remane characteristic and cell is unique and unrepeated. Subjective conditions
et al., 2017), proving its robustness and usefulness for taxonomy are focused on actual usefulness, for example, that a taxonomy should
development. be ‘concise, robust, comprehensive, extendible, and explanatory’
(Nickerson et al., 2013, p. 343). We adapted the subjective ending con-
ditions that evaluate the taxonomy's usefulness in light of the meta-
3.1 | Preliminary instructions characteristic as follows: (9) it is concise, as we seek to minimize neces-
sary dimensions and characteristics; (10) it is robust in the way each
The method formulates two preliminary instructions before starting the dimension and characteristic provides differentiation; (11) it is compre-
taxonomy development process. First, researchers must define a meta- hensive, as it allows the classification of all identified PIPs; (12) it is
characteristic that describes the taxonomy's intended purpose and extendible, meaning future research can add dimensions and character-
shapes the development process (Nickerson et al., 2013). The main pur- istics; and (13) it is explanatory, as it should provide a reference frame
pose of our taxonomy of PIPs is that (1) it should provide the basis for a for developing PIPs. Table 2 highlights the ending conditions and their
morphological analysis of existing PIPs, and (2) it should serve as a start- status after each iteration.
ing point for practitioners seeking to design value-creating PIPs. Our
meta-characteristic is defined as ‘relevant for the design and descrip-
tion of value creation on physical interaction platforms’. Second, Nick- 3.2 | Taxonomy development process
erson et al. (2013) formulate ending conditions determining the
completion of the taxonomy-building process. We adopted eight objec- The development of the PIP taxonomy was conducted in five itera-
tive ending conditions from Nickerson et al. (2013, p. 344) that deter- tions: (1) screening of PIPs, (2) academic workshop, systematic litera-
mine formal completion: (1) a representative sample of PIPs is ture reviews of (3) platform classifications and (4) platform-mediated
examined; (2)–(4) there are no alterations (additions, merges or splits) of value creation and (5) a taxonomy evaluation by practitioners. Each
dimensions in the last iteration; (5) every characteristic must be classi- iteration added or modified the design dimensions and characteristics
fied at least once in the sample; and (6)–(8) each dimension, of the PIP taxonomy.

TABLE 2 Iterations in the taxonomy-building process.

Iteration
No. Iteration type Description Added dimensions Deleted dimensions
1 Initial screening Conceptual First screening of PIPs; review of Engagement, position, location, -
related literature. surface area, appearance,
ecosystem dimension,
customer type, access,
provider, value orientation,
core activity, value type,
revenue source, revenue
streams and performance
indicator
2 Academic Empirical Presentation and discussion of - -
workshop the first iteration of the PIP
taxonomy in an academic
workshop.
3 Systematic Conceptual Systematic review of the extant Customer segments, industry Location, surface area,
literature platform literature focus, platform role, monetary appearance, ecosystem
review (1) (taxonomies and incentives, non-monetary dimension, provider and
classifications) to provide incentives, pricing and revenue source
thorough structure, revenue orientation
dimensions and
characteristics.
4 Systematic Conceptual A second systematic search of Ecosystem dimension, platform -
literature the literature to fill a logical sides, coordination
review (2) gap in the taxonomy regarding mechanism, owner, decision
interaction and value creation rights and IP control
on platforms.
5 a–e Interview-based Empirical Conduction of interviews with Content control and profit Revenue orientation,
evaluation operators and designers of orientation coordination mechanism and
existing PIPs to evaluate and decision rights
advance the taxonomy.
 14678691, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/caim.12557 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [03/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PEREZ MENGUAL ET AL. 5

3.3 | First iteration 3.6 | Fourth iteration

For the first conceptualization of a taxonomy, researchers should use Although existing taxonomies and frameworks are highly suited to
their knowledge of ‘existing foundations, experience, and judgment to classify digital platforms, they do not explain the value creation taking
deduce what they think will be relevant dimensions’ (Nickerson place. A second systematic literature search of value-creation mecha-
et al., 2013, p. 346). Following this, we conducted an open screening nisms on platforms was carried out. The search string consisted of the
of PIP directories (e.g., openlivinglabs.eu, fablabs.io, coworker.com, following terms: TITLE-ABS (value creation AND platforms) AND ABS
makerdirectory.com, hackerspaces.org and incubatorlist.com) to famil- (literature review). The search (Scopus) initially revealed 82 articles,
iarize ourselves with the various concepts of PIPs. This screening was and after screening titles, 24 articles remained for abstract screening,
followed by a review of the related literature: research on innovation leaving 12 articles for full reading and analysis. Design dimensions,
spaces (Fritzsche et al., 2020; Greve et al., 2016; Mortara & characteristics and additional findings from these articles were coded
Parisot, 2018; Roth et al., 2014), spaces for collaboration (Bouncken & using MAXQDA.
Reuschl, 2018; Capdevila, 2015, 2019) and marketplaces (Alexander &
Blazquez Cano, 2020; Warnaby & Shi, 2019), as well as frameworks
and taxonomies for (digital) platforms (e.g., Van Alstyne & 3.7 | Fifth iterations
Parker, 2017) and their business models (e.g., Täuscher &
Laudien, 2018). Finally, we conceptualized the first version of the tax- The empirical evaluation took the form of five expert interviews
onomy, incorporating design dimensions from existing scholarly with PIP operators (iterations 5a–5e), and we created a purposive
knowledge. sample (Nickerson et al., 2013) of PIPs to ensure heterogeneity
(Suri, 2011). The five experts included (1) the managing director and
(2) the scientific advisor of an open innovation lab, (3) the innovation
3.4 | Second iteration manager of an innovation hub, (4) the managing director of a co-
working-space and (5) the head of education of a start-up incubator.
We presented the first conceptualization of our taxonomy at a We presented the taxonomy to the interview partners and asked
workshop during an academic conference in November 2020. Nine them to (1) classify their PIP using the taxonomy, (2) add missing
academics from the fields of innovation and value creation partici- dimensions and characteristics, (3) identify dimensions and charac-
pated in the workshop, discussing the content and structure of our teristics ambiguous to them and (4) discuss and contribute actively
taxonomy. The workshop thus served as an interim evaluation of when certain dimensions and characteristics are missing or ambigu-
the taxonomy's orientation, and it provided valuable insights for ous. After each interview, we adjusted the taxonomy according to
improvement: (1) the overall approach of the taxonomy was evalu- interviewer feedback (iterations 5a–5e). After the fifth interview
ated positively regarding its comprehensibility; (2) the taxonomy's (5e), all ending conditions were satisfied, completing the taxonomy-
abstraction level was perceived as too high, lacking ‘hands-on aid’ building process (Table 3).
for designers; and (3) delving more deeply into the literature on digi-
tal platforms and their business model designs was suggested to
provide a more actionable structure for the taxonomy's design 4 | R E S U L T S : T H E TA X O N O M Y OF
dimensions. P H Y S I CA L I N T E R A C T I O N P L A T F O R M S

After analysis and evaluation, the resulting taxonomy contains 18 core

3.5 | Third iteration dimensions, each with a subset of characteristics describing PIPs. The
dimensions are grouped into the following categories: physical archi-
Following the workshop's feedback, we conducted a systematic litera- tecture, customers, key value propositions, value creation and revenue
ture search on existing platform taxonomies (vom Brocke et al., 2009). logic. In line with the principle of parsimony (Bailey, 1994), some
The search string was developed using an iterative process (vom dimensions (highlighted with an *) allow for the selection of multiple
Brocke et al., 2009) and consisted of a combination of Boolean search characteristics to reduce the taxonomy's overall complexity
queries: TITLE (platform) AND ABS (taxono* OR typolo* OR ontolo* (Figure 1).
OR classific* OR morpho*) AND ALL (business) AND NOT (cloud).
The search was carried out in winter 2020 over the course of 4 weeks
and revealed 149 articles from the Scopus database. After screening 4.1 | Physical architecture
titles for relevancy, 40 articles remained for abstract screening, leav-
ing 11 articles for full reading. Forward and backward searching added PIPs have physical properties that are difficult to change but have
three more articles, totalling 14. The articles were coded using the an essential influence on whether the intended actor segments can
content analysis software MAXQDA to identify relevant dimensions be reached (Aryan et al., 2021). Engagement describes whether the
and corresponding characteristics. PIP takes place in an event-oriented manner or whether it is set
 14678691, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/caim.12557 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [03/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 PEREZ MENGUAL ET AL.

TABLE 3 Status of ending conditions after each iteration.

Ending condition 1 2 3 4 5a 5b 5c 5d 5e
(1) All objects, or a representative sample of objects, have ✓
been examined
(2) No object was merged with a similar object or split into ✓ ✓
multiple objects
(3) At least one object is classified for every characteristic of ✓ ✓ ✓
every dimension
(4) No new dimensions or characteristics were added in the ✓ ✓
last iteration
(5) No dimensions or characteristics were merged or split in ✓ ✓ ✓
the last iteration
(6) Every dimension is unique and not repeated ✓ ✓
(7) Every characteristic is unique within its dimension ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
(8) Each cell (combination of characteristics) is unique and is ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
unrepeated
(9) Concise ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
(10) Robust ✓ ✓
(11) Comprehensive ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
(12) Extendible ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
(13) Explanatory ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

for the long term and designed for continuity (Roth et al., 2014). 4.3 | Key value propositions
A fundamental distinction is made between temporary and
continuous engagements, for example, a pop-up laboratory and an A key difference lies in the platform role the PIP fulfils—market,
institutionalized innovation space, whereas position describes operation or co-creation (Hermes et al., 2020; Konietzko et al., 2019).
whether the PIP can move. A mobile PIP often has the characteris- Market PIPs orchestrate economic interactions between platform
tics of a campaign, moving purposefully to places where relevant actors as a central asset in creating value (Chasin et al., 2018; Van
3
actors are located (e.g., the BMW Guggenheim Lab ), whereas Alstyne & Parker, 2017), whereas operation PIPs act as a connecting
stationary PIPs are infrastructures geared towards continuity element between platform actors to facilitate the joint provision of
(e.g., corporate innovation labs). Public accessibility describes the products or services (e.g., the Y Combinator5 providing the necessary
extent to which PIPs are open to the respective customer groups development infrastructure to start-up companies). Finally,
(Rix et al., 2020). An open PIP allows uncontrolled access (e.g., to co-creation PIPs serve as enablers of open innovation, empowerment
an open innovation lab), whereas a closed PIP is not publicly and citizen and community participation (Konietzko et al., 2019). The
accessible (e.g., a corporate innovation lab). A PIP with controlled core activity describes the interaction that takes place among the
accessibility uses specific selection mechanisms, such as member- platform actors, for example, the transaction of products (in stationary
ships, invitations or events. retail); the joint innovation activities and matchmaking between
platform actors; or the service provision mediated by the PIP
(e.g., equipment for maker spaces; Holland & Gutiérrez-Leefmans,
4.2 | Platform actors 2018). Regarding the incentives, we distinguish between monetary
and non-monetary incentives (Gatautis, 2017; Täuscher &
The actor segments dimension describes possible actors that the PIP Laudien, 2018), where the former focuses on utilitarian value by
connects as participants, including business-to-business (B2B), providing cost advantages, as well as increasing efficiency or perfor-
business-to-consumers (B2C) or consumers-to-consumers (C2C; Rix mance, whereas the latter focuses on emotional or social value and
et al., 2020). Industry focus specifies whether the PIP enables vertical serves as an important motivational factor for participation in PIPs.
or horizontal integration (Täuscher & Laudien, 2018), where the for-
mer means the PIP focuses on a specific industry or group of cus-
tomers with specialized requirements or needs (e.g., the IKEA 4.4 | Value creation
4
Space10, an innovation lab focusing solely on the future of living),
whereas the latter occurs when the PIP meets the demands of several Central aspects of value creation include the platform ecosystem with
industries or a large group of customers (Li et al., 2006). potential actors and platform governance, that is, rules that shape
 14678691, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/caim.12557 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [03/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PEREZ MENGUAL ET AL. 7

FIGURE 1 The taxonomy of physical interaction platforms (PIPs).

interactions taking place (Parker et al., 2016). Governance clarifies take the form of a proprietary IP or open access, determining whether
who may participate, how value is created and divided and how con- the platform makes efforts (e.g., in form of access restrictions) to pro-
flicts are resolved (Parker et al., 2016). The ecosystem dimension deter- tect these rights or shares them with all platform actors. Content con-
mines the spread of the ecosystem, ranging from local to international trol refers to content curation, that is, to what degree the platform
(Rix et al., 2020). Although platforms always facilitate interaction owner is responsible for what is happening during the PIP interactions
between two or more actors, platform sides refer to how many differ- taking place (Walravens, 2014). Content control is about balancing
ent groups the platform addresses. One-sided means only one group norms and rules on a PIP, and it has a strong influence on how the PIP
is addressed, as apparent in communities where the PIP links different acts towards the platform actors (Diniz et al., 2019; Mukhopadhyay &
community members to each other (e.g., in the case of the Noise- Bouwman, 2019).
bridge hackerspace). Meanwhile, two-sided and multi-sided platforms
facilitate interaction between two or more groups of actors. The
owner dimension describes whose property the platform is, who holds 4.5 | Revenue logic
decision rights and who is responsible for ensuring the PIP's function-
ality (Gatautis, 2017; Parker et al., 2016). IP control specifies the han- This group contains all dimensions that revolve around the monetiza-
dling of intellectual property generated during PIP interactions. It can tion and measurement of PIP success. It describes how the PIP
 14678691, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/caim.12557 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [03/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 PEREZ MENGUAL ET AL.

transforms value delivered to the platform actors into revenue. the literature on platform business models, our taxonomy empha-
Profit orientation can be divided into non-profit and profit-oriented sizes the value creation mechanisms of PIPs. We suggest that
(You et al., 2020), which strongly impacts the business structure designing PIPs should be understood as a business model develop-
(e.g., limited liability company, partnership and corporation) and asso- ment process (Van Alstyne & Parker, 2017) that involves designing
ciated benefits (e.g., tax exemption) the PIP can adopt. Pricing policy value propositions for PIP actors, designing the value creation
distinguishes three categories of pricing: symmetric, asymmetric and mechanism and ensuring long-term operation by designing a reve-
no pricing, where the former means that revenue is taken from all par- nue model.
ticipating platform actors (e.g., in a co-working space, all co-workers
pay their share). Meanwhile, asymmetric means that revenue is taken
from just one platform actor or at least not equally from all participat- 5.3 | A starting point for PIP concept development
ing platform actors, and with a no pricing policy, funding is subsidized
by third parties. The revenue mechanism deals with how revenue is Building on established design dimensions from the well-known busi-
generated, where we distinguish among transaction fees, subscrip- ness model and value creation literature, the taxonomy offers a sim-
tions, retail sales, project-based revenue and third-party funding ple and tangible approach to PIP design. It can be used to run
(Chasin et al., 2018). However, revenue is not always a key perfor- through different scenarios, comparing them to each other in terms
mance indicator to measure a PIP's success. Additional KPIs include of organizational requirements and available resources. In this
the number of interactions, productivity increase, media coverage, respect, the taxonomy is strongly influenced by the theoretical con-
ecosystem growth and PIP utilization. tributions of Ramaswamy and Ozcan (2018), as value creation results
from a constellation of physical artefacts, internal processes and peo-
ple. Having a clear idea of interactions and target groups at an early
5 | IMPLICATIONS stage is essential, as the scalability of network effects is highly
dependent on the geographical location. The selection of a suitable
PIP practitioners and designers can benefit from our taxonomy as a property should therefore correspond to the PIP concept. Con-
basis for applying a morphological analysis and systematic exploration versely, if a property is already available, the taxonomy can help to
of ideas and concepts (Geum et al., 2016; Le Masson et al., 2009). We develop a concept appropriate to the location. The taxonomy devel-
understand that the taxonomy functions as a tool for creativity and opment process also showed that many design dimensions of online
analysis, leading to the right questions being asked and thereby paving platforms can be transferred to physical platforms but must be inter-
the way for sustainable and prosperous PIPs. However, we acknowl- preted differently. For example, the incentives and value propositions
edge that building and operating a vibrant PIP goes beyond choosing of PIPs are often far more diverse and tactile than those of digital
design characteristics—a focus on organizational fit, employees and platforms, which tend to be more specialized in their value
the community is also needed. proposition.

5.1 | A classification instrument for innovation 5.4 | Development of long-term operating PIPs
spaces
One observed phenomenon is that innovation spaces are often cre-
The taxonomy provides a tool for scholars to classify different types ated and quickly disappear again (Osorio et al., 2019). This applies
of PIPs. Contrary to other classifications (Gryszkiewicz et al., 2016; both to the corporate context, as well as to innovation spaces in the
McCrory et al., 2020), our approach does not label PIPs (e.g., ‘living research landscape. Through the business model structure, the taxon-
lab’ or ‘innovation hub’). Instead, it allows a classification based on omy shows design aspects necessary for creating sustainable and per-
design characteristics, more accurately describing what is happening manently successful spaces. The taxonomy should lead designers
in the PIP. We hope our approach will assist in sorting through the dif- towards asking the right questions: What is the actual value proposi-
ferent conceptualizations, definitions and operationalizations of inno- tion of the PIP? How do we get the stakeholders on board so that net-
vation spaces (Bogers et al., 2017) and will thus contribute to work effects emerge? How do we secure long-term financing beyond
advancing the understanding of these different places and spaces for the launch? What kind of success do we report to our stakeholders?
collaborative innovation. The taxonomy emphasizes design dimensions from several disciplines
that are necessary for the sustained operation of the PIP.

5.2 | PIP design is business model design

5.5 | Implications for sustainable PIP operation
Contemporary research focuses strongly on ‘what’ happens in PIPs.
We thus contribute to an area underrepresented in the literature: The taxonomy also provides guidance for the operational manage-
‘how’ PIPs can be designed (Westerlund et al., 2018). Derived from ment of the PIP. Particularly, such issues as accessibility, IP control
 14678691, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/caim.12557 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [03/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PEREZ MENGUAL ET AL. 9

and content control require establishing internal processes and rules 6 | SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
that ensure PIP functionality. Accessibility plays a role in defining
opening hours and has an impact on staff capacity and effort. Early Building on Nickerson et al.'s (2013) method, we developed a taxon-
clarification of how to deal with IP issues arising in the PIP is essential, omy for PIPs, such as innovation labs, co-working spaces and living
especially in the case of PIPs with multiple owners. The creation of labs. Our taxonomy contributes to the theory on innovation spaces,
appropriate frameworks has a decisive influence on trust in interac- as it provides a structure for the classification and accordingly aligned
tions and thus on PIP effectiveness, whereas content control affects discussion of PIPs. By highlighting dimensions essential for value crea-
both external and internal actors. This example is particularly similar tion, our taxonomy may enable PIP designers to create purpose-
to large, opinion-forming tech companies. Is Facebook a media com- suitable and more sustainable spaces. Only when designed thoroughly
pany responsible for its content, or is it simply a platform for third- PIPs can play an essential role in spurring innovation, testing solutions
party content? This also applies to PIPs, and it may influence the and creating visions for solving grand challenges (Engels et al., 2019).
external appearance either as an unaffiliated site or as an intermediary With this taxonomy, we also highlight the criticality of the business
for other actors. Concerning internal stakeholders, content control model as part of PIP design. Beyond physical layout, PIP designers
dictates how conflicts are resolved. Does the owner intervene and must develop value propositions for the PIP actors, the value creation
clarify the situation in the event of undesirable behaviour, or are con- mechanism and a revenue model. It will be a worthwhile topic for
flicts discussed among the entire community? Each of these variants future research to explore in-depth the role of a PIP's business model
strongly influences the atmosphere and ecosystem dynamics of a PIP, and to gain a better overview of business models applied in PIPs.
becoming especially apparent when we return to the issue of ‘direc- This taxonomy is purposefully developed for its intended audi-
tionality’ in facing grand challenges. Finding solutions requires balan- ence and application as a tool for PIP designers. Nickerson et al.
cing interdisciplinary collaboration and problem-oriented exploration, (2013) put forward that a taxonomy is—per its nature—never exhaus-
while leaving room for creativity, experimentation and critical reflec- tive. Defining a different meta-characteristic may lead to differing
tion (Kuhlmann & Rip, 2018). Governance mechanisms must be design dimensions. Following the qualitative evaluation of the
designed to enable this behaviour while simultaneously providing taxonomy in this study, a quantitative approach, for example, cluster
orientation. analysis on a large sample of PIPs, could be a meaningful next step to
identify additional design characteristics. In this vein, we would like to
emphasize the extendibility of the taxonomy and encourage
5.6 | Meeting organizational requirements researchers to adapt it according to new research findings
(as suggested by Nickerson et al., 2013). The sample of this research
The taxonomy refers exclusively to designable dimensions related to remains limited, despite a selection of heterogeneous PIPs with differ-
value creation on PIPs. We recognize that this is only the starting ent orientations. The PIP landscape is highly dynamic; over time,
point for a development process and that this development process emerging types may be integrated with future scholarly research. In
must begin with an assessment of an organization's orientation and all, the taxonomy, with its clear structure and applicability, serves as a
employees. Developing a PIP without organizational fit will not foundation for the practical design of PIPs. Moreover, it enables
work—it requires alignment with an organization's strategy, processes informed discussions of the theoretical classification of diverse mani-
and, most importantly, employees and community. festations of PIPs.

ACKNOWLEDG MENTS
5.7 | Expectation management of policymakers Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Insights gained from this research hold implications for policymakers, DATA AVAILABILITY STAT EMEN T
who frequently provide funding for PIP development projects. As with The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
digital platforms, it is vital to understand a PIP as an innovation, that corresponding author upon reasonable request.
is, something new to the organization building it. PIPs offer new inter-
actions and functionalities to the actors using them, requiring beha- OR CID
vioural changes from the actors operating, as well as from the actors Maximilian Perez Mengual https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9176-6260
using the PIP. Thus, creating a PIP goes beyond simply creating a
physical space. Configuring its value-creating elements and allowing
ENDNOTES
the formation of a PIP's actor ecosystem is time-intensive. Therefore,
1
necessary changes to the original design should be encouraged and JOSEPHS is an open innovation lab where products and services are
developed collaboratively between companies and individuals, and it
understood as an evolution of the PIP. This disruptiveness, time- and
provides test space and mediates interactions (https://josephs-
resource-intensity and the need for continuous (re-)configuration innovation.de/wp/).
should be considered when planning and funding future PIP develop- 2
blaenk is an innovative retail concept offering a curated assortment of
ment projects. lifestyle products promoting sustainable consumption. Emphasis is
 14678691, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/caim.12557 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [03/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 PEREZ MENGUAL ET AL.

placed on experiencing the products and providing feedback to the man- de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C., & Basole, R. C. (2018). The digital platform: A
ufacturers (https://blaenk.com/). research agenda. Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), 124–135.
3
The BMW Guggenheim Lab was a collaboration between the https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3
Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation and the BMW Group. The mobile Dell'Era, C., & Landoni, P. (2014). Living lab: A methodology between
lab explored issues of contemporary urban life through public discourse. user-centred design and participatory design. Creativity and Innovation
4
Management, 23(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12061
SPACE10 is a research and design lab in Copenhagen supported by
Diniz, E. H., Siqueira, E. S., & van Heck, E. (2019). Taxonomy of
IKEA. The lab follows a collaborative approach, regularly hosting exhibi-
digital community currency platforms. Information Technology for
tions and events and inviting people to come and share their thoughts
Development, 25(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2018.
with the designers of the lab.
1485005
5
Y Combinator is a US-based start-up incubator headquartered in Califor- Doorley, S., & Witthoft, S. (2012). Make space: How to set the stage for cre-
nia, supporting companies during their start-up phase with funding, con- ative collaboration ((1st Ed.) ed.). Wiley.
sultancy and business contacts. Engels, F., Wentland, A., & Pfotenhauer, S. M. (2019). Testing future socie-
ties? Developing a framework for test beds and living labs as instru-
ments of innovation governance. Research Policy, 48(9), 103826.
RE FE R ENC E S https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103826
Alexander, B., & Blazquez Cano, M. (2020). Store of the future: Towards a Enkel, E., Bogers, M., & Chesbrough, H. (2020). Exploring open innovation
(re)invention and (re)imagination of physical store space in an omni- in the digital age: A maturity model and future research directions.
channel context. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 55, R&D Management, 50(1), 161–168. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/
101913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101913 radm.12397
Aryan, V., Bertling, J., & Liedtke, C. (2021). Topology, typology, and Fritzsche, A., Jonas, J. M., Roth, A., & Möslein, K. M. (2020). Innovating in
dynamics of commons-based peer production: On platforms, actors, the open lab. The new potential for interactive value creation across orga-
and innovation in the maker movement. Creativity and Innovation nizational boundaries. De Gruyter Oldenbourg. https://doi.org/10.
Management, 30(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12392 1515/9783110633665
Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification Gatautis, R. (2017). The rise of the platforms: Business model innovation
techniques. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986397 perspectives. Engineering Economics, 28(5), 585–591. https://doi.org/
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Ihlström Eriksson, C., Ståhlbröst, A., & Svensson, J. 10.5755/j01.ee.28.5.19579
(2009). A milieu for innovation: Defining living labs. https://www. Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2002). Platform leadership: How Intel, Micro-
researchgate.net/publication/228676111_A_Milieu_for_Innovation- soft, and Cisco drive industry innovation (Vol. 5). Harvard Business
Defining_Living_Labs School Press.
Bessant, J. (2020). 17 creating the creative open lab. In A. Fritzsche, J. M. Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem
Jonas, A. Roth, & K. M. Möslein (Eds.), Innovating in the open lab innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433.
(pp. 191–202). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110633665-017 https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12105
Bogers, M., Zobel, A. K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Geum, Y., Jeon, H., & Lee, H. (2016). Developing new smart services using
Dahlander, L., Frederiksen, L., Gawer, A., Gruber, M., Haefliger, S., integrated morphological analysis: Integration of the market-pull and
Hagedoorn, J., Hilgers, D., Laursen, K., Magnusson, M. G., technology-push approach. Service Business, 10(3), 531–555. https://
Majchrzak, A., McCarthy, I. P., Moeslein, K. M., Nambisan, S., doi.org/10.1007/s11628-015-0281-2
Piller, F. T., … ter Wal, A. L. J. (2017). The open innovation research Ghazawneh, A., & Henfridsson, O. (2013). Balancing platform control and
landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across dif- external contribution in third-party development: The boundary
ferent levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 8–40. https:// resources model. Information Systems Journal, 23(2), 173–192. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1240068 doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2012.00406.x
Bouncken, R. B., & Reuschl, A. J. (2018). Coworking-spaces: How a phe- Gimpel, H., Rau, D., & Röglinger, M. (2018). Understanding FinTech start-
nomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the work- ups: A taxonomy of consumer-oriented service offerings. Electronic
place and for entrepreneurship. Review of Managerial Science, 12(1), Markets, 28(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-017-
317–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0215-y 0275-0
Capdevila, I. (2015). Co-working spaces and the localised dynamics of González, S. (2020). Contested marketplaces: Retail spaces at the global
innovation in Barcelona. International Journal of Innovation Manage- urban margins. Progress in Human Geography, 44(5), 877–897. https://
ment, 19(3), 1540004. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919615400046 doi.org/10.1177/0309132519859444
Capdevila, I. (2019). Joining a collaborative space: Is it really a better place Greve, K., Martinez, V., Jonas, J., Neely, A., & Möslein, K. (2016). Facilitat-
to work? Journal of Business Strategy, 40(2), 14–21. https://doi.org/10. ing co-creation in living labs: The JOSEPHS study. https://
1108/JBS-09-2017-0140 cambridgeservicealliance.eng.cam.ac.uk/resources/Downloads/
Chasin, F., von Hoffen, M., Cramer, M., & Matzner, M. (2018). Monthlypapers/2016MayPaper_
Peer-to-peer sharing and collaborative consumption platforms: FacilitatingCoCreationinLivingLabs.Pdf
A taxonomy and a reproducible analysis. Information Systems and Gryszkiewicz, L., Lykourentzou, I., & Toivonen, T. (2016). Innovation labs:
e-Business Management, 16(2), 293–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Leveraging openness for radical innovation? Journal of Innovation Man-
s10257-017-0357-8 agement, 4(4), 68–97. https://doi.org/10.24840/2183-0606_004.
Chronéer, D., Ståhlbröst, A., & Habibipour, A. (2019). Urban living labs: 004_0006
Towards an integrated understanding of their key components. Tech- Hermes, S., Kaufmann-Ludwig, J., Schreieck, M., Weking, J., & Böhm, M.
nology Innovation Management Review, 9(3), 50–62. https://doi.org/10. (2020). A taxonomy of platform envelopment: Revealing patterns and
22215/timreview/1224 particularities. AMCIS 2020 Proceedings, 10. https://aisel.aisnet.org/
Danzinger, F., Schmidt, R., Memmert, F., & Pichlbauer, M. (2020). amcis2020/strategic_uses_it/strategic_uses_it/17
5 open lab functionalities in offline-retail: A step towards future retail? Holland, C. P., & Gutiérrez-Leefmans, M. (2018). A taxonomy of SME e-
In A. Fritzsche, J. M. Jonas, A. Roth, & K. M. Möslein (Eds.), commerce platforms derived from a market-level analysis. International
Innovating in the open lab (pp. 49–70). https://doi.org/10.1515/ Journal of Electronic Commerce, 22(2), 161–201. https://doi.org/10.
9783110633665-005 1080/10864415.2017.1364114
 14678691, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/caim.12557 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [03/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
PEREZ MENGUAL ET AL. 11

Hossain, M., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2019). A systematic review of Ollila, S., & Yström, A. (2016). Exploring design principles of organizing for
living lab literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 976–988. collaborative innovation: The case of an open innovation initiative.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.257 Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(3), 363–377. https://doi.
Konietzko, J., Bocken, N., & Hultink, E. J. (2019). Online platforms and the org/10.1111/caim.12177
circular economy. In N. Bocken, P. Ritala, L. Albareda, & R. Verburg Osorio, F., Dupont, L., Camargo, M., Palominos, P., Peña, J. I., & Alfaro, M.
(Eds.), Innovation for sustainability (pp. 435–450). https://doi.org/10. (2019). Design and management of innovation laboratories: Toward a
1007/978-3-319-97385-2_23 performance assessment tool. Creativity and Innovation Management,
Kraus, S., Bouncken, R. B., Görmar, L., González-Serrano, M. H., & 28(1), 82–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12301
Calabuig, F. (2022). Coworking spaces and makerspaces: Mapping the Otto, S. (2019). Mobilisierung von Wissen: Praktiken der Wissenskodifi-
state of research. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 7(1), 100161. zierung am Beispiel des Innovationslabors JOSEPHS. https://eref.uni-
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100161 bayreuth.de/47147/
Kuhlmann, S., & Rip, A. (2018). Next-generation innovation policy and Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M. W., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revo-
grand challenges. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 448–454. https:// lution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and
doi.org/10.1093/SCIPOL/SCY011 how to make them work for you. https://doi.org/10.5555/3002873
Le Masson, P., Weil, B., & Hatchuel, A. (2009). Platforms for the design of Peschl, M. F., & Fundneider, T. (2014). Designing and enabling spaces for
platforms: Collaborating in the unknown. In Platforms, markets and collaborative knowledge creation and innovation: From managing to
innovation (Vol. January) (pp. 273–305). https://doi.org/10.4337/ enabling innovation as socio-epistemological technology. Computers in
9781849803311.00019 Human Behavior, 37, 346–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.
Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A. A.-G. (2012). Living labs as 05.027
open-innovation networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2018). What is co-creation? An interactional
2(September), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview602 creation framework and its implications for value creation. Journal of
Lewis, M., & Moultrie, J. (2005). The organizational innovation laboratory. Business Research, 84, 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 73–83. https://doi.org/ 2017.11.027
10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00327.x Remane, G., Hanelt, A., Nickerson, R. C., & Kolbe, L. M. (2017).
Li, M., Ramaswamy, K., & Pécherot Petitt, B. S. (2006). Business groups Discovering digital business models in traditional industries. Journal of
and market failures: A focus on vertical and horizontal strategies. Asia Business Strategy, 38(2), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-10-
Pacific Journal of Management, 23, 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 2016-0127
s10490-006-9016-1 Rix, C., Horst, C., Autenrieth, P., Paproth, Y., Frank, J., & Gudergan, G.
Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges (2020). Typology of digital platforms in the mechanical engineering.
and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803–815. 2020 IEEE international conference on engineering, technology and
https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dty034 innovation (ICE/ITMC), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE/
McCrory, G., Schäpke, N., Holmén, J., & Holmberg, J. (2020). Sustainabil- ITMC49519.2020.9198471
ity-oriented labs in real-world contexts: An exploratory review. Journal Roth, A., Fritzsche, A., Jonas, J., Danzinger, F., & Möslein, K. M. (2014).
of Cleaner Production, 277, 123202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. Interaktive Kunden als Herausforderung: Die Fallstudie JOSEPHS® –
2020.123202 Die Service-Manufaktur. HMD Praxis Der Wirtschaftsinformatik, 51(6),
McIntyre, D. P., & Srinivasan, A. (2017). Networks, platforms, and strategy: 883–895. https://doi.org/10.1365/s40702-014-0091-3
Emerging views and next steps. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), Sarpong, D., Ofosu, G., Botchie, D., & Clear, F. (2020). Do-it-yourself (DiY)
141–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2596 science: The proliferation, relevance and concerns. Technological Fore-
Mortara, L., & Parisot, N. (2018). How do fab-spaces enable entrepreneur- casting and Social Change, 158(May), 120127. https://doi.org/10.
ship? Case studies of ‘makers’ - entrepreneurs. International Journal of 1016/j.techfore.2020.120127
Manufacturing Technology and Management, 32(1), 16–42. https://doi. Scholl, C., & Kemp, R. (2016). City labs as vehicles for innovation in urban
org/10.1504/IJMTM.2018.089465 planning processes. Urban Planning, 1(4), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.
Mukhopadhyay, S., & Bouwman, H. (2019). Orchestration and governance 17645/up.v1i4.749
in digital platform ecosystems: A literature review and trends. Digital Shirahada, K., & Hamazaki, K. (2013). Trial and error mindset of R&D per-
Policy, Regulation and Governance, 21(4), 329–351. https://doi.org/10. sonnel and its relationship to organizational creative climate. Techno-
1108/DPRG-11-2018-0067 logical Forecasting and Social Change, 80(6), 1108–1118. https://doi.
Nakatsu, R. T., Grossman, E. B., & Iacovou, C. L. (2014). A taxonomy of org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.005
crowdsourcing based on task complexity. Journal of Information Sci- Steen, K., & van Bueren, E. (2017). The defining characteristics of urban
ence, 40(6), 823–834. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551514550140 living labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(7), 21–33.
Neely, A., Fell, S., & Fritzsche, A. (2018). Manufacturing with a big M – The https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview1088
grand challenges of engineering in digital societies from the perspec- Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qual-
tive of the Institute for Manufacturing at Cambridge University. Philos- itative Research Journal, 11(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3316/
ophy of Engineering and Technology, 31, 191–200. https://doi.org/10. QRJ1102063
1007/978-3-319-91029-1_13 Täuscher, K., & Laudien, S. M. (2018). Understanding platform business
Nestle, V., Glauner, P., & Plugmann, P. (2021). In V. Nestle, P. Glauner, & P. models: A mixed methods study of marketplaces. European Management
Plugmann (Eds.), Creating innovation spaces (1st ed.). Springer Cham. Journal, 36(3), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2017.06.005
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57642-4 Tiwana, A. (2014). Platform architecture. In Platform ecosystems
Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban (pp. 73–116). Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
Transition Labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cit- 12-408066-9.00005-9
ies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111–122. https://doi.org/10. Torvinen, H., & Jansson, K. (2022). Public health care innovation lab tack-
1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.001 ling the barriers of public sector innovation. Public Management
Nickerson, R. C., Varshney, U., & Muntermann, J. (2013). A method for tax- Review, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2029107
onomy development and its application in information systems. UNICEF. (2012). Innovation labs. A do-it-yourself guide. https://s25924.
European Journal of Information Systems, 22(3), 336–359. https://doi. pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Innovation_Labs_A_Do-It-
org/10.1057/ejis.2012.26 Yourself_Guide.pdf
 14678691, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/caim.12557 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [03/03/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12 PEREZ MENGUAL ET AL.

Van Alstyne, M., & Parker, G. (2017). Platform business: From resources to AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
relationships. GfK Marketing Intelligence Review, 9(1), 24–29. https://
doi.org/10.1515/gfkmir-2017-0004
Van Holm, E. J. (2015). What are makerspaces, hackerspaces, and fab labs? Maximilian Perez Mengual works as project and innovation lead
SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2548211 at the Günther Rid Foundation. His main responsibilities include
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. Interna- establishing the Future Retail Store, an experimental retail space.
tional Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67. https://doi.org/
Prior to his work at the Günther Rid Foundation, Maximilian Perez
10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001
vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., & Mengual was in charge of the Retail Innovation research field at
Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the giant: On the importance of rig- Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits (IIS). He teaches at
our in documenting the literature search process. ECIS 2009 Proceed- Technical University of Applied Sciences Augsburg and serves as
ings. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2009/161
a guest lecturer at Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-
Walravens, N. (2014). Smart city as a service platform: Identification and
validation of city platform roles in mobile service provision. Taylor & Nuremberg. His research interests are business model innovation,
Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17686-28 retail technology, and living labs.
Warnaby, G., & Shi, C. (2019). Changing customer behaviour:
Changing retailer response? The potential for pop-up retailing. Journal Frank Danzinger is a professor and researcher in business and
of Customer Behaviour, 18(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1362/ management at the Technical University of Applied Sciences
147539219X15633616548489 Augsburg, Germany. He is also a senior researcher at the
Westerlund, M., Leminen, S., & Rajahonka, M. (2018). A topic modelling
Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits (IIS). His research
analysis of living labs research. Technology Innovation Management
Review, 8(7), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1170 interests are in digital and data-driven business models, city inno-
Westley, F., Laban, S., Rose, C., McGowan, K., Robinson, K., Tjornbo, O., & vation, boundaryless organizations and organizational networks as
Tovey, M. (2014). Social innovation lab guide. https://uwaterloo.ca/ well as in the application of AI in innovation processes.
waterloo-institute-for-social-innovation-and-resilience/sites/ca.
waterloo-institute-for-social-innovation-and-resilience/files/uploads/ Angela Roth is a professor at the Institute of Information Systems
files/10_silabguide_final.pdf at the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and
Wycoff, J., & Snead, L. (1999). Stimulating innovation with collaboration
working at the Chair of Information Systems – Innovation and
rooms. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 22(2), 55–57. https://
search.proquest.com/docview/219179724 Value Creation. She is researching, consulting, and teaching in the
Yablonsky, S. (2018). A multidimensional framework for digital platform fields of service innovation, service systems in digital contexts,
innovation and management: From business to technological and organizational competencies for service innovation. Angela
platforms. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 35(4), 485–501.
Roth is leading the Open Service Lab (OSL) and engaged in
https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2544
researching interactive service innovation in living labs, such as
You, W., Chen, W., Agyapong, M., & Mordi, C. (2020). The business model
of do-it-yourself (DIY) laboratories: A triple-layered perspective. Tech- JOSEPHS®. She is actively involved in multiple research projects
nological Forecasting and Social Change, 159, 120205. https://doi.org/ related to service systems engineering, service innovation, and
10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120205 the future of work.

How to cite this article: Perez Mengual, M., Danzinger, F., &
Roth, A. (2023). Physical interaction platforms: A taxonomy of
spaces for interactive value creation. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12557