3. Method and Applicable Theories In order to structure my report better and give it more value, I have chosen to use a mixed-method approach that consists of Case studies based on the interviews, and more in depth described literature review. When it comes to theories, the main focus was placed on what theories could be applicable for improving participant’s motivation to stay for a long-term participation in the living labs projects. 3.1 MethodQualitative method – interviews, are particularly useful for getting the story behind the participant’s experience (Public.asu.edu), especially if the topic is relatively new. As already mentioned in the Literature Review, there is not so much research made on living labs, its challenges and motives behind. That was the main reason why I chose to go in depth with the texts I managed to find. Based on that, I thought that it would be valuable to get some insights from people who are closely related to living lab. I had Semi-structured type of interviews (Kajornboon, 2005), which means I have prepared some of the questions before, however, I was following the conversation more than my questions list, which means I used my questions more as a guideline instead of a framework. 3.2 Applicable TheoriesBelow I have explained some of the theories that could be applied to living labs concept. In this section I have described what are they and what do they do. However, the way I see them being applied to living labs will be explained in the section of Analysis and Discussion.Profit vs. Purpose MotiveProfit vs. Purpose motive method is introduced by RSA (Royal Society for encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce), which is trying to enrich the society through ideas and actions (Thersa.org, 2017). In their video, they present two different motives that drive people at their working place: Profit and Purpose motives. They also mentioned three factors which could lead to a higher performance of the employees in the workplace: autonomy – ambition to be self-driven, mastery – ambition to get better at something, and purpose – human being affection to tasks that matter. According to RSA, one of the best motivator for the employees could be the money, however, it must be used in a smart way. For example, the best use of money as motivator is to pay people enough, so they forget that money can be an issue, and fully focus on work instead. This is where it is explained that if the money issue is being solved, then the Purpose motive is taking over Profit motive. More and more organisations want some kind of “transcendent purpose” (RSA, 2010) which makes the working place more happy, but also because it is a better way to get a good talent for the team. If a method of Profit motive instead of Purpose motive is chosen, it can easily lead to a bad product, poor service or uninspiring workplace. Collaborative commons: Capitalism era is over. Since more and more technology-based organisations are opened for the co-creation (Martin, 2015), capitalism’s designed resources with a closed system of gab, is over. Since there was a shift between “access is valued over ownership, transparency over privacy, and collaborative co-creation over competition” (Medium.com, 2015) the capitalistic system and its characteristics like private property, wage labor or profit-driven competition, are no longer relevant to today’s world of co-creation. In collaborate commons method, members are contributing their “ideas and labor in collective endeavors” (Martin, 2015). One of the defining feature of Collaborative Commons is that it is distributed and decentralised nature. An opened and distributed nature is exactly what allows the Collaborative Commons to break the capitalistic markets and finally enable co-creation, transparency and peer-to-peer production (Medium.com, 2017). Collaborative Commons also drives the creativity and innovation: “economic welfare is measured less by the accumulation of market capital and more by the aggregation of social capital” (Medium.com, 2015). That is, in collaborate commons method, the members contribute their ideas that drives them to stay motivated in the collective process, where collaboration is taken over competition. Process of Innovation or Innovation as ProcessAs an innovation process develops, the old and the new goes hand in hand, and over the time they are linked together (Garud et al, 2016). According to the authors, innovation is an on-going achievement with the actors investigating their projects based on their aspirations and memories. Process innovation is the process that facilitates innovation (Garud et al, 2016). It may lead to innovations in the fields of products, services or processes. In the meantime, innovation as process means development of new process or changes in process design which are used in providing the products or services. It is one goal of innovation as process. This could indicate that innovation is a process, not a product. That is, moving from synoptic view on the process of innovation to performative view of innovation as process is rather important.Design thinking:Design thinking is a process for solving the problems in a creative way (Ideou.com, 2017), or, as Tim Brown, the CEO of IDEO says himself: “Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success.”(Brown, 2008)Design thinking consists of three general phases: inspiration, ideation and implementation, within a framework of three intersecting constraint: feasibility which is what can be done, viability which is what can be done successfully within a business, and finally desirability which is what potential users want (Brown 2009). However, Design thinking is not only a tool for designers, but it is also applicable for organisations (Dunne & Martin, 2006).