best practices database for living labs - alcotra - · pdf filebest practices database for...

of 78 The project is co-funded by the ERDF

Alcotra Innovation project

Deliverable 2.3

Best practices Database for Living Labs:

- Overview of the Living Lab approach

- Living Lab Best Practice Database Specification


Table of contents

Preface ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

Part A …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

Part B …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 59


Preface

For the study and creation of a best practices Database for Living Labs, a two folded approach was chosen by the Alcotra Innovation project consortium. On the one hand it became clear in the beginning of the project that a general overview about the Living Lab activities in Europe would be desirable to provide a general understanding about Living Labs and their characterization. This part was particular helpful in demonstrating, on the basis of different case studies, how Living Labs are operated and maintained in different settings. Thus part A describes the findings of a study conducted on the bases of Living Labs belonging to the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL1). The description shows how Living Labs are deployed in different international and particular local settings. The insights of this study were used to support the deployment and development of the Alcotra Innovation Living Labs based on the one hand on the general findings of the study and further on by direct coaching and consultancy of the appointed European experts. As such the first part of the Living Lab study was used to generally outline the possibilities of living labs and investigating preferred settings to successful deploy Living Labs, while afterwards providing case based feedback for the deployment of the cross-border Living Labs in Alcotra Innovation project. The second part of this Deliverable deals with the deployment of a Living Lab database in order to allow interested industrial as well as governmental organizations a structured approach to the Living Labs of Alcotra. Part B thus describes the structure of the database to be deployed to describe the Living Labs of Alcotra (with the help of ERM and Rational Database Models). The work here strongly adherence to the description of Living Labs identified in the CO-LLABS project, which has also been used as the description template for the European Network of Living Labs. This approach has been approved e.g. by the European Commission DG INFSO. However in order to support even further the idea of the Living Lab Benchmarking the structure of the Living Lab Database has been enhanced to allow for the storage of further benchmarking parameters. These parameters are based on the Living Lab harmonization cube that allows the analysis of Living Labs according to their fulfilment of some basic principles governing Living Labs and their maturity grade. This approach was presented and further discussed in the Alcotra Innovation project Genoa meeting hold on 7th July 20112.

1 http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/

2 http://www.alcotra-innovazione.eu/progetto/attivita2.shtml


DELIVERABLE 2.3 PART A

OVERVIEW OF THE LIVING LAB APPROACH

(WITH A SURVEY OF ENOLL MEMBERS)

AUTHOR: FRANCESCO MOLINARI


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 7

2. LIVING LABS AS TERRITORIAL INNOVATION MODELS 9

3. OPERATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION 14

3.1 The FormIT Process 15

3.2 The C@R Workflow 15

3.3 The IBBT Research Cycle 17

3.4 The Technological Platform Model 19

3.5 The ENoLL Definition 20 3.5.1 Innovation settings 20 3.5.2 Operating conditions 21 3.5.3 Innovation processes 22 3.5.4 User engagement 22 3.5.5 Innovation outcomes 23

3.6 Conclusions 24

4. SURVEY RESULTS 25

4.1 Country Clusters 25

4.2 Age Clusters 27

4.3 Thematic Domains 28

4.4 Living Lab profiles 33 Profile #1: Single sector Business Association 35 Profile #2: Open Innovation prone Enterprise 35 Profile #3: Policy-driven Government initiative 35 Profile #4: Network-oriented University spin-off 36 Profile #5: High-tech R&D Laboratory 36 Profile #6: Business services provider 36

5. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK 38

6. REFERENCES 39


ANNEX A: FULL DATABASE OF ENOLL MEMBERS 41

ANNEX B: ENOLL MEMBERS FROM THE ALCOTRA REGIONS 48


1. Introduction

Much has been written about the massive explosion of Living Labs that has positively affected the European scenario in the past five years now. Scientists, industry observers, and policy makers seem to share the perception that the big movement (and momentum) still under way defies meaningful descriptions, making an overall evaluation almost impossible. This perception is unfortunate, because the ‘essence’ of European Living Labs – a successful mixture of ICT-based collaborative environments, open innovation platforms, user centered product/service development methods, and public private partnerships – holds potentially disruptive and long lasting transformational effects on industry, markets, regional economies and societal landscapes. On November 20th, 2006, the Finnish EU Presidency launched the idea of a European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) for the “co-creation of innovation in public, private and civic partnership”. This was presented as a first step towards a new European R&D and Innovation System, entailing a major paradigm shift for the whole innovation process. Since then, a growing number of European actors in a variety of business and non-business domains, have understood that involving people into product and service creation is of vital importance for the acceptance and marketability of results. This has led to the launch of six non-funded calls (the one currently open expires on February 28th, 2012) and the acknowledgment of five consecutive “waves” of Living Labs, endorsed by the Portuguese, Slovenian, French, Swedish, Spanish and Hungarian Presidencies, bringing the 19 founding members of the ENoLL to 274 (including 47 non-EU Living Labs from e.g. North and South Africa, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, and the US). A subset of these has also given life, in January 2010, to the ENoLL aisbl international non-profit association, holding its seat in Brussels. In essence, the Living Lab concept refers to a set of (quantitative and qualitative) methodologies and tools for the co-creation and validation of innovation together with the end users in real-world environments. In these environments, people are taken across the different roles played during a normal day, and which typically require the use and support of different technologies. Compared with traditional testbeds, where users are not necessarily involved and the laboratory setting is controlled, Living Labs place people at the very centre of the innovation process; thereby, innovation becomes human-centric, in contrast to technology-centric. Further to that, Living Lab activities go on round the clock: this means that solution developers get the opportunity to gain understanding of a new product or service in its 24/7 usage context. Finally, in the perspective of validation, the focus is on how users experience technology, e.g. by interfacing design and ergonomics, as well as on user acceptance. Hence, the purpose of a Living Lab is to enhance innovation, usefulness, and usability of ICT applications in society. To date, evidence collection on current and emerging Living Labs has largely relied on self-reflection and some empirical analyses carried out on relevant, yet partial subsets of the movement. However, this has contributed to highlight the complexity of a European ‘phenomenon’ which is characterized, at the very least, by a great deal of variability in the respective aims, methods, tools, activities and results. In this context, time is ripe for an integrated research agenda, which aims to fill in the vacuum between theoretical developments and practical implementations, and lay the scientific basis for what can be recognized as ‘the’ first truly original model of innovation ever appeared in Europe. As a preliminary contribution in that direction, this paper proposes a survey of all 274 Living Labs that are currently members of the ENoLL, based on textual information kindly made available by the ENoLL aisbl chair. The survey was carried out, when available, on the individual self-descriptions delivered by the candidates to the various ENoLL “waves”, otherwise on the Living Lab profiles that are published on the www.openlivinglabs.eu website. No attempt has been made to contact any Living Lab directly for a clarification or integration of the received and analyzed information. While this approach may lend itself to criticisms, as it leaves a lot of margin to the discretional interpretation of the researcher, we believe it also comes as close as possible to what can be said to be an objective and neutral presentation of the Living Lab


movement in 2011. Furthermore, by presenting the results only in aggregate form (ie clustered by country, maturity, thematic domain, nature of the leading organization), we have avoided the risk of disclosing any confidential or simply personal data that was not already public or confirmed by other independent sources (especially the respective Living Lab websites). The structure of this document is as follows: Section 2 briefly outlines the territorial Living Lab model and Section 3 introduces a number of operational methodologies purporting to its concrete implementation. Section 4 overviews the ENoLL survey results – explaining in particular why and how the focus was set on the four thematic domains of direct interest for the Alcotra Innovation project partners. Section 5 concludes the study with some propositions and implications for future work. Two Annexes are also provided, one with the full listing of ENoLL members and the other with the profiles of those Living Labs that are coming from the Alcotra Innovation regions. Acknowledgment and disclaimer: this research was made possible in part by the financial contribution of the European Commission, DG Regio, through the Government of Regione Piemonte, Italy, in the context of the Alcotra Innovation Strategic Project, which is also partaken by the Regional Governments of PACA and Rhone-Alpes, France, and Liguria and Valle D’Aosta, Italy. Some excerpts of Section 2 are borrowed from a paper I presented last September at the ICEGOV11 conference in Tallinn, Estonia [1]. I am particularly grateful to Alvaro Oliveira and Jesse Marsh from the ENoLL Chair and Secretariat for their kind and helpful support in this endeavour. However, I remain solely responsible for any possible mistake and remind you that none of the judgments expressed throughout the text are meant to specifically engage or commit the aforementioned organisations.


2. Living Labs as Territorial Innovation Models

In line with some authoritative statements [2, 3], we can define Living Labs as territorial policy instruments where all the key stakeholders of R&D and innovation governance – namely firms, public authorities, universities and citizens – collectively form a Public-Private-People-Partnership (PPPP) for the joint support and management of systemic innovation according to an open, user driven perspective. In particular, the PPPP members agree to collaborate in the co-creation, design, prototyping, validation and testing of new services, products and technologies, experimented by and with the end users in real-life contexts, thus achieving the preconditions for “democratizing the process of innovation” [4], at least at local and community level. There, the human being is seen as a source of improvement and sustainable change, not just like a consumer, a customer, or a ‘guinea pig’ for closed-door, classical prototype validation and verification activities. To adopt these principles in practice, several real-life experimentation pilots are set up and executed, which are normally and quite simply dubbed Living Lab’s trials. It is quite interesting to note that most initiators of the Living Labs ‘movement’ in Europe actually operated in urban [5] and mobile [6] environments, either to increase the participation of citizens in spatial planning decision making or to implement User Centred Design (UCD) techniques into R&D on ubiquitous computing technologies. Although the ‘Mobile City’ – and more recently ‘Smart City’ – concept can be seen as quite transversal to many experiences, it is in regional development policy design that the extended stakeholders engagement within a Living Lab’s PPPP can really mark a visible difference with respect to the UCD and Participatory Decision-Making (PDM) approaches. In fact, the main impact of Living Labs is to increase the economic and social attractiveness of the territory they belong to, especially by improving the conditions of ICT-enabled systemic innovation [7]. This, however, requires the unification and coordination of several independent efforts from the local stakeholders, while bringing about a great deal of advantages. In particular, the involvement of citizens and businesses helps to strengthen a culture of innovation and to raise the awareness of policy makers towards the socioeconomic value of infrastructure investments (such as broadband); the cultural commitment to the so-called ‘Living Labbing’ leads to a permanent improvement of innovation capacity in both mature and emerging markets. At the end of the day, this calls for an integrated, cross-sectorial, and also possibly cross-domain approach to the governance of innovation, growth and development in a given area, which can hardly be achieved without electronic means [8]. Typically, the ‘birth announcement’ of a Living Lab coincides with pilot users, researchers, policy makers and businesses at local level entering into agreements, on the basis of which they engage in a long-term collaboration and commit to practicing user driven, open innovation [9]. Thus, we may assimilate a Living Lab to a multi-stakeholder platform, though it can also happen that the original PPPP gets structured into a conventional legal form. A widely accepted definition [10] describes a multi-stakeholder platform as a (voluntary or statutory) body, comprising different stakeholders, who perceive the same problem, realize their own respective interdependencies, and come together to agree on the best action strategies for solving it. It is like a roundtable, where people are gathered with very different perspectives. Examples of such a platform do abound in several, rather independent policy contexts – from Millennium Development to natural resource management and environmental assessment, from participatory urban planning to the deployment of Information Society. Some platforms are promoted and supported by public decision-makers; some others just aggregate and develop spontaneously. When people come together in such platforms, they hold multi-stakeholder dialogues, which instantiate themselves into one or more collaboration experiments (trials). Basically, the multi-stakeholder dialogue is not just a conversation model, but an interactive approach to get things done - a contrived situation in which a set of (more or less) interdependent stakeholders are identified and invited to meet and interact to


achieve e.g. conflict resolution, goal negotiation, social learning or collective decision-making towards concerted action. In a Living Lab framework, any trial or collaboration experiment can be positioned – even concurrently - at either ‘stage’ of the ‘standard’ product/service development process (or chain): idea generation, concept design, prototype generation, verification and validation, product/service evaluation and market launch [11]. At all such stages, the work of technology innovators can get a robust contribution from the early involvement of users in the trials under real-life conditions, which can be taken as the proper hallmark of the Living Lab’s methodological approach [12]. From a heuristic perspective, a multi-stakeholder platform is a more advanced metaphor than a network. Platforms suggest a form of institutionalization that networks do not have. In a typical network, problem-solving capacity is dispersed; while in a typical platform, it is governed and brought to a more advanced synthesis. Furthermore, an ICT infrastructure can be associated to the platform, providing efficient means to manage, store and analyze the production results. Based on the known evidence that most networks are often characterized by cooperation and coordination problems, which are caused by the lack of a dominant decision centre, network management can be a success if it promotes some minimally joint activities between actors. On the contrary, in multi-stakeholder platforms like Living Labs, the power is – at least ideally – dispersed in such a way that no single actor can dominate, nor is management responsibility or the accountability for results exclusive to any particular stakeholder. Figure 1 exhibits the ‘typical’ appearance of a Living Lab’s PPPP environment as a three layered multi-stakeholder platform.

Figure 1: A Living Lab PPPP’s conceptual architecture (from: [1])

On the top of everything lies the PPP (Public Private Partnership) between local stakeholders, dealing with the strategic governance of user-driven, open innovation policy. One layer below there is the practical (and tactical) implementation of the trials, foreseeing a key role for the Living Lab’s ‘owner’ or ‘representative’ (the real or virtual organization appointed to act on behalf of the PPP) and for the people/citizens as ‘actors’ of the individual pilot (the missing “P” in the PPPP acronym). Finally, the third layer deals with the actual generation of (material and/or immaterial) results from the trials, going to the benefit of the Living Lab’s service ‘customers’ (e.g. SMEs or large enterprises wanting the pre-test the market feasibility of their engineered solutions). Depending on each trial’s positioning along the product/service development chain, results can take the form of new or improved prototypes, products, services, and technologies, including


(from a public authority’s viewpoint) local innovation policies and strategies. An evaluative ‘feedback loop’ from this third layer to the PPP on the top is key to ensure not only the eventual replication of the trial at the same or another future stage, but also a collective, shared and transparent evaluation of the results obtained. This is another essential feature of the Living Labs approach, well in line with the principles of Open Innovation, but also a guarantee for taxpayer’s money expenditure, provided that most stakeholders do belong to the public sector. The relevance of the strategic layer is confirmed by the evidence collected in 2008 within the ‘1st and 2nd wave’ members of the European Network of Living Labs [13], which showed how in 8 out of 10 cases, their essence (or raison d’être) pointed at the creation of innovative places (milieux) for territorial marketing and business (or SME) promotion, thus adding to the plethora of territorial innovation policy instruments. This evidence can only be partly explained by a prevalence of government stakeholders (in 35% of the cases, according to the 2008 survey) within the Living Labs PPPP’s. More generally, it stems from the shared intuition that by leveraging on the positive externalities of user-driven, open innovation, a bigger share of product and service inventions can actually reach the market, which in turn leads to the creation of a more favourable and conducive environment to entrepreneurship and business development, not to speak of employment and social cohesion. In this context, it comes with little surprise that the majority of the Living Labs’ thematic domains surveyed in 2008 was belonging to Government and Public Administration on the one hand, and to SME-specific industrial applications on the other hand (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Overview of Living Labs domains - 2008 (from: [13])

In the above respect, the Living Lab approach presents itself as a new model of territorial innovation in which the local institutional dynamics play a significant role [14]. This is achieved via a novel and reportedly successful ‘mixture’ of ICT-based collaboration, open innovation, people (user) integration in the design process [15] and public private partnerships, as the following table shows in more detail:


Table 1. Comparison of Territorial Innovation Models (from: [1])

Based on the above table, we can identify the following distinguishing features that are supposed to make Living Labs a truly new and usable instrument for the economics (and policy) of innovation:

• ICT-based collaboration: the presence of a collaborative ICT working environment between remotely located entities is a basic requirement of the Living Labs approach, though actually fulfilled by a limited subset of the existing experiences, as it is also the case for Science and Technology Parks [16, 17], Research Driven Clusters3 and Digital Business Ecosystems [18, 19];

• Open Innovation: a concept that is transversal to most territorial innovation models, being based as they are on the integration of multiple information sources into existing and novel market transition paths4. While the more ‘traditional’ models - born in the 1980s - rely on the physical proximity of economic agents to ensure rapid and effective information exchange and knowledge ‘spillovers’, thanks to the massive introduction of ICT it now becomes possible to situate human communication and collaboration at a ‘virtual’ level, which makes geographic distance less important than before [20]. This shapes a totally new dimension of Open Innovation that seems particularly apt to the development of European SMEs;

3 For a definition of research driven clusters see: http://ec.europa.eu/research/faq/index.cfm?lang=it&page=details&idfaq=18147.

4 Alfred Marshall in 1890 first hypothesized three main reasons for industrial clustering: the benefits of pooled labour supply, better access to

specialized inputs, and the information flows between people and firms.


• People (User) Integration in Design: the novelty of the Living Labs approach lies in the particular emphasis given to people’s involvement in the design process since the very early stages of the product/service development chain [11, 15]. This is something that goes beyond the traditional UCD principles, as they are typically anchored to the latest stages of testing, verification and validation;

• Public Private Partnership: this is the most typical nature of European Living Labs – whenever they are established as such – and in that respect, it acquires a similar trait to the ‘support space’ of Innovative Milieux [21], or the territorial ‘Triple Helix’ required by the EC-funded Research Driven Clusters.

As Almirall and Wareham [12] point out, Living Labs engage in a sort of intermediary role between individual users and the other local innovation stakeholders. In particular, they “organize users in needs

finding exercises contributing to ideation, support them in acting as entrepreneurs, orchestrate the

innovation process, organize user contribution in incremental innovation through localization exercises or

promote societal involvement for a certain platform, product or service. Therefore, playing a more

encompassing and systemic role in the innovation process” that structures and provides governance to user participation in Open Innovation.

While larger enterprises seem to have sufficient resources to avail themselves of a similar kind of infrastructure, a totally different story concerns SMEs – the natural market of election for the Living Lab’s ‘services’. The diagram below depicts the distribution of a representative sample of “1st and 2nd wave” ENoLL members across a wide range of SME support services. Access to R&D communities, unsurprisingly, stands out as being the main service offered by nearly all Living Labs. Other important contributions emerging from the graph have to do with the role of Living Labs as technology platforms or data sources, possibly relevant to the purposes of product/service development and/or improvement thereof.

Figure 3: Overview of Living Labs services - 2008 (from: [13])


3. Operational Implementation

The key concept at the basis of a Living Lab is to turn users from being traditionally considered as merely passive subjects to whom new products or services are simply proposed, into active players contributing to the co-creation and experimentation of emerging ideas, breakthrough scenarios and innovative concepts. Among the numerous definitions available, we select from [22] the following illustration of a Living Lab’s components, with Innovation placed at the centre:

Figure 4: Living Lab’s components (from: [22])

Proceeding clockwise, we encounter the following:

• The ICT & Infrastructure component, which outlines the role that new and existing ICT technology can play to facilitate new ways of cooperating and co-creating innovation among stakeholders;

• Management represents the ownership, organization, and policy aspects of a Living Lab, which can be handled by e.g. consultants, entrepreneurs or researchers;

• Partners and Users bring their own specific wealth of knowledge and expertise to the community, helping to achieve boundary spanning knowledge transfer results;

• Research symbolizes the collective learning and reflection that take place in a Living Lab and should result in useful contributions to both theory and practice. Academic and industrial partners can also provide direct access to ongoing research and research results that can be better turned into new technological innovation;

• Finally, Approach stands for the methods and tools aimed at trial configuration and execution that emerge as best practice within the Living Labs environment.

Over the past few years, several methods and tools have been presented in relation to Living Lab activities. We will now briefly overview some of them in quick succession.


3.1 The FormIT Process The FormIT process can be seen as “a spiral in which the focus and shape of the design becomes clearer,

while the attention of the evaluation broadens from a focus on concepts and usability aspects to a holistic

view on the use of the system” [23].

Figure 5: The FormIT Process for Systems Development

In this process, three phases – Appreciate Needs/Opportunities, Design the Solution, and Evaluate Impact (on e.g. usability, experience, etc.) – are repeated along three iterative cycles. The first is named Concept

Design, the second Prototype Design, and the third one Final System Design. The name of each cycle indicates the expected output of it. Besides these three cycles, two additional phases are included in the figure. The first is the Planning phase, which can be seen on the very bottom of the picture, while the second is Commercialization, right on the top. In each of these five phases, relevant analytical dimensions (with a same weight) are Business, Use and Technology.

3.2 The C@R Workflow The C@R - Collaboration at Rural - Integrated Project (http://www.c-rural.eu/) has been supported by the European Commission, DG Information Society and Media, under the Information Society Technologies (IST) Priority within the 6th Framework Programme. When the project started in 2006, Living Labs as such were not yet in place in the participant regions/countries. In this context, a “pragmatic phasing approach” to Living Lab and trial development was introduced by [8], as follows:


Figure 6: The C@R Workflow for Living Labs and Trial Establishment

In short, the proposed workflow rolls out along four consecutive stages:

• Preparation: setting in place the preconditions for successful establishment of the Living Lab, such as the commitment of local stakeholders and the compliance with development and/or innovation policies. Key activities here are joint vision and user community building, discussion of current and prospective collaboration opportunities, definition of innovative scenarios and use cases, analysis of requirements and definition of prospective services;

• Limited scale experimentation: demonstrating the effect of user integration on work and business practice is necessary to convince the skeptics or disseminate innovation to followers. New ideas, concepts and mock-up’s generated at this stage can serve as “proofs of principle” to create an initial user community. Here, suitable technologies and applications are selected or integrated and can also be developed in small experimental series where found appropriate, to start sharing critical information with initial users and testing innovations at technical, social and business level;

• Extensive application development and field experimentation: in this later stage of the Living Lab’s workflow, prototype solutions and tools are made available in full scale for user driven validation and testing in real life conditions. To this end, the first field trials are prepared and initiated, based on a number of operational methodologies, including training of early adopters and demonstration of capabilities.

• User-led co-

creation and Business model operation: here the conditions are set for extending the field trials to a full user experience as well as experimenting on new ways of collaboration with and between end users. Thus, co-creation of innovative applications is the end result, not the premise of Living Lab’s establishment. Additionally to that, impact evaluation of innovations on business processes, ways of living and development models can be launched. At this stage there is a more extensive user community willing to actively be involved. A business model governing the operation of the Living lab as innovation environment is also in place.

A similar implementation workflow, as proposed by [24], is depicted below. We use different colors to identify the activities belonging to each of the three layers of our conceptual architecture described in Section 2 (see also Figure 1 above).


Figure 7: Sample Living Lab’s trial implementation workflow (from: [24])

After the institutional definition of the PPP, an initial phase of brainstorming with local stakeholders is realized, aimed at making them aware of the goals and features of the prospective solution concept. As a result of this first activity, several key aspects of the preliminary usage scenario(s) envisaged for the prototype may be confirmed, refined or radically changed.

Then follows the initial development of the technical architecture (only at mock-up level in this stage) and its validation with the end users in order to get additional feedback from the illustration of the related usage potential. A notable remark is that up to this moment, only the PPP stakeholders have been involved in the group discussion and no single code line has been written as yet.

The next activity is the actual development and installation of the specific application on real devices, in order to carry out the ‘live’ demonstrations of its main features as required. Some training sessions may also be needed in order to support technology deployment in this phase. A number of real working sessions are recorded, and several concrete suggestions for improving usability as well as functionality of the system are collected. Bugs fixing and the provision of requested improvements (with or without a new battery of field tests for further refining the architectural and structural aspects) ultimately leads to the final prototype.

3.3 The IBBT Research Cycle One of the earliest examples of Living Labs as testing and experimentation platforms for technologies and services in early stages of the innovation process comes from IBBT, the leading Belgian Institute of Applied Technologies [25]. In this perspective, the basic research cycle is based on four consecutive (and iterative) steps:


1) Contextualization, or a prior exploration of the technological and social challenges implied by the technology and service under investigation;

• This step also includes Selection, meaning the identification of potential users or user groups for the Living Lab trial to be executed, and Recruiting, or the complete definition of the test-panel according to the predefined selection profiles;

2) Concretization, meaning a thorough description of the current characteristics, everyday behavior and perceptions of the selected users with respect to the trial’s focus;

• This includes an initial Measurement of the sample, ie made before the technology or service is introduced or before the test panel becomes active in the Living Lab;

3) Implementation, or the behavioral validation and operational testing phase, driven from a user-led perspective;

• This step is supported by two major families of research methods: Direct Analysis (e.g. Logging and other remote data collection techniques) and Indirect Analysis (e.g. focus groups, in-depth interviews, and self-reporting techniques like diaries);

4) Feedback, consisting of two distinct steps:

• An ex post Measurement based on the same techniques of the initial one, to check if there has been any evolution in the users perception and attitude towards the introduced technology and service, to assess the changes and detect the transitions in relation to everyday life usage over time;

• A set of Technology Recommendations arising from the analysis of data gathered during the previous implementation phase.

Figure 8: Overview of the Living Lab research cycle (from: [25])

Like the picture above shows, the outcome of the Feedback stage can be used as the starting point for a new research cycle; in this way the iterative feature of the chosen approach is made operational.


3.4 The Technological Platform Model The “process oriented” definitions above leave the additional issue open of introducing and describing a “Living Lab platform”, whereby knowledge is shared and the collective work, including social intelligence, of multidisciplinary teams and user communities is crystallized into new and emerging concepts, artefacts and ultimately services. Marc Pallot [26] gives emphasis to Living Labs as technological platforms (see next Figure) offering research and innovation services for the design, exploration, experimentation and evaluation of new and innovative ideas, usage scenarios, and application prototypes. Within a Living Lab, an iterative process takes place - whatever innovation is to be generated - that links together the following four activities:

1. Co-creation of new ideas, concepts, artefacts and application scenarios, by means of open sessions of collective creativity involving all concerned stakeholders and especially end users;

2. Exploration of alternative usage scenarios through setting the scene by the implementation of different immersive techniques within real-life environments;

3. Experimentation done on various assessment scenarios for concrete applications and/or service prototypes by the use of the Living Lab’s technological platform, also within real-life environments;

4. Evaluation of the resulting exploitation scenarios on the basis of metrics for measuring the Quality of Service as well as the Quality of Experience, which both allow anticipating the potential degree of future adoption by the user communities involved.

Figure 9: Living Labs as Technology Platforms (from: [26])

The FP7 ICT STREP ELLIOT (Experiential Living Labs for the Internet Of Things, http://www.elliot-project.eu) adopted this model to develop IoT technologies and Ambient Intelligence (AmI) services by and for the users, supported by a KSB (Knowledge-Social-Business) Experience Model [27] and by an innovative ICT Platform operating as a knowledge and experience gathering environment. This combination of user driven experimentation and experiential design approaches is expected to positively impact on the development and adoption of IoT technologies and services.


3.5 The ENoLL Definition The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL, see www.openlivinglabs.eu) defines a Living Lab as “an open

innovation environment in real-life settings in which user-driven innovation is fully integrated within the co-

creation process for new services, products and societal infrastructures”. This definition identifies five key dimensions of the Living Labs that are

1. innovation settings (the “open innovation environment”),

2. operating conditions (“real-life settings”),

3. affecting innovation processes (“user-driven innovation” and “co-creation”),

4. related to user engagement and

5. from which innovation outcomes are expected (“new services, products and societal infrastructures”).

3.5.1 Innovation settings

Conceptualized as an organizational entity, a Living Lab represents an open innovation environment that is characterized by a thematic domain (e.g. healthcare, multimedia, etc.) and a territorial dimension (e.g. city, region). Moving from a plain stakeholder network towards a “functional region” (Santoro & Conte 2009) requires that relevant stakeholders play their role by leveraging and articulating the network’s resources (as illustrated by the next Figure) to foster innovation dynamics. The paradigm at the basis of Living Labs is Chesbrough’s Open Innovation [9], assuming that firms, in the effort to enhance the marketability of their product and service solutions, should use ideas, feedback and improvement proposals deriving from any external as well as internal sources, such as customers, suppliers, employees etc. However, the Living Lab approach to open innovation goes beyond Chesbrough’s firm-level prescription that businesses should make greater use of the existing knowledge available in- and outside an organization. Indeed, Living Labs are multi-organizational settings based on inter-organizational and multi-disciplinary collaboration, as exhibited in Figure 10 below. This structural feature indicates that Living Lab environments can primarily thought of as (technology and/or multi-stakeholder) platforms for exploiting the complementarities and synergic potentials between local and regional businesses, public authorities, academia (the “Triple Helix”) and obviously people’s communities (the fourth “P” of the “PPPP” acronym).


Figure 10: Living Labs as Functional Regions (from: [3])

3.5.2 Operating conditions

Living Labs also differentiate because of the playground in which innovation is grown. ENoLL’s definition prescribes ‘real-life’ environments, which encourage carrying out the innovation process in an uncontrolled context that is fully consistent with the product’s or service’s usage conditions. In particular, Følstad’s review ([28], p. 116) proposes an attenuated definition whereby innovation takes place in “(semi)realistic contexts”, thus considering to engage users either in partly controlled environments or in what is often described as the uncontrolled “real-life”. ‘Users’ here generally means ‘end users’, or those specific persons adopting and being impacted by the innovation considered. In other words, the term relates to citizens, consumers and possibly employees, if that innovation assumes an organizational meaning. A particularly important category of end users is represented by the “lead users”, described [in 29] as a particular group of people “on the leading edge of the market with respect to important market trends”. The two defining characters of lead-users are that (a) they are ahead with respect to important market trends, typically early adopters, and (b) they expect to gain relatively high benefits from a given solution [30]. More recently, the Web 2.0 explosion has demonstrated the positive impact of involving user communities in mass collaboration projects (e.g. Wikipedia, crowdsourcing, etc.) that collectively create new contents and applications. Because of heterogeneity of users’ requirements and the growing demand for solutions that are more precisely meeting individual needs, the innovation driven by users provides a very necessary complement to manufacturer innovation. In practice, however, it is often very difficult to shift product development activities from manufacturers to lead users: if it is not possible to find representative users for all user groups, a broad variety of users is needed to assess all relevant user needs. This condition that user involvement activities should take place in real-world contexts is a main difference between the Living Lab approach and traditional user involvement methods. This means, for example, that potential users are involved all day round. Hence, the aim here is to create as authentic a usage situation as possible, whereas in traditional practice users can be asked to use a system or device in a so-called field study, then in a not fully authentic context. The rationale for such realism having instrumental value in Living Labs is that innovations should ultimately take place in the “real world”. For example, if a user tests a mobile service, s/he can gain understanding of how it functions and fits into her/his usage context at all times and in diverse ordinary situations: at the end


of this real-life experimentation, the company developing the advanced mobile service will gain important feedback from potential customers about performance, quality, efficiency, thus being able to improve the service and to approach the market with a higher probability of success.

3.5.3 Innovation processes

Another difference between the Living Lab and other development approaches is their focus on the vertical value chain in which customers, producers, and suppliers are involved, with the objective to create new businesses: in fact, the Living Lab approach does not only aim at involving end users in the development processes, because it also strives to facilitate the interaction between other relevant stakeholders, such as research organizations, companies, public sector, and society as a whole. Thus, from a process perspective, Living Labs are innovative because they encompass two ground-breaking ideas:

(a) Managing a multi-organizational, inter-disciplinary collaboration for innovation (pilot configuration challenge), and (b) Engaging intensively with end users (methodological and instrumental challenge).

In order to be met, both challenges require specific research methods and tools, respectively to (a) Trigger innovators and support the formation of effective innovation groups, and (b) Engage users adequately on the innovation process.

Several methods, such as action research, community informatics, contextual design, user-centred design, participatory design, empathic design, emotional design, and others, already exist in research and practice, but they mostly fail to sufficiently empower users for co-creation in open development environments.

3.5.4 User engagement

Research up to now conducted on the subject of users role in innovation processes has found that needs are highly heterogeneous and that users show a high willingness to pay for a solution that is more closely related to there individual needs: the advantage of a user driven innovation process is that users can develop exactly what they want. Users can have intrinsic motivations to co-create (interest in innovation and improvement, fun to participate, etc.), but could also require extrinsic motivations (e.g. financial or material incentives for consumers, free loan of the new IT system, etc.), which have to be taken into account. The focus on user engagement derives from this central and driving role attributed to users as a source of dynamism (“user driven”), creativity and improvement inputs (“co-creation”). As the following picture shows, end users potentially play a role in all phases of the innovation lifecycle, from idea to concept to product/service development, from deployment for testing and experimentation purposes, evaluation and ultimately market launch. End users are central contributors to Living Labs because they are expected to be a source of ideas (creative role for the generation of radically new concepts), a mechanism for product improvement (supporting role in an iterative development process), verification and validation (evaluation role), as well as diffusion agents (marketing role).


Figure 11: The Living Lab Innovation ‘Vortex’ (from: [3])

User engagement can be differentiated in terms of intensity, between

• Reactive modes, for example giving feedback on an existing proposal, prototype or product, and • Proactive modes, for example becoming a source of innovation or ideas to improving a product or

service along its development process.

In theory, the benefits of user involvement in the development of new products, services and processes are quite relevant: expected added values are for example higher acceptance among stakeholders, better hit-rates and faster time-to market. Involving users in the development of interactive systems and innovative solutions typically increases the likelihood that those new products and/or services will be useful and usable: empirical evidence suggests that user involvement is beneficial in such developments [31]. Let us take an example from IT industry: nowadays, IT investments are considered failures if they do not produce an added value for the users. Actually, in order to increase the probability that users will use a public IT system when it is introduced in the competitive and open market, this must offer users an added value of some sort. Therefore, it is important to gain knowledge about what the intended users need and want from technology. One obvious way to gain knowledge about users and their needs is to engage them on the development and testing process run by the IT firms themselves. In market research, experts usually investigate end user needs. User engagement goes one step further. It is not purely about assessing and considering user needs in the product/service development process, but also about actively involving end users. Therefore, suggestions, remarks and recommendations from them need to be taken seriously: this represents an innovative business model, which asks product developers and researchers to accept the user as benchmark for the design of a new product or service. The strategy of this new business model, strongly linked to people, is to cooperate in a productive and effective manner in order to jointly develop appropriate products in a bottom-up fashion: according to this perspective, social innovation is recognized as a crucial source of innovativeness in Living Labs.

3.5.5 Innovation outcomes

The single most consensual feature of Living Labs is their overarching purpose, as captured in part (5) of the ENoLL’s definition. Living Labs are strongly expected to be platforms fostering business innovation in a way that bridges the crucial gap between market pull, commercially oriented product/service development and research push, technology driven solution proposal and product/service prototyping (see next picture).


Figure 12: A missing link in the innovation chain (from: [32])

That very aim is also reflected in the so-called “Helsinki Manifesto” [33] that established the European Network of Living Labs and articulated its central mission by directly linking it to the Lisbon Strategy (now Digital Agenda), the European Union’s knowledge and information society master plan. Thus, the ENoLL is expected to have a strong regional growth and development impact by facilitating and fostering regional innovation as interlinked with a European innovation system holding a global reach. To that end, the Living Lab approach has been inscribed into a number of recent calls of the Framework Programme 7 (ICT 2009-2011) and especially the Competitive and Innovation Programme (CIP 2009-2011).

3.6 Conclusions To sum up, the Living Lab approach can be defined as a methodological paradigm that guides user driven development and integrates users’ needs in the design of a new product, service, or innovative IT-system, by paying attention to the following aspects [34]:

• Early and continuous participation of all project stakeholders (firms, end users, academia, research institutes, public administration, briefly the so-called PPPP);

• Broad inclusion of end users, open process and transparent results; • Data collection methods that facilitate spontaneous reactions, i.e. open and qualitative; • Engagement of real users in real contexts with real systems; • Involvement different competencies to increase creative solutions; • Design as an iterative process; • Insights into user characteristics; • Focus on identifying strengths, opportunities and values; • Prioritisation of needs in dialectical interaction with users; • Translation of user expressions into needs and technical requirements; • Creation of an authentic usage situation in the evaluation of the prototype.

Five principles are considered key for Living Lab operations: Continuity, Openness, Realism, Empowerment of Users, and Spontaneity (CORES), which are described as follows [35]:

• Continuity: this principle is important since good collaboration, the so-called PPPP (People Public Private Partnership), which strengthens creativity and innovation, builds on trust, which takes time to develop. In particular, if users feel that their opinions and needs are important and considered in the design of the innovative product or service, then the relationship established with the firms, SMEs and research institutes tends to be more trustworthy productive, and long-term oriented. Reflecting on openness also awakens questions about how the process must be designed to cope with all the input an open process might generate: a solution could be deploying an ICT infrastructure with a mobile platform and an online forum, freely accessible and always-on.


• Openness: the innovation process should be gathering of many perspectives and bringing enough power to achieve rapid progress is important. The open process also makes it possible to support the process of user-driven innovation, including users wherever and whoever they are. The open process is demonstrated by the continuous interactions among the involved stakeholders, with special attention to the users. This means that multiple stakeholders and perspectives should be one key characteristic of a Living Lab, and can be implemented with project-teams consisting of people from academia, private companies, public organisations, and potential end user groups.

• Realism: to generate results that are valid for real markets, it is necessary to facilitate as realistic use situations and behaviour as possible. This principle also is relevant since focusing on real users, in real-life situations, is what distinguishes Living Labs from other kinds of open co-creation environments.

• Empowerment of users: the engagement of users is fundamental in order to bring the innovation process in a desired direction based on human needs and desires. Living Labs efficiency is based on the creative power of user communities; hence, it becomes important to base innovations on people needs and desires, as well as to motivate and empower the users to engage in these processes. Needs and suggestions, priorities and requirements, collected through focus-group interviews, open source communities and prototype tests should be considered seriously and implemented as functions and features in the solution design.

• Spontaneity: in order to succeed with new innovations, it is important to inspire usage, meet personal desires, and both fit and contribute to societal and social needs. Here, it becomes important to have the ability to detect, aggregate, and analyse spontaneous users’ reactions and ideas over time.

4. Survey Results

This section provides the preliminary results of a qualitative survey carried out on all the 274 Living Labs that are currently members of the ENoLL, based on textual information kindly made available by the ENoLL aisbl chair. The survey was carried out, when available, on the individual self-descriptions delivered by the candidates to the various ENoLL “waves”, otherwise on the Living Lab profiles that are published on the www.openlivinglabs.eu website. The results presented are only in aggregate form (i.e. clustered by country, maturity, thematic domain, nature of the leading organization), to avoid the risk of disclosure for any confidential or simply personal data. However, Annex A and B provide the full listing of ENoLL members as well as the profiles of those Living Labs that are coming from the Alcotra Innovation regions. These Annexes only use public information, available from the ENoLL website or confirmed by other independent sources (especially the respective Living Lab websites).

4.1 Country Clusters Following is the list of the countries represented, at the moment, by at least one ENoLL member.


Figure 13: List of ENoLL member countries (from: www.openlivinglabs.eu)

As the next two diagrams display, 83% of Living Labs (or 227) come from EU27 countries, 17% (or 47) from non-EU and international countries. Within these latter, 34% (or 16 Living Labs) are from South America, 24% (or 11) from Europe (non-EU), 19% (or 9) from Asia (especially China and Taiwan), 15% (or 7) from North America and 2% (or 1) from Oceania.

Thus, all the six continents are currently represented in ENoLL, which is due to the particular openness and inclusion policies followed by this association since the ‘3rd wave’ call: then, it was decided that applications as associate members would be accepted from all over the world, a policy that has continued ever since.


Figure 14: Geographical distribution of ENoLL, EU27 and non-EU members (source: ENoLL database)

4.2 Age Clusters In the application form, each candidate to ENoLL membership has to specify the year of foundation. The next diagram displays how the 274 Living Labs distribute themselves according to this parameter. As it can be seen, the overwhelming majority did not exist before 2006, when the EC Presidency launched the so-called ‘Helsinki Manifesto’.

Figure 15: Age distribution of ENoLL members (source: ENoLL database)

Quite understandably, as the next two diagrams show, the above represented trend (reaching a peak in 2008, then slowing down) is pushed by the dynamics of the EU27 Living Labs, which are about four fifths of the overall population.


Figure 16: Age distribution of EU27 and non-EU members (source: ENoLL database)

In absolute terms, the four countries that contribute more to the current ENoLL population – as displayed by Figure 13 above – are Spain, France, Italy and the UK. The next graphs compare their respective age distribution, in terms of foundation year, as resulting from the respective ENoLL application forms.

Figure 17: Age distribution of the top four EU27 ENoLL members (source: ENoLL database)

4.3 Thematic Domains The evidence presented in the following diagram has been obtained as follows. All the application forms (or in case they were missing, the published profiles on the ENoLL website) of the 274 Living Labs have been


scanned for the identification of the leading thematic orientation(s), based on the statements made by the applicants themselves. No attempt was made to contact any Living Lab directly to clarify or integrate the received and analyzed information.

Given the framework of the Alcotra Innovation project, within which this research was planned and done, and particularly the four thematic domains of election for the participant Regions, our focus was set to the Living Labs that have characterized themselves as belonging to one or more of these domains (as multiple options were also available).

As the next diagram exhibits, 39% of Living Labs (or 107) were assessed to belong to the Creative Industries

and e-Learning sector, 29% (or 80 ENoLL Members) to the e-Health, AAL, Well Being and Sports sector, 13% (or 35 Living Labs) to the Intelligent Energy, Smart Grid and Sustainable Building sector, and 9% (or 26) to the Transport, Logistics and Automotive sector. On the other hand, 221 out of the 274 ENoLL members (or 80%) also belonged to different – and quite often, additional, thematic domains, such as rural or urban inclusion, manufacturing, mobile and broadband services etc.

Figure 18: Thematic orientation of ENoLL members (source: ENoLL database)

Not surprisingly, as the next two diagrams show, the above represented distribution is confirmed after splitting up the current universe of ENoLL members into EU27 and non-EU Living Labs, with a particularly good matching between the appearance of Figure 18 and the outlook of EU27 members, while the cluster of Intelligent Energy, Smart Grid and Sustainable Building seems a little bit overrepresented in the non-EU and international universe.


Figure 19: Thematic orientation of EU27 and non-EU members (source: ENoLL database)

It is now quite interesting to compare the relative performance of EU27 countries with respect to the four thematic domains of election for the Alcotra Innovation project. To start with, the four countries that contribute more to the Creative Industries and e-Learning cluster population – as displayed by Figure 20 below – are France (by an overwhelming majority), Italy, Spain and Germany. The next graphs compare their respective performance, in terms of number of Living Labs in the cluster, as resulting from the ENoLL application forms.

Figure 20: Relative performance of the top four EU27 ENoLL members in the Creative Industries and e-Learning

sector (source: ENoLL database)


Turning now our attention to the e-Health, AAL, Well Being and Sports sector, the four countries that contribute more to its population – as displayed by the next diagram – are Finland first, then again France, Spain and Germany. Figure 21 compares their respective performance, in terms of number of Living Labs in the cluster, as resulting from the ENoLL application forms.

Figure 21: Relative performance of the top four EU27 ENoLL members in the e-Health, AAL, Well Being and Sports


We now move on to the Intelligent Energy, Smart Grid, and Sustainable Building sector, whereby Spain, Portugal, France (not displayed here), Italy and Germany are the five countries that contribute more to its population. Being the size of this cluster considerably lower than in the above two cases, the next diagrams have been rescaled to ensure better readability. As before, Figure 22 compares the performance of the aforementioned countries, in terms of number of Living Labs in the said cluster, as resulting from the ENoLL application forms.


Figure 22: Relative performance of the top four EU27 ENoLL members in the Intelligent Energy, Smart Grid and

Sustainable Building sector (source: ENoLL database)

Last but definitely not least, we now move on to the Transport, Logistics and Automotive sector, whereby France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain are the four countries that contribute more to its size. In Figure 23, the diagram concerning France has been rescaled to ensure comparability with the others. As before, the next exhibits compare the performance of the aforementioned countries, in terms of number of Living Labs in the said cluster, as resulting from the respective ENoLL application forms.


Figure 23: Relative performance of the top four EU27 ENoLL members in the Transport, Logistics and Automotive


To conclude this section, we present the following table, which lists all the EU27 countries with at least one ENoLL member belonging to either of the four thematic domains of relevance for Alcotra Innovation.

Table 2. EU27 Living Labs belonging to the 4 thematic domains of Alcotra Innovation (source: ENoLL database)

Countries

Clusters

AT BE BG DE DK EL ES FI FR HU IE IT MT NE PT RO SE SI UK Total

Creative Industries, incl. E-Learning

1 3 2 8 1 2 9 6 30 5 1 10 2 2 1 1 5 2 4 95

e-Health, AAL, Well Being and Sports

1 1 1 7 1 3 10 12 11 1 2 6 0 2 3 1 5 0 3 70

Intelligent Energy, Smart Grid, Sustainable Building

0 1 0 3 1 1 4 0 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 0 1 1 27

Transport, Logistics and Automotive

1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 4 0 0 3 1 1 2 0 25

Total 3 5 3 18 4 7 25 19 50 8 5 23 3 6 10 4 11 5 8 217

4.4 Living Lab profiles In late 2007, the European Commission – DG INFSO, Unit F4 – awarded to Altec SA, International Research, the execution of an evaluative study [13] on the potential of the emerging Living Labs “phenomenon”. The study was concluded right in coincidence with the ICT 2008 event in Lyon, when the results of the 3rd wave


ENoLL call were officially announced. Thus, it only dealt with the 51 ENoLL members known at the time, which were approached and inspected through a variety of research methods and tools – from online surveys to interview based case studies, from Social Network Analysis to MASAI® and PACE©. Based upon the evidence collected, the most recurring elements of European Living Labs could be listed as follows: - A University played a key role, ensuring a systematic and coherent implementation of underlying

methodologies (Open Innovation and the like); - One or more local/global industries were involved as technology providers, being interested in

designing, testing or validating their prototype products and services; - The Open Innovation concept was assumed, postulating that there is more value to companies in

“sharing and spreading” rather than “storing and protecting” the knowledge created by various internal and external sources, such as employees, customers, suppliers, etc.;

- A real-life testing environment was established, supported by the ICT, where users’ feedback on innovation was collected and aggregated as long as it emerged from a seamless and spontaneous interaction between people and technologies;

- A user centric approach to innovation was implemented, putting people’s feedback at the core (or as integral part) of the product and service design/development/validation/marketing process, especially in the earlier stages of it;

- An external funding entity (typically a public one) made all of the above financially feasible; and - An ‘umbrella’ organisation acted from the background, either a virtual (like an informal network) or a

real one, named “XYZ Living Lab” and being a public/private partnership composed of several local and global stakeholders, each of them with some degree of relevance and/or expertise in the areas of e.g. territorial marketing, technology transfer, R&D promotion or business incubation, and the like.

Another crucial element of a Living Lab should logically be the establishment of a ‘permanent’ community of users, who are iteratively asked to become integrated in some particular stages of the design/development/validation and marketing process, and whose feedback is collected by means of various socio-ethnographic research methods (from focus groups to surveys, from TV recorded debates to web based interviews and polls). However, very few European Living Labs could at the time rely on such a permanently established (and potentially quite numerous) user community. Notable exceptions were identified in Lulea, Sweden and Oulu, Finland, in which cases the number of involved people reached the order of thousands. In many other cases, if relevant to its policy aims, it was the City or Regional Authority lying behind the ‘umbrella’ organisation of the Living Lab, which took on the commitment to build such a community, starting from the whole constituency, often as a complement of an ongoing strategy towards bridging the digital divide or promoting innovation in the territory. Relevant examples in the latter direction ranged from Spain (e.g. Barcelona or Zaragoza) to the UK (Manchester), from Sweden/Finland (Åboland/the Turku Archipelago) to France (Paris) and Greece (Thessaloniki). In some other cases, it was the University itself, holding responsibility for Living Lab’s methodology deployment, which utilised its students to run particular trials in the area of, say, mobile innovation. Examples of such a kind were reported from Belgium (Brussels), Slovenia (Maribor), and Germany (Bremen). According to the evidence collected during the Study, the 1st and 2nd wave ENoLL members were clustered in the 6 profiles described below. As any taxonomy, this also can be questionable in its conception, but it has the advantages of being complete, quite informative, and without overlaps between the features of each different group. Its robustness was also successfully tested with the members of the 3rd wave ENoLL, which could not be included due to lack of published information at the time the final report was prepared. The next picture shows the frequency of occurrences of each profile in the surveyed universe.


Figure 24: Key Profiles of Living Labs (Source: [13])

Profile #1: Single sector Business Association

It was the least represented case (6% of occurrences). The Living Lab was organised and pushed forward by an ‘umbrella’ association which represented the interests of several companies of a same business sector (e.g. automotive). Typically this profile was not very developed in terms of successful trials. However, it has a great potential in two main respects: - as a promoter and aggregator of thematic R&D and innovation initiatives in the territory of reference; - as a vehicle for cross-national, pan-European interoperability of Living Labs trials, platforms and

solutions.

Profile #2: Open Innovation prone Enterprise

1 out of 10 occurrences belonged to this case, which is similar to the previous one, being another Living Lab that is likely motivated by a vested business interest. However this profile, instead of a corporate association, was based on a single enterprise’s initiative, adopting the User driven, Open Innovation concept and/or creating a network of relations aimed at the cooperative design and validation of novel ideas, products and services. While interesting per se, the presence of individual enterprises within the ENoLL could also be useful in terms of exemplarity and potential transfer of the concepts, methods and tools utilised.

Profile #3: Policy-driven Government initiative

This was unsurprisingly the most common case (35% of occurrences) within the 1st and 2nd wave ENoLL. The Living Lab was clearly backed up by a Regional or City Government – also in those few cases where a non-profit foundation, or even a cooperative cluster, were practically managing it. The prevalent dimension of this case is akin to local development, also as a complement to more traditional innovation policies and practices (such as territorial marketing, business incubators, technology clusters, industrial parks, etc.). An additional side benefit of this profile was the prompt availability of a permanent user community, obviously emerging from citizens and stakeholders forming the Government’s “constituency”.


Profile #4: Network-oriented University spin-off

1 out of 4 occurrences within the 1st and 2nd wave ENoLL belonged to this case, which - together with the following one - encompasses that wide majority of European Living Labs that had been created or were being animated by a University. However, this group was split into two clusters, in order to highlight the (very relevant) number of cases where the initiative of a University was clearly identifiable as the “prime mover” of a network of relations aimed at the implementation of User driven, Open Innovation concepts in real life environments. A second reason for isolating this case is that right after the previous profile (i.e. the Government backed one), this cluster of Living Labs included the second most numerous and qualified number of recorded trials. However, there could also be a matter of privacy here, preventing the collection of a comparable number of successful results from the remaining two clusters, both characterised by a more explicit care for confidentiality.

Profile #5: High-tech R&D Laboratory

Together with the previous profile, this also documents the central role played by the European Universities in the initiation of the Living Labs “phenomenon”. Although not exclusively belonging to academia, the majority of Living Labs grouped in this cluster had the nature of public-private partnerships centred around the provision of testing facilities to a qualified network of stakeholders, where the S&T orientation of those initiatives was strongly dependent on the active involvement of local high education institutions. Most trials documented in this case did leverage on ICT as transversal, enabling technologies in a variety of industrial domains, typically selected for their relevance to regional or local development. This confirms the intuition that Living Labs primarily have a nature of supporting instruments to regional innovation policies.

Profile #6: Business services provider

This was the second least represented case (8% of occurrences). This Living Lab profile depicted a private or public, business oriented, real or virtual (cooperative) organisation, aiming to provide testing and validation services to local enterprises – particularly SMEs. Typically this profile did not disclose a high number of successful trials, due to obvious confidentiality reasons. Nonetheless, this cluster (like profile #2 based on single enterprises initiatives) was seen as extremely important to the smooth progress of future Living Labs activities, to the extent it could serve as a showcase for the consolidation of a business model that goes beyond the exclusive dependence on external funding sources. In the framework of Alcotra Innovation, we have had the opportunity to repeat the above assessment, this time using as reference the complete population of ENoLL members. Quite interestingly, the composition of Living Lab profiles described in Figure 24 for the ‘1st and 2nd wave’ is confirmed for the entire universe.


Figure 25: Key Profiles of Living Labs (Source: ENoLL database)

The next diagrams compare the distribution of profiles for the EU27 and the non-EU Living Labs that are members of ENoLL.

Figure 26: Key Profiles of EU27 and non-EU ENoLL members (Source: ENoLL database)


5. Conclusion and Future Work

In this document, we have proposed a survey of all 274 Living Labs that are current members of the ENoLL, based on textual information derived, when available, from the individual self-descriptions delivered by the candidates to the various ENoLL “waves”, otherwise from the Living Lab profiles that are published on the www.openlivinglabs.eu website. We have clustered the results in aggregate form (by country, maturity, thematic domain, nature of the leading organization), thus avoiding the risk of disclosure of confidential or simply personal data that was not already public or confirmed by other independent sources (especially the respective Living Lab websites). While this approach may lend itself to some criticisms, as it leaves a lot of margin to the discretional interpretation of the researcher, we believe it also comes as close as possible to what can be said to be an objective and neutral presentation of the Living Lab movement in 2011. Furthermore, given the framework of the Alcotra Innovation project, and particularly the four thematic domains of election for the participant Regions, our focus was set to the Living Labs that have characterized themselves as belonging to one or more of these domains (as multiple options were also available). The analysis of best practice is completed by an introduction to the territorial Living Lab model and by a comparison of a number of operational methodologies purporting to its concrete implementation. In the Annexes, we also provide the full listing of the current ENoLL members with their respective websites, and in addition to that, the published profiles of those Living Labs that are coming from the Alcotra Innovation regions (PACA, Piedmont and Rhone-Alpes). Next steps will be: 1. A refinement of the above analysis, spotting any mistakes and completing or enhancing the comments

in support;

2. The population of the Alcotra Innovation online database (e-Atlas) with geo-referenced information about the 274 members of ENoLL – or at least those 217 that come from EU27 countries and are active in the same thematic domains, as per Table 2 above.


6. References

[1] Molinari, F. 2011. Living Labs as Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for the eGovernance of Innovation. In: Proceedings of the

ICEGOV11 Conference.

[2] Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V-P., and Kulkki, S. 2005. State of the Art in utilizing the Living Labs Approach to User-centric ICT

Innovation – a European Approach. Unpublished manuscript.

[3] Santoro, R., and Conte, M. 2009. Living Labs in Open Innovation Functional Regions. In: Proceedings of the ICE09 Conference.

[4] Von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, US.

[5] Lahti, P., Kangasoja, J., and Huovila, P. (Eds.) 2006. Electronic and Mobile Participation in City Planning and Management.

Experiences from INTELCITIES an Integrated Project of the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Union. Cases Helsinki,

Tampere, Garðabær/Reykjavik and Frankfurt. Picaset Oy, Helsinki - ISBN 952-473-646-2.

[6] http://www.freeband.nl

[7] Schaffers, H., Guerrero Cordoba, M., Hongisto, P., Kallai, T., Merz, C. , and van Rensburg, J. 2007. Exploring Business Models for Open Innovation in Rural Living Labs. In: 13

th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, Sophia-Antipolis, France, 4-

6 June, pp. 13 ff.

[8] Schaffers, H., and Kulkki, S. 2007. Living Labs. An Open Innovation Concept fostering Rural Development. Tech Monitor, September-October, 30-38.

[9] Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.

[10] Steins, N.A., and Edwards, V.M. 1998. Platforms for Collective Action in Multiple-Use CPRs. Paper presented at Crossing

Boundaries, the 7th

Annual Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Vancouver, British Columbia, June 10th–14th.

[11] Reichart, S. 2002. Die Gestaltung des Produktinnovations prozesses. In: M. Reichert (Ed.) Prozessmanagement mit System. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Berlin.

[12] Almirall, E., and Wareham, J. 2008. Living Labs and Open Innovation: Roles and Applicability. The Electronic Journal for Virtual

Organizations and Networks (eJOV), Vol. 10 “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August.

[13] European Commission, Information Society and Media 2008. Study on the Potential of the Living Labs Approach including its

Relation to Experimental Facilities for Future Internet related Technologies. Final Report, 30th November. Online: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/livinglabs/study/index_en.htm

[14] Moulaert, F. and Sekia, F. 2003. Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey. Regional Studies 37, 3, 289–302.

[15] DTI 2004. Innovation through People Centred Design – Lessons from the USA. Global Watch Mission Report, October.

[16] OECD 1997. Technology Incubators: Nurturing Small Firms. Paris, OECD Press.

[17] Cooke, P. 2001. From Technopoles to Regional Innovation Systems: The Evolution of Localised Technology Development Policy. Canadian Journal of Regional Science/Revue canadienne des sciences régionales, XXIV:1 (Spring/Printemps), 21-40.

[18] Moore, J.F. 1996. The Death of Competition - Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems. Harper Business, New York.

[19] Nachira, F., Nicolai, A., Dini, P., Le Louarn, M. and Rivera Leon, M. (Eds.) 2007. Digital Business Ecosystems. European Commission, DG INFSO, Brussels.

[20] Leamer, E.E., and Storper, M. 2001. The Economic Geography of the Internet Age. Journal of International Business Studies 32, 641–665.

[21] Aydalot, P. 1986. Milieux Innovateurs en Europe. GREMI, Paris.

[22] Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Ihlström Eriksson, C., Ståhlbröst, A., and Svensson, J. 2009. A Milieu for Innovation - Defining Living Labs. Paper presented at the 2nd

ISPIM Innovation Symposium “Stimulating Recovery - The Role of Innovation Management”, 6-9 December 2009, in New York City, USA.

[23] Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Holst, M., and Ståhlbröst, A. 2009. Concept Design with a Living Lab Approach. Paper presented at the 42

nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE.

[24] Molinari, F., and Zanella, L. 2009. Living Labs for Wild Fire Prevention in Rural Environments. Proceedings of the mGov2009

conference, Barcelona, Spain.

[25] Pierson, J. and Lievens, B. 2005. Configuring Living Labs for a “thick” Understanding of Innovation. Proceedings of the EPIC

Conference 2005, pp. 114-127.


[26] Pallot, M. 2009. The Living Lab Approach: A User Centred Open Innovation Ecosystem. Webergence Blog (http://www.cwe-projects.eu/pub/bscw.cgi/715404).

[27] Bifulco, A. and Santoro, R. 2005. A Conceptual Framework for ‘Professional Virtual Communities’. In: IFIP International

Federation for Information Processing, Vol. 186 (January), pp. 417-424.

[28] Følstad, A. 2008 Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Information and Communication Technology: A Literature Review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, Vol. 10, Special Issue on Living Labs, pp. 99-131.

[29] Von Hippel, E. and Katz, 2002. Shifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits.

[30] Von Hippel, E. 2006. How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study.

[31] Stahlbrost, A., Holst, M., and Sallstrom A. 2009. Guidelines for mobilizing and involving people in the development of new ICT

solutions. CDT – Centre for Distance-Spanning Technology at Lulea University of technology, Sweden.

[32] Niitamo, V.-P. 2007. Presentation to the Panel Session entitled “Cocreative Research and Innovation. Connecting the Lisbon Strategy to the People”. Bled eConference 2007, 5 June.

[33] Finnish EU Presidency, 2006. The Helsinki Manifesto. “We have to move fast, before it is too late”. 20th November 2006.

[34] Stahlbrost A., 2008. Forming Future IT, The Living Lab way of user involvement. Luleå University of Technology, Center for Distance Spanning Technology.

[35] CoreLabs, 2007. Living Labs Roadmap 2007-2010: Recommendations on Networked Systems for Open User-Driven Research,

Development and Innovation. Online: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/cf/ict2008/document.cfm


Annex A: Full Database of ENoLL Members

Following is the list of all EU and non-EU Living Labs that are currently in the ENoLL database, ordered by country.

Country Living Lab Name URL

Australia Future Logistics Living Lab http://www.futurelogisticslivinglab.com.au/

Austria Mobile City Bregenz www.bregenz.at , www.livinglab-vorarlberg.at

Austria EVOLARIS MOBILE LIVING LAB (Graz) http://www.evolaris.net

Austria LivingLab Schwechat http://www.ceit.at

Austria Sound of Media LL http://somll.spiritmedia.at/

Belgium IBBT-iLab.o http://www.ibbt.be

Belgium LeYLab www.alcatel-lucent.com

Belgium Ghent Living Lab www.gent.be

Belgium EGG Lab www.facebook.com "The Egg Brussels" , www.foursquare.com "The Egg"

Belgium Flemish Living Lab Platform www.flemishlivinglabplatform.be

Brazil ESPÍRITO SANTO CIDADANIA DIGITAL LIVING LAB http://www.ncd.ufes.br/

Brazil Amazon Living Lab www.fpf.br

Brazil INdT- Well Being and Health Care LL / Mobile Work Spaces Living Lab http://www.indt.org.br

Brazil Habitat Living Lab http://web3.ufes.br/habitat/consulado_en.html

Brazil BBILL www.itb3.bio.br

Brazil Rio LL http://www.genesis.puc-rio.br/main.asp

Brazil Group Inter-Action LL http:www.ufam.edu.br

Brazil EDP/Brasil LL www.edpbr.com.br

Brazil Amazonas Living Lab www.sect.am.gov.br

Bulgaria Virtual Services and Open Innovation http://www.virtech-bg.com

Bulgaria Digital Spaces Living Lab http://www.digitalspaces.info

Canada Urban Hub http://www.sat.qc.ca

Canada Mandalab www.communautique.qc.ca

China TianJin-China Living Lab http://www.chinalivinglab.com

China China Mobile Research Institute http://labs.chinamobile.com

China MC² http://livinglab.vicp.net/mc2 , www.mobilelifeclub.org

China Living Lab of China Mobile Communication Corporation (LLCM) http://www.chinamobileltd.com/

Colombia CINTEL - La Boquilla - CO www.cintel.org.co

Colombia LIVING LAB CLUSTER TIC´S BOGOTÁ www.esicenter-sinertic.org/index.php

Colombia Living Lab ‘Antioquia, Departamento del Conocimiento’ www.paisdelconocimiento.org

Colombia GestionRiesgoTIC Risk Management ICT http://livinglab.salvalavidas.org

Colombia Living Lab Medellín Digital http://www.medellindigital.gov.co

Colombia Laboratorio Vivo InteligenciaColectiva http://inteligenciacolectiva.co , http://knowledgefactory.tv

Colombia Living Lab Ciudad Bolivar Digital http.//www.ciudadbolivarlocalidaldigital.gov.co/english_version

Croatia Rijeka iLiving Lab www.pfri.eu

Cyprus TLL Kypros - Territorial Living Lab Kypros http://www.anetel.com Czech Republic WIRELESSINFO – Czech Living Labs www.wirelessinfo.cz

Denmark Copenhagen Living Lab http://www.copenhagenlivinglab.com

Denmark Regional strategic impact through creative use of ICT (LLMidt) www.regionmidtjylland.dk/


Egypt Egyptian School Education Living Labs www.moe.gov.eg , http://knowledge.moe.gov.eg/arabic/departments/tdc

Egypt RetailNetLL www.mti.gov.eg

Egypt Egyptian-Dutch Agricultural LL www.arc.sci.eg

Finland Turku Archipelago LL www.sgnet.fi

Finland Agro Living Lab, Seinäjoki www.frami.fi

Finland Kainuu Living Lab (Snowpolis) http://www.snowpolis.com

Finland Lahti Living Lab http://www.lut.fi

Finland Northern Rural-Urban Living Lab (NorthRULL) http://www.northrull.fi

Finland Laurea Living Labs Network http://www.laurea.fi

Finland Living Lab for Design and Services http://www.ncp.fi/english

Finland HumanTech LivingLab www.jamk.fi

Finland Owela Open Web Lab http://owela.vtt.fi

Finland Digital Living Lab Espoo http://www.digitalliving.fi

Finland Nokiareena Living Lab - NALLI www.tut.fi

Finland Suupohja Living Lab http://www.livinglab.fi

Finland Suuntaamo Tampere Central Region Living Lab http://www.suuntaamo.org/

Finland TWICT http://www.turkuamk.fi

Finland Helsinki Living Lab - Forum Virium http://www.helsinkilivinglab.fi

Finland OULLabs - Oulu Urban Living Labs www.cie.fi

France LL ICT Usage Lab https://www-sop.inria.fr/axis/IUL/ll-ict-usage-lab.pdf

France Silicon Sentier Living Lab http://www.siliconsentier.org

France LEVIER (Laboratoire d’Expérimentation et Valorisation Images Et Réseaux) http://wireless.pirenelab.eu/levier-living-lab/

France Issy-les-Moulineaux Medialand www.issy.com

France Territories of Tomorrow Living Lab http://territories-of-tomorrow.org

France Integrative Usage Lab (IUL) http://www.lutin-userlab.fr/accueil

France TPMed Lab http://www.tpmed.org

France 3D Living Innovation www.3d-living-innovation.eu

France Autonom’IS Limousin http://www.limousinlivinglab.fr

France GREATER PARIS REGION LIVING LAB www.capdigital.com

France NIT Smart Cities Living Lab http://english.inpl-nancy.fr/

France Imaginove's Living Lab http://imaginove.fr

France eCare Lab www.i-carecluster.org

France Live with Risk Living Lab http://www.livewithrisk.com

France Erasme www.erasme.org

France Normandy Living Lab http://www.normandy-living-lab.com/

France Digital Ardennes www.ardennestv.com

France Paris Region Lab www.parisregionlab.com

France PATS - E2L www.mipypats.eu

France Innovasud RALL http://www.polenationaldetracabilite.com/

France La Défense LL http://www.ladefense.fr

France CESARS www.cnes.fr

France New Media LL www.empreinte.com

France PoC - LL www.dotpoc.org

France Design Creative Living Lab www.citedudesign.com

France CIMLAB www.ccnm.fr/ccnm.asp?idpage=15862

France Universcience Living Lab www.universcience.fr

France Ways Of Learning for the Future (WOLF LL) http://www.citesavoirs.fr/

France Tele Health Aging Territory (THAT) www.institut-edouard-belin.org


France OFF-ROAD MEMORY Living Lab www.off-road-memory.com

France University of Reunion Island Living Lab for Teaching and Learning http://livinglab.univ-reunion.fr

France Laval Virtual Reality City Living Lab www.LVRC.eu

France QuakeUp www.prevention2000.org

France Urban Living Lab (Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines) www.fondaterra.com

France Augmented Learning | Design for people www.augmentedlearning.fr

France i-Matériel.Lab http://imateriel.eu/

France CAREEP LIVING LAB www.careep.com

France Hospitality, Culinary and Foodservice Lab (Le Restaurant) www.institutpaulbocuse.com/fr/food-hospitality/

Germany iRegion Karlsruhe - creating the net economy www.iregion.de

Germany Mobile City Bremen www.bremen.de

Germany Knowledge Workers Living Lab http://www.cetim.org

Germany The Virtual Dimension Center (VDC) www.vdc-fellbach.de

Germany ViRaL Cooperation Lab http://www.fit.fraunhofer.de

Germany Ambient Assisted Living Environment http://aal.iese.fraunhofer.de/

Germany WILL – Workability and Innovation LivingLab www.tzi.de

Germany Nuremberg Mobile Application Centre www.nik-nbg.de

Germany EXPERIMENTAL FACTORY MAGDEBURG http://www.exfa.de/en

Germany FZI Living Lab Ambient Assisted Living http://aal.fzi.de

Germany DAILL - Distributed Artificial Intelligence Living Lab http://www.dai-labor.de

Germany Future Care Lab www.ehealth.humtec.rwth-aachen.de

Germany SMEDL: Social Media Experience and Design Lab http://www.socialmedia-nrw.de

Germany Bremen Ambient Assisted Living Lab www.baall.net

Germany Hamburg Living Lab http://hamburglivinglab.de, www.tutech.de/ik

Greece Lever- Thessaloniki Lever for Open Innovation http://www.technopolis.gr

Greece Thessaly Living Lab http://www.cereteth.gr/

Greece LIFENET www.iti.gr

Greece Cretan and South Aegean Living Lab www.uoc.gr

Greece Telecommunication Networks and integrated Services Laboratory http://tns.ds.unipi.gr/

Hungary Györ Automotive LL http://livinglab.shp.hu

Hungary Homokháti Rural Living Laboratory http://www.u-szeged.hu

Hungary Creative Knowledge Centre (CKC) Living Lab http://www.bacs-lea.hu

Hungary Well-being Living Lab Nagykovacsi www.trebag.hu

Hungary Innovative Learning Solutions (Flexilab) www.flexilab.eu

Hungary Green Living Lab www.ktinonprofit.eu

Iceland Iceland LL www.nmi.is/impra/iceland-living-lab/

Ireland Arc Labs Waterford http://www.tssg.org

Ireland CASALA Living Lab www.casala.ie

Italy Leaning Lab www.leaninglab.org

Italy Space2Land Living Lab http://www.filas.it

Italy Frascati Living Lab http://www.esa.int

Italy Trentino as a Lab http://www.taslab.eu

Italy ITL – Living Lab for Logistics http://www.fondazioneitl.org

Italy TLL - Territorial Living Lab for the Sicilian Region www.consorzioarca.it

Italy Living Piemonte http://www.finpiemonte.it

Italy Telemedicine Living Lab http://www.telesal.it

Italy Lunigiana Amica http://www.lunigianaamica.it


Italy C.LAB - Piedmont Community Labs http://www.csi.it

Italy Living Lab of the Prato Textile District http://www.texmedin.eu

Italy IDEaCT - Interaction Design and Communication Technologies www.sapienzainnovazione.com

Italy eGSI - eGovernment Services Intermediation http://www.servizidisegreteria.it

Italy Torre Guaceto Living Lab: the living lab in the Natural Reserve www.riservaditorreguaceto.it

Italy Enerlab http://www.enerlab.orgv, http://www.enerlab.eu

Italy eToscana http://www.e.toscana.it

Italy WB@W http://www.ambientesc.it/

Italy Research Innovation Centre www.romaricerche.it

Italy X-Lab www.xml-lab.it

Italy Territorial Living Lab (TL PREALPE) www.tllprealpe.eu

Italy LabICT-PA ICT Laboratory for the Public Administration www.lepida.it

Italy SaMPL Cultural and Creative Living Lab www.sampl-lab.org

Italy Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Living Lab www.sssup.it

Malta Living Lab Malta http://www.smartcity.ae

Malta Euro-Mediterranean Initiative for Technology and Innovation http://www.euromediti.com

Mozambique Living Lab Maputo http://www.micti.co.mz

Netherlands Freeband experience lab http://www.freeband.nl

Netherlands Amsterdam Living Lab http://www.aimsterdam.nl/

Netherlands NGL-EN www.nglen.nl , www.deventer.nl

Netherlands MiPlaza www.MiPlaza.com

Norway The RECORD online Living Lab http://www.opinion.no

Norway Wireless Trondheim Living Lab http://research.idi.ntnu.no/trimaks

Norway Borg Innovation Living Lab www.borginnovasjon.no

Norway Far North Living Lab www.farnorthlivinglab.org

Poland TUR-LL www.pbf.pl, www.foresight.pl

Poland International Centre for Decision Sciences & Forecasting (CDSF) www.pbf.pl

Portugal Living Labs Minho http://www.uminho.pt/

Portugal Madeira Living Lab http://www.madeiratecnopolo.pt

Portugal SJM-ILL - S. Joäo da Madeira Industrial living lab http://www.ua.pt

Portugal Creative Media Lab http://www.inteli.pt

Portugal RENER Living Lab http://www.inteli.pt

Portugal ECO LivingLab@Chamusca http://ecolivinglab.blogspot.com

Portugal FIAPAL Living Lab http://www.fiapal.com

Portugal Lighting Living Lab http://www.lighting-living-lab.pt

Portugal Smart Rural Living Lab http://www.cm-penela.pt

Portugal Sport Living Lab Lisboa - VIDELLL http://videlll.informe.com/

Portugal ISaLL - Intelligent Sensing and Smart Services Living Lab http://www.isa.pt

Portugal Agueda Living Lab www.cm-agueda.pt

Portugal Sustainable Construction Living Lab www.humanhabitat.pt

Portugal Ubiquitous/Invisible Computing Living Lab www.ubiwhere.com

Romania A.R.C.H.E.S www.pub.ro

Senegal African Living Lab ISEG/UNIDAF www.isegcesmi.com

Slovenia Slovenia eLivingLab http://www.eLivingLab.org

Slovenia ICT Technology Network http://ltfe.org/

Slovenia Slovenian Automotive Living Lab http://www.acs-giz.si


Slovenia LENS Living Lab www.einovainstitut.eu

Slovenia E-zavod Living Lab www.ezavod.si

South Africa Siyakhula Living Lab http://www.ru.ac.za

South Africa Sekhukhune Rural Living Lab http://csir.co.za/

Spain i2Cat Catalonia Digital Lab http://www.i2cat.net

Spain Cudillero Living Lab http://www.c-rural.eu/Cudillero_RuralLivingLab/

Spain Living Lab Berlanga de Duero - Soria http://www.livinglab-berlanga.eu

Spain CIAmI - Exp Research Center in Applications and Services for Ambient Intelligence http://www.itaca.upv.es

Spain Zaragoza Living Lab http://www.fundacionzcc.org

Spain guifi.net http://www.guifi.net

Spain Barcelona Digital Cluster TIC http://www.bdigital.org

Spain TCM Lab http://www.tecnocampus.com

Spain LIVING LAB SALUD ANDALUCÍA www.csalud.junta-andalucia.es

Spain Río Nacimiento Living Lab www.i2bc.es

Spain Madrid4Inclusion http://www.fundacionprodis.org

Spain SMART-HOUSES LIVING LAB MADRID http://lst.tfo.upm.es/

Spain Citilab Cornellà www.citilab.eu

Spain Segovia Tech Living Lab http://www.caytec.es/

Spain SENIORLAB – Living Lab for Robotics in an Ageing Society http://www.fundecyt.es

Spain InnovaLab http://www.denokinn.eu/

Spain 22@LIVING LAB http://www.22barcelona.com

Spain VILANOLAB http://www.neapolis.cat

Spain eHealth Living Lab http://www.tid.es

Spain Tragsa R&D Labs www.tragsa.es

Spain Subbética Cordobesa Living Lab http://www.gruposubbetica.com

Spain Mendinet www.mendinet.org

Spain LivingCAR Living Lab www.prodintec.com

Spain RuraisLAB Galicia Living Lab www.ruraislab.com

Spain eHealth Madrid LL http://fibhgm.hggm.es/

Spain Queso Andalucia LL www.quesosdeandalucia.com

Spain ADISMONTA www.adismonta.com

Spain Guadalhorce LL www.valledelguadalhorce.com

Spain Integral www.integral.es

Spain Los Pedroches LL http://www.adroches.org/

Spain (R)LL Pais Romanico www.paisromanico.org , www.ruralab.es

Spain AGDR Sierra de las Nieves http://www.sierranieves.com/

Spain LL 'La Serena' www.laserena.org

Spain espaitec Living Lab (eLiving Lab) www.espaitec.uji.es

Spain Platja de Palma Living Tur (PdP LL) www.consorcioplayadepalma.es

Spain MIMMA Living Lab www.mimmalivinglab.eu

Spain Man & Earth Living Lab www.felixrodriguezdelafuente.com

Spain Málaga Living Lab www.energia.malaga.eu

Spain Living Lab Campiña de Jerez www.jerezrural.com

Spain SPORTIS Living Lab www.netsportis.net

Spain MOBILITY FOR SUSTAINABLE TERRITORIES www.ibilnet.com/c/index.html

Spain Legazpi BAI! Espacio territorial colaborativo www.legazpiko_udala.info

Spain Audiovisual Living Lab Terrassa www.parcaudiovisual.cat


Spain RURAL LIVING LAB PIRINEUS http://rllp.ctfc.es

Spain BIRD LIVING LAB www.beingbird.com

Spain Comercios Innovadores de Bilbao www.lanekintza.com

Spain Plataforma Cero (LABoral Centro de Arte y Diseño Industrial) http://plataformacero.cc

Sweden Botnia Living Lab http://www.testplats.com

Sweden Innovation Cultures www.umealive.se

Sweden The Swedish Living Lab on Vehicle and Transport ICT http://www.viktoria.se

Sweden Living Labs Øresund http://www.oresundit.org

Sweden Halmstad Living Lab www.living-lab.se

Sweden Malmö New Media Living Lab http://www.halmstadlivinglab.se

Sweden Airport Living Lab http://www.airportlivinglab.com

Sweden Karolinska Living Lab www.karolinska.se

Sweden Users Award Living Lab http://www.usersaward.com/

Sweden Stockholm Living Lab www.sics.se , www.stockholmlivinglab.se

Sweden New Tools for Health http://www.halsansnyaverktyg.se/

Sweden SOFTEC http://aass.oru.se/Research/Robots/

Switzerland Cyber Care Clinique Living Lab http://www.virmed.net/

Switzerland Swiss Living Lab Community (SLLC) (Ecologies for Learning in distributed Project Teams) www.fhnw.ch

Switzerland Swiss Open Laboratory for E-Tourism (SOLET) http://www.solet.ch

Switzerland Food Living Lab www.foodresearch.ch

Switzerland iHomeLab Living Lab www.iHomeLab.ch

Taiwan Living Labs Taiwan http://www.iii.org.tw/

Taiwan TOUCH Center, Taiwan http://touch.ncku.edu.tw

Taiwan Smart Life Lab, inc. http://www.smartlifelab.com

Taiwan Taipei CVS Living Lab http://insight.ntu.edu.tw

Tunisia Start-Up Systeme Tunisia http://tunis.startupweekend.org, http://www.start-up-tunisie.com/

UK Centre for Sustainable Technologies (CST) http://www.cst.ulster.ac.uk

UK Manchester Living Lab http://www.manchesterdda.com

UK Digital Lifestyles Centre http://digital-lifestyles.weebly.com/

UK TRAIL Living Lab (Translating Research and Innovation Lab) http://trail.ulster.ac.uk

UK Scottish Living Lab http://www.issti.ed.ac.uk/research/SLL

UK ConnectMK – Living Lab for Milton Keynes http://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk

UK Social Informatics Lab (SILab) http://www.ncl.ac.uk/kite/

UK Sunderland Living Lab http://www.sunderland.gov.uk

UK Birmingham Communities Building Capacity http://www.digitalbirmingham.co.uk/cbc

UK KWest Research http://kwmc.org.uk

UK Hull Service Transformation Laboratory http://www.streamonline.co.uk

UK CONNECTED NOTTINGHAM http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/international

UK Cybermoor http://www.cybermoor.org/

UK MIBON: Multimedia, ICT, Business Organisation Network www.mibon.org

UK THINKlab www.thinklab.salford.ac.uk

UK Rural Connect NWLL www.infolab21.lancs.ac.uk/livinglab/

UK City Lab Coventry http://wwwm.coventry.ac.uk/business/CoventryCityLab/Pages/LivingLabs.aspx

UK FutureEverything Living Lab http://futureeverything.org/innovation-overview/

UK Sheffield City Region www.barnsley.gov.uk

USA Roswell Voices LL http:// www.visitroswellga.com/


Annex B: ENoLL Members from the ALCOTRA regions

Following are the published profiles of Living Labs from PACA, Piedmont and Rhone-Alpes that are currently in the ENoLL database. No Living Labs from Liguria and Valle d’Aosta are represented at the moment.


DELIVERABLE 2.3 PART B

LIVING LAB BEST PRACTICE DATABASE SPECIFICATION

AUTHOR: JENS SCHUMACHER


TABLE OF CONTENTS

7. INTRODUCTION 62

8. OWNERSHIP OF EXISTING LIVING LAB BEST PRACTICE DATA 63

9. STRUCTURE OF CURRENT DATABASE 63

10. ENOLL EVALUATION CRITERIA 65

11. USAGE OF THE DATABASE 65

12. EXTENSION OF EXISTING DATABASE 67

13. BEST PRACTICES CRITERIA 67

13.1 User Involvement 68

13.2 Service Creation 68

13.3 Infrastructure 68

13.4 Organisation and Governance 69

13.5 Innovation Outcomes 69

13.6 Methods and Tools 69

13.7 Supporting SME Innovation 70

13.8 Indicator Wrap-up 70

14. CURRENT STATUS OF CO-LLABS LIVING LABS 73

15. FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE INDICATORS REGARDING THE ALCOTRA GOALS 73

16. RESTRUCTURING OF DATABASE 74

17. IMPLEMENTATION OF DB 75

18. GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE FOR DATA ACCESS 76

19. CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK 78


7. Introduction

One goal of the Alcotra Project is to identify best practices in order to support the regions in the take up and development of their respective Living Labs. However since the Living Lab concept as such is rather new and only few Living Lab are actually older than 4 years it is very difficult to identify best practices in this area. The best solutions to find best practice Living Labs is thus to utilize the experiences which has been gathered as part of the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) were a lot of Living Labs are partners in. ENoLL is a non-profit organisation where a lot of Living Labs cooperate and exchange, thus leading to a good portfolio of case studies. Unfortunately these case studies are on the one hand highly diverse regarding there thematic orientation and secondly not yet categorized in a clear manner. Thus there is currently no general mechanism applied on how to measure the quality and performance of the Living Labs inside ENoLL. The only indication that exists about the success of a Living Lab is its capability to be sustainable over a certain period of time. As part of the EU projects Corelabs and CO-LLabs a database was developed which consists out of the application information that was submitted to the ENoLL in the respective calls for Living Lab membership. On the basis of this information a DB was developed which currently at least allows to search through the application forms to identify keywords etc. for research purposes.


8. Ownership of existing Living Lab Best Practice data

As stated above, the existing database was developed as part of the Corelabs and Collabs project. The Corelabs project trigger in the beginning an Idea that a formal framework should exists in which living labs could exchange ideas and experiences. It became very early evident that the living lab understanding was sometimes totally different from what was defined as a framework as part of the work in Corelabs, mainly defining a Living lab as an innovation environment with a strong user/citizen involvement and focus. In order to, on the one hand broaden the Living Lab community while at the same time trying to narrow the scope of the living lab, thematic calls for living lab partnership were published in different waves usually once a year. In order for a living lab to become part of the European Network of Living Labs an application form had to be filled out. The different calls for membership led to an development which now represent s the ENoLL with all it’s members. In this context it is important that the usage of the application data (that was handed in by the Living Lab applicants) was never discussed in detail nor did the application form as such gave any hints on how the data handed over by applying for an EnoLL membership were to be used. A matter of fact though is, that the first 3 calls and the respective evaluations of the applications where conducted as part of the Project Corelabs and Collabs, thus application handed in under the respective 3 calls need to be connected to the projects and their related project consortia, while the last two calls (4th and 5ht wave) were conducted by the ENoLL organization/company. Thus the owner ship of the data received in the last two calls could reside with the ENoLL company. In any case as long as these issues are not clarified the data can’t be accesses publicly and thus the Database usage is at this time only for research purposes conducted at the FHV.

9. Structure of current Database

As pointed out above, the database consists currently out of the application information that is divided into several subsections mainly consisting out of a section which can be identified as administrative data and a section that deals with the content of the Living Lab. The database was build up from the application forms that were submitted either as Word-file or as PDF. Thus the database consists out of one table which consists out of the following attributes:

• LLUser

• LLPassword

• LLFullName

• LLPostalAddress

• LLZipCode

• LLCountry

• LLTelephone

• LLFax

• LLWebSite


• LLEstablishedYear

• CPFirstName

• CPLastName

• CPTitle

• CPPostalAddress

• CPZipCode

• CPCountry

• CPTelephone

• CPMobilePhone

• CPFax

• CPEmail

• Motivation

• User/CitizenInvolvement

• ServiceCreationandBusinessModel

• Infrastructure

• Expertise

• MethodsToolsandProcesses

• OrganisationandGovernance

• ReferencesandTrackRecord

• FuturePlans

• Tags

• LLHostOrganisation

• LLHostOrganisationType

• LLHostOrganisationVATnumber

The information provided is usually not updated, meaning that the data submitted will stay in the DB as is. Thus an update service was not implemented for the database.


10. ENoLL evaluation criteria

In the Database only Living Lab data is stored from Living Labs which have been approved to join the ENoLL Living Lab Network. The approval process is conducted almost every year, meaning that there is a formal evaluation of Living Lab applications for the ENoLL Network. This Evaluation is done by Living Lab experts from all around Europe, Francesco Molinari and Jens Schumacher have also been acting as reviewer as well as Lead-reviewer for this process. The goal of this Living Lab approval process is to ensure that Living Labs can enter the EnoLL which are compliant according to the general concept of Living Labs. Thus the application does usually not provide a ranking but instead checks whether certain threshold values have been reached. As such all Living Labs can be considered to some extend Best practices since there is a reasonable high drop-out quote in the evaluation process. However the evaluation is only done on the bases of the documentation provided by the Living Labs to the Review team and there are some restrictions regarding the application form, thus the evaluation is mainly a kind of “desk evaluation” meaning that the actual situation at the place where the Living Lab resides is not taken into account.

11. Usage of the Database

As explained in the chapter about the ownership of the data the usage of the database and its content is currently restricted. In general the usage is only possible for researchers at FHV who would like to conduct e.g. statistical research on Living Labs. As such no GUI was developed to support the usage of the database but native SQL-commands (standard query language) can be used to search through the DB. The main usage of the database so far has been to identify similar thematic Living Labs in order to support other Living labs e.g. in the set-up of their activities, finding a good governance structure, identify methods for user/citizen integration in Living Labs. The Database was used early on in the Alcotra project to identify a first set of Living Labs that are situated in a similar thematic context as defined by Alcotra in the in the workshops in Marseille and Genoa (see the following figure).


Since the identified Living Labs stem from the first three calls, it can be assumed that they are reasonable sustainable and not only based on paper. However a deeper analysis of these Living Labs has been deferred, since Alcotra needs first to clarify the thematic sub-topics that are to be followed as part of the project, if these sub-topics are identified (currently scheduled for September 2011) a further filtering on the bases of the existing records can be achieved.


12. Extension of existing database

As the Living Lab movement and the Living Labs in it are maturing there is an increased need to replicate the success of some of the Living Labs in different parts in Europe. Thus the need for the definition of real best practices started to grow especially towards the end of the CO-LLabs project (ca. 1 year ago). In order to allow for the identification of Best practices in Europe an Indicator Framework had to be defined. However the topic of Living Labs is quite diverse and it is difficult to find Indicators that can be deployed as best practice indicators regardless of e.g. the thematic issues dealt with inside a Living Lab. At the same time one of the biggest problems in the Living Lab area is still that no description of a methodology or method exists which will helps to deploy a Living Lab from scratch, currently the Living Lab activities are mainly steered by case studies with limited transferability. In order to deal with this problem the Living Lab cube was developed by the partners in the CO-LLabs project, which identifies the different dimensions of a living lab and describes how to deploy them.

13. Best practices criteria

As part of the Corelabs project a framework was developed to assess the performance of Living Labs according to the relevant dimensions and characteristics of living labs. Seven categories for analysis and evaluation of the Living Labs were identified. These categories are derived from the “interoperability cube” developed within the CORELABS CA (EP# 035065) .

“The harmonization cube not only represents the most important elements of a Living Lab, but also enables specifying bridges between existing Living Labs, i.e., to learn from each other, benchmark the validation of user behavior studies, exchange best practices, and interconnect the Living Labs. Next to facilitating a common ground for sharing, the cube model enables recognizing the degree of harmonization of used methods and tools in Living Labs.” [4]

Later on an additional indicator was added to identify the contribution of living labs to SME-Innovation. The categories are described below.

Figure 27: Seven Categories


13.1 User Involvement User involvement is one of the key elements of a Living Lab, and as such should be a focal point of mature Living Labs. In creating usable systems it is generally accepted that they should be designed according to an iterative approach, and that user involvement is crucial. The focus is on finding out what the relevant experiences, methods, tools that Living Labs benefit from are. Users are important to define context-aware services, think for example of cultural differences. Organizational issues include questions like How to organize user involvement? How to find the right users? What about the validity? How to motivate the users? From a technological point of view: How to get access to large user groups? How to analyse large amounts of data? Analyzing social context data, application usage data and user experience data collected in real-life settings presents new challenges - it’s not clear a priori which data is relevant. Therefore, new analysis and reporting modules might be needed along with scalable, flexible storage and computing resources to cope with large amount.

13.2 Service Creation Service creation with relevance to the Living Labs describes the value added components that Living Labs

can bring to innovation and validation. ‘Value-added’ implies we are ‘bringing something new and needed to the table’. Historically, the development of Living Labs has been stimulated by the cross-regional need to improve innovation and competitiveness. Service creation within ENoLL should have pan-European relevance as opposed to that national or regional relevance. The resultant objectives of such an environment provide us with three underlying categories of required services [5]: services supporting collaborative innovation, services supporting validation and demonstration, and services specific to stakeholder requirements. On a more operational level of Living Labs and ENoLL, three types of horizontal services structure the service matrix: technical services – communication, collaboration, demonstration, prototyping, validation, product deployment etc., customer services – innovation, idea generation, community services, training, specific service needs, business support, market customization, and thirdly, intra-network services (within ENoLL) – governance, management and training.

13.3 Infrastructure Within this context, a simple definition of infrastructure can be given as the basic facilities, services, and

installations, or underlying framework or features required for the operation of a Living Lab. In order to harmonize the infrastructures used and/or developed in the different Living Labs, infrastructures can be categorized by their use during the entire life cycle of the Living Lab. The first set of criteria determines which infrastructures are chosen to be used at the establishment of the Living Lab. Infrastructures will be chosen depending on the environment in which the Living Lab is to be deployed and the objectives which are to be achieved. The second category includes criteria defining which infrastructures are candidates to achieve the Living Labs’ self-sustainability. The key ones in each Living Lab will be shared within the network. The third set of criteria will determine infrastructures are more apt to evolve and adapt than others. These are the ones that will be considered with a higher level of scalability.

The organizational perspective describes the infrastructures used in each Living Lab with the purpose of supporting the organization of the Living Lab. The contextual perspective describes the infrastructures used in each Living Lab in the context of the Living Lab. Finally; the technological perspective describes the infrastructures used in each Living Lab as the technology backbone of the Living Lab.


13.4 Organisation and Governance The governance structure of a Living Lab describes the way it is organised and managed at different

levels such as the operational or strategic ones. The strategic level deals with issues like: the way Intellectual Property Rights and exploitation of results are dealt with; the way stakeholders are involved (financial contributions, commitment, responsibility, influence), financing: public-private-partnership, commercial; ownership of the Living Lab, i.e. its services, infrastructure, and the responsible entity for Living Lab (dedicated organisation or consortium); the management structure, e.g. director, steering board, (technical) program committee, user committee; driver and nature of the Living Lab, e.g. community-driven, research driven, business/industry driven, technology driven, open/closeness: sharing resources/network; Living Lab development: consortium dynamics (e.g. additional partners, user groups), subsidy/funding policy and the definition and adjustment of the agenda. The operational level includes aspects like: working practices for the day to day management; execution & monitoring of the living lab goals regarding the synergy, quality and progress monitoring, internal communication; the way new software and services are introduced and validated, responsibilities and liabilities; the definition of user group/ awareness of being part of Living Lab; dissemination and external communication: national and international consolidation; the way projects are organized and funded.

13.5 Innovation Outcomes Per Eriksson, Director at the Swedish Agency for Innovation systems stated ‘research is making

knowledge out of money – innovation is making money out of knowledge.’ This implies a relation between research and innovation. The problem is that the processes of research and innovation don’t simply appear automatically. Current research presents a view of a sociological perspective of innovation and a change from a linear process — from research to innovation — to a user centric approach where technological research and sociological aspects are equally addressed. Innovation is the process by which new ideas are put into practice and can be seen as a learning/knowledge process within a community. Independent of innovation type, a Living Lab needs to be set up from an organisational point of view to guarantee specific Innovation Outcomes. One of the major factors is the involvement of qualified personnel to guide and assist the innovation process. Additionally, the Living Lab should be able to involve all necessary stakeholders in the innovation chain, specifically in the area of user centricity and user knowledge.

From a contextual point of view, considerations regarding Living Labs’ strategic market position need to be taken into account. This can be guided by the consideration, which is the target market for innovation outcomes – examples are creating value for industry, specific industry sectors, SMEs, society, etc. The degrees of flexibility the Living Lab can handle with regards to these target markets also signify its scalability in this area. Technological systems, mainly ICT, need to be set up to facilitate the innovation processes. These necessarily support interaction and communication, which empower creativity. These technologies can range from simple conferencing tools via telepresence to virtual, game-like environments. Virtual marketplaces can be employed for example for the brokerage of ideas and patents. Organisationally speaking, a suitable approach to IPR must be adopted to guarantee the financial sustainability of the Living Lab’s innovation outcomes.

13.6 Methods and Tools Several surveys and analysis have shown that existing Living Labs are using a huge diversity of

technologies, infrastructures and applications and some host specialist technology providers and research institutes. Best Practices have been analyzed in order to ensure interoperability by either defining the use of de-facto standards or suggesting extensions to existing ones where applicable. The methods & tools


category within the interoperability cube describes different methods and tools used within the existing European Living Lab at all stages.

Integration of the project in the Living Lab infrastructure: A full Living Lab service offering not only requires product and service development and evaluation methodologies but also a mechanism for the integration of the customers’ product or service into a Living Lab to provide it to the users. The efficient, transparent and smooth integration accomplished by the Living Lab provider is the key for trust and convenience of the customer. It also can work as a first product/service testing depending on the level of development (market launch testing).

Co-creation: The core service of the Living Lab is to facilitate the co-creation of a product, service or application development. This co-creative product development process can be decomposed into four phases: Product Idea, Product Concept, Product Development, and Market Launch. For the four phases specific methods for user integration are assigned.

Data preparation: To fulfil the customers’ expectations regarding the results and to reduce the complexity of the evaluated data, the Living Lab provider offers a standardised data preparation. The great advantage of the standardisation is the comparability with the results of other Living Labs. .

13.7 Supporting SME Innovation SMEs are by far the most important category of companies. Within the European Union about 23 million SMEs provide around 75 million jobs and represent 99% of all enterprises. Their role in the regional and national innovation system as creators of new products, services and markets and partners for larger companies is really crucial. As globalisation of markets and industries continues, these innovation systems become more and more open and cross-border. SMEs must be able to participate in international value networks in order to survive. Networking capabilities and competencies to engage in open innovation therefore must be enhanced. There is a need to introduce new solutions enabling SMEs participation into the innovation process. The Living Labs concept, based on ICT-based services and open innovation, offers the new organizational dimension, processes, services and ICT-infrastructures to improve SME competitiveness and innovation potential and to enable SME to become protagonist on the innovation process, through partnership building among themselves and in collaboration with supporting institutions, such as university research centres and regional development agencies.

13.8 Indicator Wrap-up A best Practices Assessment was conducted for selected Living Labs taking investigating the dimensions defined above as part of the CO-Llabs project. The goal was to provide benchmarks for other Living Lab in order to allow a self-positioning of Living Labs as part of a self-assessment. The Study should provide hints about the level of sustainability and to share good practices within ENoLL. The results are available as spider-web diagrams as presented in

Figure 28.


Figure 28: spider-web diagram

The thresholds are ranging from 0 – 100 for every category. The value 0 means that a Living Lab has nothing specific installed or deployed in this category whereas 50 means that some specific measures has been taken. The value 100 in this context means that all requirements are fulfilled and implemented. Based on these descriptions the Living Labs can assess themselves accordingly from 0 up to 100. The description of the indicators are presented below:

User Involvement

Figure 29: User involvement

Service creation

Figure 30: Service Creation


Infrastructure

Figure 31: Infrastructure

Organisation and Governance

Figure 32: Organisation and Governance

Innovation Outcomes

Figure 33: Innovation Outcomes

Methods and Tools

Figure 34: Methods and Tools


SME Innovation Support

Figure 35: SME Innovation Support

14. Current status of CO-LLABS Living Labs

The analysis of 21 in CO-LLABS identified Living Labs shows that the status of these Living Labs can already be classified as good. Most of the Living Labs are rather mature in the field of user involvement as well as methods & tools. The other dimensions are balanced at almost 50%.

Figure 36: Current status of CO-LLABS Living Labs

15. Further extension of the Indicators regarding the Alcotra goals

The Indicators presented so far have been mainly streamlined according to the idea to access to some extend the capabilities of a living lab regarding the main dimensions that a living lab have to fulfil from a functional point of view. However for Alcotra the trans-nationality of the living lab approach is an important aspect (also backed-up by Harald Botha from Nordforsk in the Genoa meeting). While Living Labs can exist only in a particular spot the common history of co-operating regions, regardless of national borders, plays an important part in today’s open innovation environments like Living Labs. In order to measure the trans-nationality of a living lab an indicator was introduced measuring mainly how tight the trans-national cooperation between Living Labs is. This indicator measures the degree of cooperation that the Living Lab is involved in. Higher percentages can be achieved if e.g. a Living Lab participated in an exchange of information in workshops, if their a common Info-workshops with other Living Labs or if there is cooperation with other Living Labs. The following picture shows the definition of the Indicator.


LL resides only in one region

Information exchange with

other LL, BP analysis,

Co-operation withLL in other

regions, LL trialsare done together, common thematic

programmes

0 50 100

16. Restructuring of Database

The discussion of the previous chapter shows that a major restructuring of the database is necessary in order to really support the best practice functionality envisaged. The indicators presented have not been incorporated into the database so far, thus the structure of the database need to be altered in order to allow the integration of the envisaged indicators. Additionally the database was originally meant to assess the data only once, however the described indicators can vary with time, meaning that a Living Lab can be investigated several times and that improvements as well as aggravations can be measured over the time. This leads to certain requirements regarding the structure of the database, mainly meaning that a single table is not anymore appropriate for this kind of database. Based on the requirements formulated beforehand a new ERM (entity Relationship model) for the Database structured was developed. The following Entity Relationship Model shows the new structure of the BP database:

LLDB_bpreport LLDB_Institution

LLDB_People_InvolvedLLDB_LL_KPIs

11

m

n

n

1

ID

LLUser

LLFullName

LLWebsite

ID

InstitutionName

ZipCode

Country

Telephone

Fax

Website

ID

Title

FirstName

LastName

E_Mail

Role

Institution

Postal_address

Zip_code

Phone

Fax

Country

Mobile_phone

ID

Organisation_and_Governance

Innovation_outcomes

Methods_and_tools

Reviewer

Date

SME_InnovationSupport

International

UserInvolvment

ServiceCreation

Infrastructure

ID_LL

Report file

LLEstablishedYear

ID_LLContactPerson

Motivation

Description

UserCitizien_Involvment

ServiceCreation_AndBusinessModel

ReferencesAndTrackReckord

FuturePlans

Infrastructure

Expertise

MethodsToolsAndProcesses

OrganisationAndGovernance

LLHostOrganisation

LLHostOrganisationType

LLHostOrganisationVATNumber

Tags

Additional_description

ID_LL_KPIs

Figure 37: Entity Relationship Model


As it can be seen the new database is split up in 4 tables:

1. LLDB_bpreport

This table consist mainly out of the data that is similar to the information required to apply for an ENoLL membership and describes the purpose of the living lab.

2. LLDB_Institution

This table is meant to represent the organizational details of the Living lab , which institution is actually maintaining the living lab, how to reach the living lab etc.

3. LLDB_People_Involved

This table is collecting the information about the people who are involved in a particular living lab the ERM shows that there can be several people involved in one living lab. Ultimately the idea is to link this information to the E-Atlas.

4. LLDB_LL-KPIs

In this table the indicators of the living labs are stored. The Indicators are stored in one set with the date leading to the possibility to have different evaluations at different times and also from different reviewers. This set-up ensures a high flexibility when evaluating Living labs.

The new structure of the database was optimised to the 4th Normal form from Codd. Menaing that also the access to the data should be prompt. In order to populate the new database the information of the old Database needs to be transferred into the new structure. Thus at the end of this process there will be some Database entries which are purely stemming form the EnoLL application process and some other entries where an Evaluation has been undertaken (ca. 30 Living Labs). For a few Living Labs there has been also a consecutive evaluation, thus showing how these Living Labs has been altered over the last few years.

17. Implementation of DB

In order to cope with the complexity of the data of the living labs and with the new extensions described before, relational database environment will be used to store the data. Based on the ERM model presented, DB-tables were developed and normalised in order to ensure an optimal usage of the database capabilities. In line with these thoughts the decision was made to use a relational database, form the products that are available in this category the open source solution mySQL was chosen due to cost reasons and due to the reputation that this database has gathered for industrial applications. To enable the access to the data already gathered as part of the first 3 ENoLL calls the data is going to be migrated into the new database structure. Furthermore the data acquired in reviewing 21 Living Labs as part of the Co-LLabs project will be transferred to the database. A major issue as laid out in the beginning of this report is the accessibility of the DB due to the question of owner ship of the data. Thus a login procedure will be implemented in order to control the access to the database.


18. Graphical User Interface for data access

To allow a better usage of the database a few GUI-Masks have been developed to enable an easier input of data into the database without having to deal with different data transitions. The first mask is therefore straight forward and allows the input of all the relevant data for a Living Lab meaning that the information stored In the Tables:

• LLDB_bpreport

• LLDB_Institution

• LLDB_People_Involved

can be accessed via this Interface thus allowing a user to input all the Data about his Living Lab in one mask:


In order to search for specific records a mask has been developed which shows the information stored for a particular Living Lab in a condensed form:

Furthermore a mask was developed to search through the living lab in the database to identify living lab through Keywords in the different sections.


19. Conclusion and Outlook

As described above the database set-up was influenced by the experienced gathered over different studies during the last years and based on the results of the former best practice studies in different EU-Projects. The existing database has proved to be usable to identify similar thematic Living labs for the Alcotra Project. The structure of the Living Lab database was refined in order to allow a better identification of Living Lab best practices in different Living Lab dimensions identified as part of former EU projects (Corelabs, Co-LLabs) but also as part of requirements from Alcotra. The new database concept thus represents a step forward in order to deal with the assessment of Living Labs in a real best practice fashion. The ownership of the data in the database remains a problem for all the legacy data, the legacy data won’t be available for public access. In order to deal with this situation a flag will be introduced which prevents the usage of the legacy data for the public, while allowing the access to all the data that has been cleared by the Owners. However without a deeper knowledge on how to interpret the data and furthermore who has done the benchmarking etc. a public access to this data looks in any case not specifically useful. The framework presented and discussed in the Alcotra Workshop in Genoa was implemented into the database to enable a better assessment of the best practices. The new database allows a real benchmarking approach and to search for Living Labs not only on the topic but additionally on specific features of the Living Labs (e.g. governance model, user integration etc.). Currently Benchmarking data exists for ca. 20 Living Labs which have been investigated using the extended best practice Framework. The next steps are the population of the databases with the Alcotra Living Lab data core data and afterwards a first evaluation of this data according to the Framework.

best practices database for living labs - alcotra - · pdf filebest practices database for...

Documents