Page 1

DELIVERABLE   Project Acronym:

APOLLON

Grant Agreement number:

250516

Project Title:

Advanced Pilots of Living Labs Operating in Networks

D2.3 Set-up of local experiment in the remote Living Labs

Revision: Final

Authors: Daan Velthausz (AIM) Bidatzi Marín (IAV) Montserrat Dominguez (IAV) Tim van den Dool (INN) Marianne Dannbom (FVH) Bram Lievens (IBB) Hendrik Hielkema (AALTO) Saar De Zutter (Televic Healthcare N.V.)

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the ICT Policy Support Programme Dissemination Level P

Public

C

Confidential, only for members of the consortium and the Commission Services

X

 


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3

Revision History       Revision  Date  

Author

Organisation

Description

0.1

Daan Velthausz  

AIM

Initial draft,  structure  

0.2

Daan Velthausz  

AIM

Restructuring according  to   Malaga  workshop  

0.3

06/2011 Marianne  Dannbom  

FVH

Xtramira pilot  in  Helsinki  

Saar De  Zutter   0.4  

0.5

0.6

1.0

08/2011 Bram  Lievens  

TLV IBBT  

Bidatzi Marin  

IAV

Hendrik Hielkema  

Aalto

10/2011 Tim  den  Dool  

INN

Bidatzi Marin  

IAV

Daan Velthausz  

AIM

Saar de  Zutter    

TLV

Tim den  Dool  

INN

Marianne Dannbom  

FVH

Bram Lievens  

IBBT

Bidatzi Marin  

IAV

Hendrik Hielkema    

Aalto

Daan Velthausz  

AIM

Koen De  Vos  

IBB

1/2012

2/2012

Updates pilots    

Updates pilots,  and  finals  edits  

Update review  comments  

Finalization

  The  information  in  this  document  is  provided  as  is  and  no  guarantee  or  warranty   is  given  that  the  information  is  fit  for  any  particular  purpose.    The  user  thereof   uses  the  information  at  its  sole  risk  and  liability.  

Statement of  originality:       This   deliverable   contains   original   unpublished   work   except   where   clearly   indicated   otherwise.  Acknowledgement   of   previously   published   material   and  of   the   work   of   others   has   been   made   through   appropriate   citation,   quotation   or   both.   ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

2

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 Table of  Contents   1.   Introduction  ................................................................................................................  4   2.   Research  set-­‐up  of  the  pilots  .................................................................................  6   2.1   Xtramira  Case  ................................................................................................................  8   2.2   Innoviting  Case  ...............................................................................................................  13   3.   Operational  pilot  aspects  ......................................................................................  17   3.1   Xtramira  Case  data  ....................................................................................................  17   3.1.1   In  depth  interviews  ................................................................................................................  17   3.1.2   Questionnaire  ............................................................................................................................  18   3.1.3   Logging  .........................................................................................................................................  20   3.1.4   Data  Analysis  .............................................................................................................................  20   3.1.5   Organisational  aspects  ..........................................................................................................  21   3.2   Innoviting  Case  ...............................................................................................................  22   3.2.1   In  depth  interviews  ................................................................................................................  22   3.2.2   Questionnaire  ............................................................................................................................  23   3.2.3   Logging  .........................................................................................................................................  23   3.2.4   Data  Analysis  .............................................................................................................................  24   3.2.5   Organisational  aspects  ..........................................................................................................  24   4.   Technical  pilot  aspects  ..........................................................................................  25   4.1   Xtramira  Case  ..............................................................................................................  25   4.2   Innoviting  Case  ...............................................................................................................  26   4.3   Conclusions  ......................................................................................................................  28   5.   Crossborder  research  goals  .................................................................................  29   6.   Crossborder  lessons  learned  up  till  now  .........................................................  34   6.1   The  Xtramira  case  .....................................................................................................  34   6.2   The  Innoviting  case  .......................................................................................................  37   6.3   General  conclusions  ......................................................................................................  38   References  .........................................................................................................................  40    

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

3

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3

1. Introduction As stated  in  the  Description  of  Work  Document  (DoW)  and  in  Deliverable  2.2  of   this   Work   Package   (“Common   Approach”),   Work   Package   2   within   APOLLON,   clusters   four   Living   Labs   that   focus   on   Health   and   well-­‐being   related   solutions.   Two   Independent   Living   Systems   (ILS)   are   to   be   transferred   and   piloted   a   sending  living  lab  to  a  receiving  living  lab.  Figure  1  illustrates  the  relationships   and  flow  between  the  different  tasks  and  deliverables  in  Work  Package  2.    

Figure  1.  Relationship  between  tasks  and  deliverables  of  Work  Package  2     Task  2.2  deals  with  the  actual  deployment  and  set-­‐up  of  the  experiments  in  the   receiving   living   labs   (Finland   and   Spain).   Task   2.3   comprises   the   cross-­‐border   piloting   dimensions   of   the   experiments,   whilst   which   Task   2.4   will   cover   the   evaluation  and  recommendation  activities.   Deliverable   2.2.   provided   the   common   approach   for   the   research,   data   gathering   and  data  analysis  activities  that  takes  place  during  Task  2.3  of  Work  Package  2.     Task  2.3:   -­‐

determines the   measurements   that   need   to   be   undertaken   during   the   experiment   on   location.   These   measures   are   based   on   the   requirements   as   set  in  task  2.4  “Evaluation”  

-­‐

develops a  plan  how  measurements  will  take  place  during  the  experiments.   These   measurements   will   be   based   on   the   work   in   WP1   and   will   take   the   setup  description  of  Deliverable  2.2  as  a  starting  point.  

-­‐

monitors the  execution  of  the  experiments  and  measurements  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

4

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 The final  measurement  data  after  the  experiment  will  be  used  in  task  2.4.     This   document,   Deliverable   2.3,   provides   the   actual   and   detailed   setup   of   the   experiments   at   M12   of   the   project   -­‐   as   to   be   performed   in   the   Living   Labs.   It   also   define   the   transfer   strategy,   technical   recommendations   and   protocol   between   the  different  Living  Labs.   To  achieve  this  result  the  following  activities  were  performed:   -­‐

Based on  Deliverable  2.1  and  product/service  data  it  has  been  investigated   where  the  best  information  on  use,  usage  and  user  experience  can  be  found,   and   how   this   data   can   be   measured   (technical,   logging,   interviews,   workshop).  These  measurements  relate  to  first  order  effects  (in  the  product   or  service)  and  second  order  effects  (for  the  Living  Lab).  

-­‐

Discussions with   the   partners,   with   a   focus   on   what   is   needed   from   an   organisational/operational  level  and  to  be  adapted  for  task  2.4.    

-­‐

Report on   the   measurement   and   operation   of   the   experiment   reflected   in   this   document   (Deliverable   2.3).   Part   of   this   deliverable   is   also   an   operational  plan  for  the  management  of  the  measurements  and  execution  of   the  experiments.  This  is  aligned  with  the  specifications  as  provided  by  WP1.  

Input  used  from  Deliverable  D2.1  and  D2.2:     -­‐

Televic and  Innovating:  clear  descriptions  of  their  product/service  

-­‐

Forum Virium  and  iAvante  for  a  clear  description  of  the  living  lab  setting  

This  document  is  divided  in  a  description  on  pilot  level  (sections  2-­‐4)  and  on  the   cross  border  level  (sections  5-­‐6).     On  the  pilot  level  we  will  elaborate  on  three  levels:     •  

Research (section  2)  

Operational (section  3)  

Technological (section  4)  

In the  cross  border  level  we  address  the:  

Research (section  5)  

Lessons learned  up  till  now  (section  6)    

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

5

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3

2. Research set-up of the pilots This section  describes  in  detail  the  measurements  needed  in  place  to  address  the   relevant   questions   related   to   research,   data   gathering   and   the   subsequent   analysis   of   it,   as   outlined   in   Deliverable   2.2   using   the   input   from   Workpackage   1,   i.e.  Deliverable  1.3.     The  key  research  questions  for  the  healthcare  pilots  include:     1. How  to  address  the  harmonization  and  interoperability  challenge  for  this  pilot   (related  to  ecosystems)?     For   what   concerns   interoperability   –   For   the   specific   Homecare   and   Independent  Living  we  will  not  focus  on  interoperability  on  a  technical  level   but   on   a   more   contextual   level.   Especially   in   this   specific   domain,   the   eco-­‐ system   is   a   very   important   and   determined   factor.   It   is   not   sufficient   that   a   service  or  product  can  be  transferred  from  a  more  technical  point-­‐of-­‐view,  it   also  has  to  fit  in  the  local  context.  eHealth  type  of  services  and  products  are   always  embedded  in  a  specific  eco-­‐system  (which  is  organized  differently  all   over  Europe).  During  the  cross-­‐border  activities  we  will  investigate  how  we   can  be  interoperable  between  the  various  eco-­‐systems.  This  is  done  by  either   involving   additional   partners   that   are   necessary   to   complete   the   required   eco-­‐system   or   through   the   Living   Lab   identifying   the   gaps   in   the   required   eco-­‐system.   2. How  to  demonstrate  the  value  added  of  cross  border  networking  of  living  labs?   In   both   cases   (ILS   and   ADL)   this   is   about   implementing   the   right   measurement  instruments  that  will  allow  them  to  capture  the  impact  of  the   provided   solution   on   different   levels:   not   only   the   user   but   for   all   stakeholders.   Elements   that   will   be   subject   of   this   are   a.o.   the   efficiency   (in   time,  cost,  operations…),  the  quality  of  experience,  assessment  of  new  market   opportunities,  mapping  the  eco-­‐system.   For  the  ADL  case,  we  also  will  be  able  to  evaluate  the  impact  on  the  current   practices  of  the  SME  partner  (assess  their  expansion  possibilities  abroad).     For   both   ILS   (Xtramira   by   Televic   in   Belgium)   and   ADL   (by   Innoviting   in   the   Netherlands)  the  Requirements  Identification  (D2.1)  establishes  the  transferring   Living   Labs   (IBBT   and   AIM)   as   the   main   supervisors   to   monitor   the   set-­‐up   and   research  activities  (Research  coordination).  The  transferring  Living  Labs  set-­‐up   the   research   framework   and   provide   the   local   Living   Labs   with   questionnaires,   topic   lists   for   interviews,   etc.   The   coordination   of   the   local   living   labs   will   be   steered  by  the  transferring  Living  Labs  but  this  will  require  a  close  cooperation   and  open  dialogue  between  the  partners.   The  research  set-­‐up  that  will  be  applied  in  the  Living  Labs  is  a  people-­‐centered   approach  in  which  we  will  not  only  focus  on  the  deployment  of  the  service,  but   also   investigate   how   various   users   experience   the   independent   living   systems   (ILS)   in   their   daily   lives.   These   user   groups   are   not   only   the   end   users,   but   in   the  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

6

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 Spanish case   the   relatives   and   others   who   are   providing   home-­‐care,   in   the   Finnish   case   the   investigation   will   include   user   groups   such   as   the   home   care   providing  nurses,  the  Help  desk  staff  and  the  management  of  the  organizations   that  provide  parts  of  the  service.   According   to   Deliverable   1.2   (Research   framework   and   investigation   strategy),   we   can   apply   the   Apollon   research   framework   by   answering   the   questions   in   each  of  the  following  classes  illustrated  in  Table  1.     Table   1   Thematic   experiments’   focus   and   content   communicated   in   categories   of   ‘activities’.       Activities/  

Build

Evaluate

Justify

Generalize

Eco-­‐system parameters   for  cross-­‐border   piloting  

User experience  

Based on  the   experiences  in   the  local   experiment,   assisted  to  the   experience  of  the   remote  Living   Lab  

In each  step  we   will  look  at  (a)   cross-­‐border   aspects,  (b)   eHealth  specific   issues  and  (c)  the   eco-­‐system   determinants  

Transfer and   deployment   technology  

Comparison of  the   different  pilots,   exchange  with   other  eHealth   Living  Labs  

Outputs Constructs  

eHealth specific   requirements  for  cross-­‐ border  piloting  (such  as   security,  privacy,   liability…)  

Model

A transfer  of  an  eHealth   service  or  product  has   to  be  contextualized   Local  partners  need  to   be  involved  to  take  up   the  different  roles  in   the  eco-­‐system  

Impact on  actors   involved   Collaboration   between  the   partners   Cross-­‐border   specific  issues   Reporting   3  monthly   assessment  

New business   opportunities  

Interviews Questionnaires  

In a  cross-­‐border   transfer  the  Living  Lab   will  be  more  than  just  a   facilitator.  I  t  will  have   to  take  more   responsibilities  than  in   local  pilots.  

Method

Determine specific   hypothesis  related  to   the  set-­‐up  and  process   and  assess  them  during   and  after  the  pilots  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

Efficient procedures,  tools   and  methods   Identification  of   the  required  eco-­‐ system  building   blocks   Strategy  for  a   network  of   Living  Labs  

Through the  three-­‐ monthly  reporting   and  interaction   with  WP1  

7

Based on  the   experiences  in   the  local   experiment,   assisted  to  the   experience  of  the   remote  Living   Lab  

Adjusting technology  to  be   multi-­‐language,   multi-­‐contextual   and  scalable  for   large  roll-­‐out  

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 Installation

Living Labs  

Interviews

Local actors  

Questionnaires

End-­‐users

Based on  a.  the   eco-­‐system  and   b.  scope  of  the   project  and  c.  the   implementation   limitations  

Exchange lessons   learned  between   partners,  the   consortium,  other   Living  Labs.   Working  towards  a   thematic  network  

The  user  research  to  be  conducted  by  Work  Package  2,  as  documented  in  D2.1,   has  very  similar  goals  for  both  experiments.  In  Figure  2  the  flow  is  visualized  of   this   work   packages,   i.e.   the   different   tasks   and   the   research   questions   and   applied   approach   for   the   two   cases,   and   how   in   this   is   reflected   in   this   Deliverable  2.3  (a  result  of  tasks  2.3).    

Figure  2:  visualization  of  the  research  questions  in  the  different  tasks.    

2.1 Xtramira Case The mentioned  framework  is  tailored  to  the  Xtramira  case,  and  listed  in  Table  2.       Table  2:  Apollon  research  framework  populated  for  the  Xtramira  case.   Activities/  

Build

Evaluate

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

Justify

8

Generalize

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 Outputs Constructs  

What are  the   variables  that  you   study?  

What are  the  elements   that  you  measure?  

The different   elements  of  the   health  eco-­‐system   that  have  an  impact   on  cross-­‐border   Living  Lab  projects  

Every aspect  of  the   setup  of  the  pilot   Procedures   which  is  different   The  feasibility  of  an   that  can  be   from  the  setup  in  the   harmonized  eco-­‐system   generalized   Living  Lab  in   and  how  this  would   across  different   Belgium  is  a  pilot   benefit  SMEs  in  cross-­‐ setups  can  be   specific  element.  The   border  activities   defined  as  best   most  prevalent   practices,  for   elements  are  those   The  potential  of   instance  how   that  need  a  different   creating  new  business   to  manage   technical  solution   or  research   such  as  new  security   opportunities  based  on   localization   issues  or  the  need   the  cross-­‐border  aspect   issues.   for  different   The  need  and  possible   applications  such  as   benefit  of  the  thematic   alarm  only  versus   cross-­‐border  network   social  functionality.   of  Living  Labs  

How can  we   harmonize  the  eco-­‐ system  between   Living  Labs  and   make  them   interoperable.  

Model

What are  the  basic   assumptions,   causalities  and   outcomes  that  you   perceive?  

The experience  of  the   end-­‐users  as  the   stakeholders    

What measures  do  you   use  to  evaluate  the   validity  of  the   assumptions?  

The feasibility  of   General  basic   creating  a  common  eco-­‐ assumption  is  that   system  within  every   when  in  each  of  the   Living  Lab  that  is  active   Living  Labs  a  similar   in  an  eHealth  network   eco-­‐system  is  in   Different  factors  of  the   place,  the  transfer   ecosystem,  such  as   or  set-­‐up  of  cross-­‐ stakeholders  and  their   border  pilots  will  be   roles,  regulations  and   much  faster,  easier   policies,  and   The  assumptions   ethical/social  issues.   made  were  related   to  the  case  specific   setting  and  its   requirements.   The  expected   outcome  is  a   description  of  the   relevant  factors  in  a   (e)Healthcare   ecosystem.  

How do  you   decide  best   practices  across   the   experiments?  

How do  you  filter   pilot  specific   elements  out?  

What are  the   success  criteria   that  you  use?  

How do  you  assess   the  wider   applicability  of  the   model?  

The transfer  of   one  technology   from  one   context  and   eco-­‐system  to   another   The   identification   of  the  various   dimensions   within  an  eco-­‐ system  that   have  an  impact    

Useful guideline  for   health  related  cross-­‐ border  pilots   Exchange  lessons   learned,  creating   templates  etc…     Comparison  to  the   relevant  ecosystem   factors  described  in   D2.5  which  are  part   of  the  Belgian  living   lab.  

The identification   of  the  needs  for   a  cross-­‐border   network  of   living  labs    

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

9

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 Method

What is  the  process  for   validating  the   assumptions?   Setting-­‐up  the  transfer   Performing  user   research  and   stakeholder  analysis   Questionnaire  with   regard  to  network     When  setting  up  the   actual  pilot  and   discussing  what  is   needed  and  which   application  would  be   most  relevant  for  the   remote  living  lab,  the   assumptions  were  one   by  one  encountered   and  either  confirmed  or   rejected.  

Installation

Who are  the   stakeholders  at  your   experiment?   Different  actors  that  are   required  to  establish   the  required  eco-­‐ system:  the  City  of   Helsinki,  the  different   partners  (living  lab,   research  institutes,   SME),  policy  makers,   network  providers,   different  groups  of  end   users  from  the  living   lab  (specific  profiles)    

How do  you   evaluate  and   adjust  the   validation  process?  

How do  you   justify  the  use  of   selected   methods?  

How do  you  ensure   the  scalability  and   wider  applicability   of  the  methods?  

Evaluation and   adjustment  on  the   level  of  the  pilots   is  done  ad-­‐hoc.  

On the  local  level   methods  and   processes  are   selected  by  the   local  Living  labs   based  on  their   experience  and   way  of  operation  

Practicality is  still   the  most   convincing  method   (in  terms  of  use,   installation,  extra   effort,  cost,…)  

How do  you   justify  the   selected   collaboration   model?  

How do  you   compile   recommendations   for  sustainability?  

The lessons   learned  with   regard  to  the  eco-­‐ system  and  the   underlying   dimensions  that   are  identified  will   be  checked  with   other  Living  Labs  

How do  you   evaluate  added   value  for  each   stakeholder?   Based  on   interviews  with   the  various   stakeholders  

Reshape lessons   learned,  practicals   What  seems  to   into  templates  that   be  most  practical   can  be  used  widely   (in  terms  of  use,   installation,   extra  effort,   cost,…)  

This is  done   based  on  the   objectives,  the   specificities  of   the  set-­‐up  as   well  as  the   contextual   elements    

Manuals, local  and   remote  test  and   validation     environments     Creation  of   processes  and   templates   Identificatioon  of   useful  tools  and   methods   Generic  eco-­‐system   mapping  

To  get  a  better  understanding  of  the  research  objectives  of  the  pilot,  the  research   goals  and  measurements  for  the  Xtramira  case  are  summarized  in  Table  3.  These   research   goals   are   targeted   on   the   pilot   level   in   the   first   place.   But   they   will   enable  us  to  address  the  generic  research  objectives  in  terms  of  the  cross-­‐border   aspects  of  Living  Labs  working  in  a  network.    

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

10

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 Table  3:  Research  goals  and  measurements  for  the  Xtramira  case.   Research  goal    

Measured via  

Responsible party  

Contextual difference   between  the  local  and   remote  living  lab  

a) Place  of  the  device/application   in  the  services  of  the  care   organization  

Social context  for  using  the   devices,  communication   between  the  end  users  in   Helsinki,  mostly   communication  with  the   desk  of  a  care  provider  in   Belgium  

b) Type  of  users  (attitudes,   behavior  and  skills  of  users   regarding  independent  living  and   technology)  

IBBT has  provided  the   topic  lists,  questionnaire   and  instructions  to  Aalto   University  and  Forum   Virium  

The user  experience  of  the   device  /  applications  

a) satisfaction  level   b)  easy  of  use   c)  practices  

Aalto University  –  based  on   the  initial  research   conducted  for  the  Flemish   case  

d) addressing  their  needs   e)  increased  social  contacts   f)  increased  feeling  of  security   The  remote  ecosystem  and   business  opportunities  for   the  ILS  

a) the  ecosystem  

IBBT  

b) amount  of  business  potential    

Forum Virium  

The  following  stakeholders  are  involved  in  Xtramira  experiment:   Agents  or  stakeholders:   •

End-­‐users: we   will   have   30   end-­‐users   directly   involved   in   the   project   (equipped  with  the  technology).  10  are  elderly  people  living  at  home,  20   are   hearing   impaired   people1.   In   addition   friends   and   relatives   will   be   indirectly  involved,  they  will  be  able  to  use  a  SIP  Client  on  their  own  PC.     (but  will  not  be  equipped  with  an  Xtramira).     Local   Living   Lab:   Forum   Virium   has   a   central   role   in   setting   up   the   test-­‐ project  and  as  gateway  to  the  local  stakeholders.  

Institutions: •

Telco /   ISP:     Within   the   projects   cope   we   will   use   commercial   available/existing   connections.   The   ISP   is   therefore   not   directly   participating.   SIP  provider:  The  need  to  have  an  independent  SIP  provider  was  a  result   of   the   requirement   analysis   and   the   preparatory   work.   During   the   project  

                                                                                                              This  is  changed  from  the  initial  set-­‐up  on  request  of  the  SME  so  they  will  also  be  able  to   test  and  evaluate  their  product  on  another  potential  segment  of  the  market.   1  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

11

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3

• •

a dedicated   SIP   server   will   be   hosted   by   a   telco   in   Belgium   in   cooperation   with  Televic.   System   integrators   and   installers:   Forum   Virium   as   the   local   Living   Lab   will  act  as  the  integrator  and  the  local  ecosystem  of  the  pilot  having  a  total   responsibility   of   setting   up   the   pilot:   recruitment,   installations,   training   etc.   Knowledge   partners   (universities,   branch   institutes):   Aalto   University   will   conduct   the   research   and   will   immediately   try   to   link   up   with   existing,  parallel  pilots.   Local   authorities,   like   city   of   Helsinki   city   granting   the   ethical   approval   etc.   Civic   associations:   the   group   of   elderly   people   are   involved   in   the   volunteer   work   association   in   the   Eastern   part   of   Helsinki,   one   group   of   deaf  people  are  from  the  Federation  of  Hard  of  Hearing.   Technology   providers   Internet   broadband   will   be   provided   by   local   telecom  providers  as  part  of  their  normal  offering.  

In   addition   to   the   stakeholders   and   their   roles   mentioned   above,   additional   aspects  that  are  dealt  with  in  the  pilot  are:   Regulations,  policies  and  legal  requirements:   • • • • • • •

Personal data  protection  and  privacy  laws   Ethical  board  regulations  and  processes   Patients  rights  laws   Dependent  people  laws   General  healthcare  laws   Local  (i.e.  municipal  /  county)  regulations   Agreement   between   Apollon   partners   and   end-­‐users   (on   good   usage,   expectations,  commitments…)  

Social interaction:   • • • •

Communication and  terminology   Cultural  issues   Case  specific  requirements  (functionalities)   Case  specific  setting  

Business Model:   • • • • •

Financial prospects   Market  and  product  maturity   Sustainability  (manuals,  knowledge  transfer,  training)   Integration  with  other  services   Media  

Operational issues:   • • •

Translations and  how  to   Software  updates  for  extended  logging  and  monitoring   Organisation  of  remote  support  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

12

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3

2.2 Innoviting Case The mentioned  framework  is  tailored  to  the  Innovating  case,  and  listed  in  Table   4.     Table  4:  Apollon  research  framework  populated  for  the  Innoviting  case.   Activities/   Outputs  

Build

Evaluate

Justify

Generalize

Constructs

What are  the   variables  that  you   study?  

What are  the   elements  that   you  measure?  

How do  you  filter   pilot  specific   elements  out?  

Adequacy of  the   service  to  its   stated  purpose  

User satisfaction  

How do  you   decide  best   practices  across   the  experiments?  

SME evaluation  

Effectiveness of   the  LL-­‐network   model  in  cross-­‐ border  transfer  of   services   Model  

What are  the  basic   assumptions,   causalities  and   outcomes  that  you   perceive?  

What measures   do  you  use  to   evaluate  the   validity  of  the   assumptions?  

That the  network   is  capable  of   catalyzing  the   cross-­‐border   transfer  

Interview with   stakeholders   involved  

That the  remote   LL  is  capable  of   performing  the   localization  work   efficiently  

Tracking of  the   development   and  deployment   process  

Internal Benchmarking   within  the  WP  

What are  the   success  criteria   that  you  use?   Executing  the   pilot  as  intended   Adjusted   solution   deployed  in  the   Living  Lab  

Basic Root  Cause   Analysis    

How do  you  assess   the  wider   applicability  of  the   model?   Comparing  with   the   results/outcomes   of  the  piloting  at   the  local  living  lab   and  by  filtering   pilot-­‐specific   elements.  

That the  SME  is   capable  of   adapting  re-­‐ focusing  its   solution  to  the   new  ecosystem     Method  

What is  the  process   How  do  you   for  validating  the   evaluate  and   assumptions?   adjust  the   validation   Real  life  pre-­‐ process?   testing  the   adjusted  service   Efficiency  and   outcomes  of  the  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

13

How do  you   justify  the  use  of   selected   methods?  

How do  you  ensure   the  scalability  and   wider  applicability   of  the  methods?  

Previous experience  

No specific  scaling   problem  with  the  

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 Technical testing   validation   of  the  adjustments     process   System  analysis   and  feedback   meetings     Installation  

Who are  the   stakeholders  at   your  experiment?   The  group  of  end-­‐ users   The  involved   family  members   and  or  informal   care-­‐givers  

How do  you   evaluate  added   value  for  each   stakeholder?   Interviews   Questionnaires    Work-­‐meetings  

The IAVANTE   Foundation  

Agility, adaptability  and   simplicity  

used methods  

How do  you   justify  the   selected   collaboration   model?  

How do  you   compile   recommendations   for  sustainability?  

Based on  the   service  and  the   context  in  which   the  service  is   being  deployed  

Documenting the   implementation  of   the  methods  

Document the   experience  in   public  report   Presenting   lessons  learned  

SMEs (Innoviting)   AIM   The  Andalusian   Foundation  for   Social  Services   Telecom  provider  

To  get  a  better  understanding  of  the  research  objectives  of  the  pilot,  the  research   goals  and  measurements  for  the  Innoviting  case  are  summarized  in  Table  5.    

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

14

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 Table  5:  Research  goals  and  measurements  for  the  Innoviting  case.   Research  goal    

Measured via  

Responsible party  

The user  experience  of  the   device  /  applications  

a) satisfaction  level  

INN and  AIM  provide  the   topic  lists  and     questionnaires  to  IAV.    

b) ease  of  use   c)  addressing  their  needs   d)  what  functions  are   filling  the  needs  of  the   elderly  and  the   caregivers?  

IAV executes  the   interviews,  briefing   meetings  and  general   feedback  process.  

The remote  ecosystem  and   business  opportunities  for   the  ILS.    

a) amount  of  business   potential    

IAV

We want  to  be  able  to   address  the  outcomes  of  the   local  experiment  and   enhance  it  at  national  level  if   possible,  i.e.  by  generalizing   findings  for  the  specific   region  in  south  of  Spain  to   country  level  of  Spain.    

a) the  ecosystem  analysis  

IAV

The  following  stakeholders  are  involved  in  experiment:   Agents  or  stakeholders:   • • • • • •

Users   Family  members   Care-­‐givers   Neighbors   Social  services  staff   Emergency  personnel  

Institutions: • • • • • • • • • • •

Social services  agencies   Private  social  and  health  services  providers   Telco  /  ISP   System  integrators  and  installers   Knowledge  partners  (universities,  branch  institutes)   Insurance  companies   Local  authorities   Elderly  residences   Civic  associations   Emergency  services   Technology  providers  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

15

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 •

Related remote  services  

In   addition   to   the   stakeholders   and   their   roles   mentioned   above,   additional   aspects  that  are  dealt  with  in  the  pilot  are:   Regulations,  policies  and  legal  requirements:   • • • • • •

Personal data  protection  and  privacy  laws   Ethical  board  regulations  and  processes   Patients  rights  laws   Dependent  people  laws   General  healthcare  laws   Local  (i.e.  municipal  /  county)  regulations  

Social interaction:   • • • •

Communication and  terminology   Cultural  issues   Case  specific  requirements  (functionalities)   Case  specific  setting  

Business Model:   • • • • •  

Financial prospects   Market  and  product  maturity   Sustainability   Integration  with  other  services   Media    

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

16

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3

3. Operational pilot aspects In Deliverable   D2.2   the   deployment   plans   for   both   pilot   cases   are   described   in   generic   terms.   Here   we   provide   more   detailed   information   on   the   people   and   locations  and  stakeholders  involved,  including  how  we  dealt  with  solving  privacy   issues.  We  describe  the  action  plan  and  schedule  for  the  activities  that  need  to  be   executed  for  successful  deployment  of  the  experiments.  The  local  Living  Labs  are   responsible  for  the  local  deployment  and  execution  of  the  research  plan.     The  deployment  activities  for  each  of  the  two  pilots  is  described  in  this  section.    

3.1 Xtramira Case data For   the   data   collection   we   will   use   various   methods:   scripted   and   in-­‐dept   interviews,  both  individual  as  well  as  focus  group,  survey  and  logging.  The  case   data   will   be   situated   on   two   levels:   on   the   one   hand   the   pilot   specific   results   and   the  outcomes  on  the  cross-­‐border  level  (and  further  steps)  on  the  other  hand.     3.1.1 In depth interviews The   goal   of   the   in-­‐depth   interviews   is   to   get   rich   data   about   the   main   topics   of   this  study.  Interviews  will  be  done  with  the  following  actors:   -­‐

the responsible  of  the  care  organisation  

-­‐

the operators  /  technicians  

-­‐

the SMEs  (Televic)  

-­‐

the Large  Enterprises,  (Palmia,  Elisa)    

The topics  for  these  interviews  focus  on  the  evaluation  of  both  the  deployment   process   and   the   service   itself.   Also   we   will   discuss   more   on   the   business   proposition  of  the  solution  as  well  the  eco-­‐system  in  which  this  pilot  is  executed.   Here   we   will   also   focus   on   how   to   engage   additional   partners   from   the   eco-­‐ system   required   for   the   cross-­‐border   aspect.   From   the   local   Living   Labs   and   current   projects   the   used   topic   lists   of   the   different   interviews   will   act   as   a   starting  point.   The   interviews   will   be   conducted   by   Aalto   University   at   the   relevant   moments   during  the  actual  deployment  of  the  system.  Table  6  below  summaries  these  in-­‐ depth  interviews  to  be  conducted.    

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

17

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 Table  6  In  depth  interviews  to  be  conducted  for  the  Xtramira  case.    

Local living  lab  (Belgium)  

Who is   interviewed?  

• • • •

Topic list   interviews  

the responsible  of  the  care   organization   the  desk  operators   two  users   the  SME  (Televic)  

Different topic  list  (according  to   who  is  interviewed)  (see   attachment):   • • •

topic list  –  representative   public  welfare  organization     topic  list  –  the  client   topic  list  –  desk  operator  

Remote living  lab  (Finland)   • • • • •

project managers   technical  staff   care  providing  staff   the  Users   other  involved  people  

The topic  of  discussion  will   be  the  relevant  aspects  of   the  service  to  the  interview   person.  

Who conduct   An  IBBT  researcher  interviewed   the  interviews?   the  responsible  of  the  care   organization,  the  two  users,  and   the  social  nurses  (desk   operators)  

Aalto

How the   interviews  are   analyzed?  

Text analysis  

Text analysis  

Possible data  mining  

When and  how   Separate  report   the  reporting  is   The  report  was  handed  over  to   done?   the  remote  living  lab  and  the   local  partners2  

Separate reports  on  the   Xtramira  cases  and  the   parallel  pilots,     Lessons  learned  will  be   embedded  in  D2.4  

3.1.2 Questionnaire Within  the  user-­‐centered  approach  of  the  project  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  good   interaction   with   the   different   stakeholders   for   whom   the   end-­‐users   are   playing   an   important   role.   To   collect   the   user   feedback   a   small   questionnaire   will   be   used.   The   objective   is   that   these   interviews   are   conducted   by   the   persons   who   already   have   close   bonds   with   the   users.   The   various   groups   of   users   may   be   approached  in  different  manners,  the  elderly  can  be  interviewed  directly  with  a   script,   or   provided   assistance   in   completing   the   questionnaire,   while   the   hearing                                                                                                                   2  Due  to  company  strategic  reasons  this  report  is  not  public  available   ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

18

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 impaired group   is   possibly   better   off   using   a   paper   or   online   questionnaire.   In   table  7,  the  scheduled  interviews  are  listed.   This  approach  also  allows  us  to  investigate  to  what  extent  this  method  could  be   used  in  case  of  a  large  test  population  as  it  is  more  pragmatic  and  convenient.       Questionnaires  are  an  often  used  method  in  Living  Lab  research.  The  results  of   these  questionnaire  will  also  provide  input  with  regard  on  how  to  use  this  type   of  tools  and  methods  in  a  cross-­‐border  experiment.       Table  7  Interviews  to  be  conducted  for  the  Xtramira  case.    

Local living  lab  (Belgium)  

Remote living  lab  (Finland)  

Who is   interviewed?  

8 end-­‐users  

Elderly people  

Professional care-­‐givers  

Hearing impaired  people  

All stakeholders  (operator,   Inner  circle  (relatives,  family)     local  public  welfare   organization,…)   Who  conducted  the   The  operators  (social   interviews?   nurse  and  social  worker   close  to  the  end-­‐users)    

Aalto University  

How the  interview   takes  place?  

The various  groups  of  users   may  be  approached  in   different  manners,  the  elderly   can  be  interviewed  directly   with  a  script,  or  provided   assistance  in  completing  the   questionnaire,  while  the   hearing  impaired  group  is   possibly  better  off  using  a   paper  or  online   questionnaire.  

By a  structured   questionnaire  taken  by  the   operators  (for  them   specific  training  (oral  and   written  instruction)  was   given  to  conduct  good   interviews  

Where and  when   During  a  home  visit   the  interview  takes   place?  

Depending on  the  user   preferences  

How the  interviews   Text  analysis   are  analyzed?  

Text analysis  and  data  mining   of  the  logfiles  

When and  how  the   reporting  is  done?  

Separate report  produced   by  the  IBBT  Living  Lab  

Separate reports  on  the   Xtramira  cases  and  the   Report  was  discussed  with   parallel  pilots,     the  stakeholders   Lessons  learned  will  be  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

19

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 Report was  handed  over   reflected  in  D2.4   to  the  remote  research   organization  (AALTO)  and   Living  Lab  (FV)     3.1.3 Logging It   is   important   that   we   can   match   the   results   of   the   interviews   with   objective   data   of   the   real   behavior   of   the   service.   The   logging   will   be   limited   to   non-­‐ contextual   data   such   as   the   amount   of   use,   the   duration.   Logging   is   a   necessity   for  a  better  reporting  and  to  provide  a  better  understanding  of  the  actual  use  of   services   and   could   be   used   for   the   optimization   of   the   services   through   the   analysis  of  certain  patterns.  The  logging  can  be  foreseen  on  the  application,  the   device   and   on   the   network   level.   Within   the   project   both   services   are   a   server-­‐ based  solution.  The  logging  will  therefore  only  be  foreseen  on  the  server  level.     Locally,   when   a   PC   is   connected   to   the   Xtramira   device,   several   different   logging  options  are  available:   • • • • • • •

audio and  video  traffic  can  be  logged   the  SIP  connection  (the  registration  and  SIP  traffic)   the   Televic   State   Machine   (to   know   which   status   the   device   is   in,   e.g.   standby,  calling,…)   all  sent  and  received  DTMF  tunes   all  configuration  actions  (e.g.,  updates,  new  phonebook  contacts,  …)   all  general  purpose  input  and  output  (e.g.,  actions  on  the  grey  buttons  of   the  device)   All  technical  alarms  made  

Due to  privacy  issues,  this  logging  data  is  only  used  for  debugging  purposes.   Before  the  launch  of  the  pilot  TELEVIC  will  perform  a  software  upgrade  in  which   more   detailed   logging   and   monitoring   is   being   tracked.   Currently   this   is   still   under  development  and  not  all  features  are  known.   3.1.4 Data Analysis The   evaluation   of   the   cross-­‐border   pilots   will   be   done   on   the   level   of   the   pilot   itself  and  on  the  level  of  the  collaboration.  The  focus  at  pilot  level  will  be  on  the   methods  used,  the  implementation  as  well  as  the  gained  results.   Analysis   at   pilot-­‐level:   we   will   analyze   the   experiment   specific   data.   The   objective   of   this   analysis   is   to   evaluate   the   service   with   regard   to   the   usage,   experience,   attitudes.   Initially,   logging   data   will   be   used.   For   each   of   the   applications   we   will   investigate   the   specific   usage   of   the   service   (length,   frequency).  This  data  will  generate  certain  hypotheses  that  will  be  checked  with   the   data   of   the   more   qualitative   research   activities   (interviews).   The   data   sets   will   be   analyzed   using   different   actor   perspectives:   the   end-­‐user,   the   professional  user,  the  operator…       ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

20

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 3.1.5 Organisational aspects For setting  up  the  Helsinki  pilot  the  following  steps  will  be  taken:   • • • • •

Analysis of   the   local   experiment:   looking   at   the   different   roles   and   responsibilities  of  each  actor  involved   Investigating   the   remote   eco-­‐system:   which   partners   are   needed   to   conduct  the  experiment   Set-­‐up   meetings   between   different   (potential)   stakeholders   to   check   the   expectations,  the  roles,  way-­‐forward   In-­‐house  trial  and  demo   Need   to   acquire   permissions   to   be   compliant   with   local   rules   and   regulations  

 

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

21

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3

3.2 Innoviting Case For the   data   collection   we   will   use   three   methods:   in   depth   interviews   both   individual  as  well  as  focus  group,  survey  and  logging.     3.2.1 In depth interviews The   goal   of   the   in-­‐depth   interviews   is   to   get   rich   data   about   the   main   topics   of   this  study.  Interviews  will  be  done  with  the  following  actors:   • • • •

the responsible  of  the  care  organisation   the  operators  /  technicians   the  users   the  SMEs  

The topics   within   these   interviews   will   focus   on   the   evaluation   of   both   the   deployment   process   and   the   service   itself.   Also   we   will   discuss   more   on   the   business  proposition  of  the  solution  as  well  as  towards  the  eco-­‐system  in  which   this   pilot   is   executed.   From   the   local   Living   Labs   and   current   projects   the   used   topic   lists   of   the   different   interviews   will   act   as   a   starting   point.     See   Table   8   below  for  the  overview  of  the  in-­‐depth  interviews.     Table  8:  In  depth  interviews  to  be  conducted  for  the  Innoviting  case.    

Local living  lab  (Netherlands)  

Remote living  lab  (Spain)  

Who is   interviewed?  

Users, caretakers  

Users and  family   members  

Topic list   interviews  

Demographics  

Provided by  INN  

Current situation   Problems  /  Needs   Features  /  Price  

Who conduct  the   interviews?  

Students from  the  Hogeschool   Utrecht  

How the  interviews   Students  from  the  Hogeschool   are  analyzed?   Utrecht   When  and  how  the   reporting  is  done?  

Seperate report

Personnel from  IAV   Pilot-­‐level  discussion   (AIM-­‐INN-­‐IAV)   Separate  report  on  the   Innoviting  cases   Lessons  learned  will  be   embedded  in  D2.4  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

22

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 3.2.2 Questionnaire Within the  user-­‐centered  approach  of  the  project  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  good   interaction   with   the   different   stakeholders   for   whom   the   end-­‐users   are   playing   an   important   role.   To   collect   the   user   feedback   a   small   questionnaire   will   be   used.   The   objective   is   that   these   interviews   are   conducted   by   the   persons   who   already   have   close   bonds   with   the   users.   We   will   therefore   hand   them   the   questionnaire  with  some  oral  and  written  instructions.  This  approach  also  allows   us  to  investigate  to  what  extent  this  method  could  be  used  in  case  of  a  large  test   population  as  it  is  more  pragmatic  and  convenient.     Table  10  Interviews  to  be  conducted  for  the  Innoviting  case.    

Local living   (Netherlands)  

lab Remote  living  lab  (Spain)  

Who is  interviewed?  

Users, caretakers  

Family members  /   informal  care-­‐givers  

Who conducted  the   questionnaires?  

Students from  the   Hogeschool  Utrecht  

Personnel from  IAV  

Where and  when  the   interview  takes  place?  

At different  locations  

IAV facilities  in  Malaga   and  Granada  

How the  interviews  are   Students  from  the   analyzed?   Hogeschool  Utrecht   When  and  how  the   reporting  is  done?  

Seperate report

Pilot-­‐level discussion   (AIM-­‐INN-­‐IAV)   Separate  report  on  the   Innoviting  cases   Lessons  learned  will  be   embedded  in  D2.4  

3.2.3 Logging It   is   important   that   we   can   match   the   results   of   the   interviews   with   objective   data   of   the   real   behavior   of   the   service.   The   logging   will   be   limited   to   non-­‐ contextual  data  such  as  the  amount  of  use,  the  duration…  Logging  is  a  necessity   for  a  better  reporting  and  to  provide  a  better  understanding  of  the  actual  use  of   services   and   could   be   used   for   the   optimization   of   the   services   through   the   analysis  of  certain  patterns.  The  logging  can  be  foreseen  on  the  application,  the   device   and   on   the   network   level.   Within   the   project   both   services   are   a   server-­‐ based  solution.  The  logging  will  therefore  only  be  foreseen  on  the  server  level.      

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

23

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 3.2.4 Data Analysis The evaluation   of   the   cross-­‐border   pilots   will   be   done   on   the   level   of   the   pilot   itself  and  on  the  level  of  the  collaboration.  The  focus  at  pilot  level  will  be  on  the   methods   used,   the   implementation   as   well   as   the   gained   results.   We   will   analyze   the   experiment   specific   data.   The   objective   of   this   analysis   is   to   evaluate   the   service   with   regard   to   the   usage,   experience,   attitudes…   Initially,   logging   data   will  be  used.  For  each  of  the  applications  we  will  investigate  the  specific  usage  of   the   service   (length,   frequency…).   This   data   will   generate   certain   hypotheses   that   will   be   checked   with   the   data   of   the   more   qualitative   research   activities   (interviews…).  The  data  sets  will  be  analyzed  using  different  actor  perspectives:   the  end-­‐user,  the  professional  user,  the  operator…     3.2.5 Organisational aspects Below  the  organisations  conditions  of  the  innovating  pilot  re  listed:   •

Creating the  organizational  conditions  of  the  pilot     We   needed   one   project   leader   who   communicates   with   the   LL   in   Spain,   does   the   administration   and   assists   in   the   project   deliverables.   Next   to   that   the   transfer   needs   two   developer’s   one   web   and   one   for   the   framework.   For   the   Spanish   side   there   is   also   a   project   leader   with   the   same   responsibilities   as   the   Dutch   one.   There   is   one   technical   lead   who   knows  the  ins  and  outs  about  the  ADL  system  and  who  can  teach  the  end   users  on  how  to  use  the  ADL  system.  

The collaboration  frameworks,  maybe  partner  contracts   It  is  a  small  ecosystem  the  only  3th  party  involved  is  in  Spain  for  reaching   out  to  the  end  users.  IAV  used  a  home  care  organization  to  gather  elderly   and  family  members.  No  contracts  where  needed  for  the  partners.    

The efforts  on  ecosystem  development  and  adaptation   Again   it’s   a   very   small   ecosystem,   expansion   of   the   ecosystem   will   be   reviewed  when  the  results  of  the  pilots  are  evaluated.  The  first  lesson  to   learn  is  to  what  extent  the  Spanish  user  (elderly  and  family)  have  similar   needs  for  an  ADL  system.  Second  task  is  to  build  up  an  ecosystem  to  reach   out  to  the  elderly  and  figure  out  if  this  needs  to  be  done  directly  or  via  a   care  organization?  

 

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

24

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3

4. Technical pilot aspects In this  section  we  described  technical  adjustments  of  the  system,  like:   • • • •

SIP server   Camera’s   Interface     Internet  connectivity  

4.1 Xtramira Case In Deliverable   2.2   it   was   described   that   the   Xtramira   deployment   in   Finland   will  be  done  with  Palmia  and  Helsinki  City  homecare.  The  system  was  supposed   to  be  piloted  both  in  home  alarm  situation  and  also  by  homecare  to  give  virtual   care  and  cure.   After  the  feasibility  study  of  the  Televic  system  it  was  apparent  that  the  setup  did   not  meet  the  technical  nor  performance  requirements  of  the  commercial  setting   Palmia  had  in  mind.  Examples  of  this  are  the  fact  that  a  secure  network  for  video   communication  is  too  expensive  and  a  backhaul  solution  is  needed  for  in  alarm   situations,   such   as   analogue   telephone   line.   The   pilot   was   supposed   to   start   in   March   2011   but   it   had   to   be   postponed   as   a   new   pilot   environment   needed   to   be   established.   It  was  decided  jointly  with  Televic  that  the  pilot  will  be  used  in  a  social  context   which   means   that   there   will   be   a   more   common   Living   Lab   approach   with   the   Belgium   Living   Lab   using   Xtramira.   For   this,   10   elderly   users   living   at   home     and   10   hearing   impaired   people   were   recruited   for   the   Xtramira   pilot.   The   6   month   pilot   was   supposed   to   start   during   fall   2011.   After   Televic   had   sent   the   units,   they   were   tested   in-­‐house,   both   by   the   IT-­‐department   of   the   receiving   Living   and   an   external   IT-­‐specialist.   pilot   with   Xtramira   is   estimated   to   start   September   2011   and   will   be   carried   out   for   6   months.   In   this   new   situation   Forum  Virium  as  a  Living  Lab  will  act  as  the  local  ecosystem  taking  the  overall   responsibility   of   the   setting   up   of   the   pilot:   recruitment,   installations,   training   etc.   The   setup   of   the   pilot   is   depicted   below   in   Figure   1   Several   Xtramira   devices  are  connected  to  the  network.  The  Xtramira  devices  can  communicate   with  each  other  and  also  with  SIP  softphone  clients  installed  on  a  PC  or  laptop.   The  communication  is  not  only  an  audio  connection  but  also  bidirectional  video   communication  is  possible.  Once  a  contact  is  selected  in  the  phonebook  or  a  SIP   contact  is  entered,  the  other  device  or  softphone  client  is  contacted  and  a  video   connection  is  established.   Different   cameras   are   connected   to   the   Xtramira   devices   in   order   to   be   able   to   evaluate   the   video   quality   and   difference   between   different   cameras.   There   is   an   infra   red   camera   so   that   the   person   living   at   home   can   be   seen   better   at   night.   Also  different  cameras  with  the  same  technical  specifications  are  used,  so  that  it  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

25

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 can be  tested  if  there  is  a  difference  in  subjective  quality  noticed  by  the  people   using  the  solution.   The  SIP  server  used  in  the  setup  is  from  a  third  party  provider,  which  connects   all   the   devices   to   each   other.   The   Configuration   server   is   hosted   by   Televic   Healthcare  and  provides  an  online  configuration  portal  to  configure  the  Xtramira   devices   so   that   they   can   be   updated   remotely   by   the   Living   lab.   The   configuration  portal  is  used  for  adding  contacts  to  the  phonebook  of  the  devices   or  for  uploading  an  updated  software  version.   The   configuration   server   collects   specific   connection   data   from   the   Xtramira   devices   which   are   up   and   running.   The   server   knows   the   IP   address   of   the   devices,  the  last  time  the  device  registered.  Based  upon  the  feedback  of  the  users   more   (different)   elements   can   be   included   in   the   next   software   version.   These   monitoring   options   at   server   side   are   important   in   case   connection   problems   would  arise.    

Figure  1:  Xtramira  pilot  setup    

4.2 Innoviting Case The ADL   system   is   hosted   by   Innoviting   in   the   Netherlands   under   the   domain   https://adl.livind.nl/.   Users   in   Spain   access   the   service   through   the   URL   http://iavante.es/apollon.   Internet   connectivity   is   provided   to   all   the   users   via   SIM   cards   with   3G   data   access   installed   in   the   ADL   router.   The   service   provider   is   Orange.   When   available   at   the   user’s   home,   ethernet   connection   plus   DSL   internet   access   is   used  too.   ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

26

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 The SMS   alert   service   is   provided   by   Innoviting’s   provider   in   the   Netherlands.   The  option  of  using  an  Andalusian  provider  that  services  IAVANTE  was  explored   and  technically  solved  but  Innoviting  considered  it  was  more  convenient  to  keep   the  original  Dutch  provider  for  the  service.   Elderly   people   who   have   the   system   installed   at   home   do   not   need   to   perform   any   kind   of   active   interaction   with   the   system.   From   their   point   of   view   the   product  is  completely  passive.   Family   members   and   other   informal   caregivers   that   may   access   the   service   are   trained   in   the   use   of   the   ADL   website   in   a   demonstrative   session   that   lasts   30   minutes   and   have   a   contact   point   (apollon@iavante.es)   available   for   any   question  they  may  have,  as  well  as  for  reporting  any  issue  or  technical  problem   they  may  face  when  using  the  website.     The  ADL  router  (a  local  router  that  gathers  all  the  information  from  the  motion   sensors   and   other   detectors   and   sends   it   to   the   service   servers)   is   configured   locally  by  Iavante  following  setup  instructions  provided  by  Innoviting.  The  main   set  up  parameters  that  have  to  be  written  for  each  specific  family/router  are:     • • • •

The system  identifier,  so  that  the  user  access  to  the  website  matches  the   correct  device  kit  installed  in  the  elderly  person  home.   Internet  access  parameters  for  the  3G  SIM  card  installed  in  the  router  .   Pairing  each  installed  motion  sensor  in  the  home  with  the  corresponding   room  in  the  service  web  interface.   Setting  up,  in  conjunction  with  the  caregivers,  the  desired  parameters  for   inactivity  alerts  (motion  time-­‐outs)  and  night/day  patterns.  

After each  system  is  installed  in  a  user’s  home,  a  test  is  performed  to  make  sure   that   all   sensors   are   transmitting   correctly   their   readings   to   the   router   and   that   the   router   is   correctly   uploading   the   information   to   Innoviting’s   servers.   Each   sensor   is   tested   for   detection   in   the   whole   room   and   also   for   tampering   alerts   (a   small   pushbutton   in   the   back   of   the   sensor   that   allows   the   system   to   detect   manipulations).   The   router   provides   an   administration   interface   that   shows   all   the  current  reading  of  the  sensors  and  the  list  of  sensors  that  are  properly  paired   with  the  router.     There  are  two  kinds  of  user  frontends,  one  is  the  mobile  phone  and  the  other  is   the  web  interface.  The  mobile  phone  gets  the  SMS  messages  the  server  sends  out   when  there  is  a  rule  triggered.    The  other  frontend  is  the  web  interface  where   caregivers  can  login  to  get  a  closer  look  on  the  current  status  of  their  elderly,  see   also  the  screenshot  below  (figure  2).  It  displays  the  different  insights  that  the   caregivers  want  to  follow.  It  shows  a  flow  of  red  to  green,  where  green  means  it’s   going  OK  and  red  means  something  is  going  wrong.  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

27

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3

Figure  2:  Screenshot  of  ADL  interface    

4.3 Conclusions It is  clear  that  within  the  process  of  cross-­‐border  living  lab,  the  pilot  set  will  have   to  perform  some  technological  adjustments  in  able  to  roll  out  in  the  various   contexts.  These  adjustments  go  further  than  standard  localization  issues  such  as   translation  or  other  GUI  elements.  Contextual  elements,  such  as  regulations,  do   also  have  an  impact  on  technological  aspects  and  conditions:  such  as  liability,   security.     Before  deploying  the  technology  into  the  Living  Lab,  the  adjustments  and  the   final  set-­‐up  need  to  be  tested  locally  –  preferably  in  a  real  life  setting  (reflecting   the  conditions  of  the  test-­‐users).  This  does  not  only  enable  you  to  evaluate  the   adjusted  set-­‐up  and  fine-­‐tune  some  loose  ends,  but  to  detect  also  non-­‐technical,   contextual  issues  (due  to  the  cross-­‐border  difference)  that  have  an  impact  on  the   set-­‐up.  It  is  within  this  pre-­‐testing  that  the  service  or  product  can  totally  checked   and  fine-­‐tuned  to  the  level  that  is  fully  working  and  ready  for  full  deployment  in   the  living  lab.        

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

28

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3

5. Crossborder research goals The common   approach   for   the   activities   in   Work   Package   2   is   in   line   and   accordance   with   the   guidance   and   instructions   provided   by   Task   1.2   of   Work   Package   1   (APOLLON   Methodology   Framework)   and   specifically   by   Deliverable   1.1   (Catalogue   of   state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art   concepts,   existing   tools   and   lessons   learned   from   cross-­‐border   living   labs   networks)   and   Deliverable   1.2   (Research   framework  and  investigation  strategy).  Deliverable  1.3  (Framework  for  Apollon   evaluation   and   impact   assessment,   including   KPI   definition   and   Measurement)   will   be   used   for   evaluation   and   KPI   assessment.   In   this   sense,   the   activities   encompassed   by   Work   Package   2   fit   with   several   stages   of   the   Living   Lab   Networks   Management   Stages,   i.e.:   Connect,   Plan   and   engage,   Support   and   govern,  Manage  and  track.       The  following  issues  will  be  taken  into  account  evaluating  the  cross  border     •

On the   level   of   the   end-­‐users,   i.e.   how   the   technology   is   being   used   and   experienced?   This   will   be   done   by  applying   user   research   in   each   of   the   experiments   based   on   a   common   research   framework   as   populated   in   section  3.   On   the   level   of   the   pilot,   i.e.   how   the   partners   /   stakeholders   are   experiencing   the   collaboration,   whether   there   are   any   problems   occurring.  This  will  be  assessed  by  means  of  interactive  workshops  with   these  stakeholders  or  individual  interviews.     On   the   level   of   the   methods   and   tools   used,   i.e.   whether   these   are   tools   sufficient,   appropriate,   who   is   using   them.   During   and   at   the   end   of   the   experiment   the   Living   lab   will   the   common   approach   as   well   as   the   Apollon  methodology  using  the  impact  indicators  as  determined  in  WP1;   what  tools  and  methods  do  we  need.   On   the   level   of   the   impact,   i.e.   to   what   extent   the   participating   stakeholders   benefit   from   the   cross-­‐border   aspects,   how   this   is   relevant   for   other   Living   Labs,   whether   is   can   be   replicated,   what   the   concrete   benefits  are  in  up-­‐scaling.  How  do  we  measure  the  benefits,  evaluation  of   the  LL  etc.  How  will  we  compare  things?  

In  Table  11  below  the  Cross  border  research  goals  and  indications  how  to  obtain   answers  for  both  cases  are  listed.  These  Tables  are  related  to  the  Table  3  and  5,   but  Table  11  is  specifically  focusing  on  the  cross  border  research  aspect.    

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

29

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 Table  11:  Cross  border  research  goals   Cross  border  research   goal    

Achieved via  

Responsible party  

The contextual  difference   between  the  local  and  remote   LL.  The  way  cultural   differences  can  modify  the  use   of  the  same  base  technology.   Does  the  “export”  affect  the   evolution  of  the  system  in   ways  not  detected  in  the   originating  pilot?  

Compare the  different  settings  

Aalto  &  IBBT  

Meetings with  the  different   stakeholders  to  address  specifc   needs   Listing  requirements  from  the   additional  partners  and   contextual  factors  (such  as   legislation)   In-­‐house  testing  to  assess  the   transferred  technology    

Gain knowledge  of  the   healthcare  market  in  other   countries;  culture,  finance,   competition.  Mainly  upfront   information;  only  cultural   issues  can  be  gathered  from   the  user  questions,  because   the  other  points  are  not   essentially  user-­‐related.  

Next to  stakeholders,  identifying   and  gaining  insights  in  the  other   aspects  that  are  eco-­‐system   dependent  such  as  legal   framework,  technical  standers,   existing  processes…  

What is  the  added  research   value  provided  by  the   operation  in  a  network  of   living  labs  from  different   places  with  a  common  living   lab  methodology?  

Compare the  topics  that  are  the   living  labs  will  be  confronted   with  during  cross-­‐border  pilots   on  health  e.g.  privacy  issues,   interoperability…  

FVH  &    TLV  

Assess them  through  three   monthly  reports   IBBT,  FVH,  IAV,   AIM    

Try to  build  up  better   understanding  in  both  the  own  as   well  as  in  other  health  eco-­‐ systems  in  order  to  be  more   efficient   Discuss  the  role  of  the  Living  Lab   in  the  cross-­‐border  pilot   (facilitator,  initiator…)  

Analysis   of   the   cross-­‐border   collaboration   is   done   by   comparing   various   data   with  regard  to  the  lessons  learned  and  the  Apollon  methodology  framework  (as   developed  within  WP1).  To  this  end  we  will  use  the  different  ‘diaries’  that  every   partner  have  used  to  keep  track  of  its  activities  and  lessons  learned.  The  analysis   will  be  done  based  on  the  four  levels  of  the  overall  Apollon  framework:  connect,   set   boundaries   &   engage,   support   &   govern   and   manage   &   track.   We   will   especially   focus   on   the   experiences   of   the   SMEs:   what   are   the   experiences,   impact  on  the  organization,  added  value…   ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

30

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 Important   in   Apollon   is   the   benefit   Analysis   for   SMEs.   This   will   be   done   by   looking  both  at  the  activities  in  each  of  the  pilots  that  are  influencing  the  SMEs   and   at   the   assessment   of   the   common   approach   to   cross   border   network   of   Living  Labs  operating  in  the  field  of  eHealth.  The  different  parts  contributing  to   the  improvement  for  SME’s  are  measured  by  different  parameters,  see  Table12     below.  Both  experiments  will  capture  the  data  during  and  after  the  pilot.     Table  12:  Evaluating  SMS  benefits  in  cross  border  pilots     SMEs  improvements  

Measured via  

Development of  Platform   a)  Establishment  of  the  platform   for  SME  involvement   b)  Usage  of  the  platform  by  SME’s   with  Living  labs  in  cross   c)  Amount  of  Cross-­‐border  requests  by  SME’s   border  cooperation   posted/conducted   Increased  involvement  of   a)  Types  of  (new)  activities  conducted  by  SME’s  in   SMEs  with  Living  Labs   Living  Labs.   b)  Types  of  (new)  activities  conducted  by  Living   Labs  to  involve  SME’s   Approach/method,  formal  interview?   List  a  number  of  questions  to  get  feedback  from.   Access  to  new  markets   a)  Effort/funds  spent  and  still  needed  to  enter  the   beyond  the  home  market   foreign  market  with  a  real  commercial   product/service:  still  a  lot  of  work  needs  to  be   done,  the  first  important  one  is  having  a  local   representative,  the  second  is  developing  a  business   model  covering  all  local  market  specifics.   b)  List  of  barriers  overcome:  Better  view  on  the   remote  Healthcare  ecosystem,  this  is  the  first  step   c)  List  of  barriers  still  to  address  for  access  to  the   market:  local  representative,  development  on   product  to  match  the  remote  setting  and  needs   d)  Track  record  (elements)  in  the  new  market   Access  to  new  ecosystem   a)  Amount  of  established  (new)  contacts  of  relevant   partners  and  business   partners   opportunities     b)  Coverage  of  established  contacts  of  the  different   types  of  stakeholders  across  the  whole  value  chain:   partly,  the  main  stakeholders  locally  in  the  remote   region  are  involved  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

31

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 Expertise in  Pan-­‐ European  user  testing  to   ensure  more  user-­‐ oriented  services  and   products  and  higher  user   acceptance  at  European   level  

a) Amount  of  user  testing  experts  contacted  from   remote  Living  Lab  

Support of   competitiveness  because   of  enlarged  scale  and   faster  deployment  of   novel  services  and   processes  

a) Competition  (strength)  comparison  in  foreign   market  in  terms  of  amount  of  competitors,  

b) Amount  of  information  gathered  from  other   relevant  experiments  

b) Market  share  distribution  for  c4  (4  biggest   competitors  in  terms  of  market  share)  

Easy access  to  all  local   a)  One  stop  shopping  broker/  intermediary   relevant  stakeholders  via   available?     a  single  point  of  access   b)  Contact  established  broker/  intermediary   Access  to  tools,   applications,  services   and  infrastructure  of  the   different  Living  Labs  as   well  as  the  other   partners  related  to  the   Living  Labs  

a) Amount  of  available  tools  

Lower thresholds  to   engage  in  cross-­‐border   research,  development   and  innovation  

The threshold  is  lower  than  before  the  Apollon   project,  because  a  better  view  on  what  is  needed  to   go  cross  border  resulted  from  the  project  and  some   practical  manuals  and  “how  to’s”  are  build.  

b) Amount  of  relevant  tools  actually  used  

The results   of   both   the   pilot   projects   will   be   analyzed   along   these   dimensions   and  parameters  as  listed  in  the  table.  The  benefits  for  the  SMEs  are  important  for   both   the   Living   Labs   involved   and   the   SMEs   themselves.   In   Deliverable   1.3,   an   extensive   set   of   variables   are   listed   how   SME   involvement   as   well   as   ICT   involvement  can  be  measured,  the  Table  13  for  an  overview.       Table  13:  Proposed  measures  as  suggested  in  Deliverable  1.3     Measures  for  SME  involvement  

Measures for  involvement  of  (ICT)    

Number SME  engagement  activities  

Number of  products  that  has  been  transferred  in   the  experiment  

Number of  new  international  partners   Number  of  signed  letter  of  intent  between   partners  and/or  customers   Number  of  new  businesses  generated  in   ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

Number of  cross-­‐border  collaboration  tools  that   has  been  used  the  experiment   Number  of  NEW  (for  the  stakeholders)  ICT-­‐tools  

32

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 other countries  

that has  been  used  in  the  experiment    

Number of  new  business  proposals    

Number of  distributed  cross-­‐border  collaboration   activities  

Number of  new  customers  in  other   countries   Did  the  cross-­‐border  collaboration  lead  to   increased  turnover   Did  the  cross-­‐border  collaboration  lead  to   increased  customer  retention   SME  engagement  activities  in  detail  (e.g.   developing  technology,  user  tests,   implementation  of  technology  etc)   What  was  the  role  of  the  SME  in  the  cross-­‐ border  collaboration?  

Did the  cross-­‐border  collaboration  tools  you  used   lead  to  increased  access  to  relevant  information   Did  the  cross-­‐border  collaboration  tools  you  used   lead  to  increased  effectiveness  in  communication   Did  the  cross-­‐border  collaboration  tools  you  used   lead  to  increased  co-­‐creation  of  innovations   among  stakeholders     Which  collaboration  tools  have  been  used  to   support  the  cross-­‐border  collaboration  in  the   experiment  

One   of   the   important   question   that   needs   to   be   answered   within   eHealth   crossborder  pilots  is  on  the  “common  eco-­‐system”,  for  example  too  what  extent   is  it  a  problem  if  not  the  same  parties  are  on  board,  etc…   The  analysis  of  the  benefits  of  the  cross-­‐border  network  in  eHealth  Living  Labs  is   going   to   focus,   among   others,   on   the   contextual   factors;   how   the   pilot   specific   factors  influence  the  outcomes  of  the  project  and  how  these  factors  contribute  or   inhibit   the   results.   Issues   such   as   language,   customs   and   cultural   aspects   are   serious  obstacles  in  cross  border  experimentation.   Eco-­‐systems  can  be  used  as  a  metaphor  for  analysis  of  the  context,  both  before   and   during   the   pilot   phase   an   exercise   will   show   the   opportunities   and   challenges  for  SMEs  in  the  different  environments  is  Europe.  The  lessons  learned   from   the   pilots   will   be   of   help   in   setting   up   the   support   structures   that   the   network  of  eHealth  labs  needs  to  provide  to  be  of  relevance  to  its  customers.   For   the   evaluation   of   the   eco-­‐system   a   standardized   model   demonstrating   the   main  actors  in  the  ecosystem  and  the  functions  that  these  perform  in  providing   the   service   is   used.   This   model   is   filled   in   for   the   situation   before   the   start   of   the   project   and   for   the   situation   during   the   project.   With   the   different   eco-­‐systems   described  the  changes  can  be  visualized  and  qualified.     Apollon  Task  2.4  will  address  these  issues.    

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

33

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3

6. Crossborder lessons learned up till now In  this  section  we  describe  the  first  set  of  lessons  learned  with  regard  to  the  pilot   setup   and   preparations   for   both   cases.   In   Deliverable   2.4   we   will   provide   extensive   overview   of   the   lessons   learned   when   all   the   pilots   and   experiments   have  been  conducted.  

6.1 The Xtramira case The importance   of   a   local   ecosystem   with   its   different   stakeholders   and   their   specific   roles   depends   on   many   different   factors.   A   list   of   these   factors   and   some   explanation  on  these  factors  is  given  below.   •

The local   ecosystem   provides   interesting   opportunities   for   the   identification   of   (local)   business   opportunities.   Without   such   a   local   ecosystem  and  cross-­‐border  partners  who  know  these  ecosystems  and  its   participants,  it  would  be  impossible  or  it  would  at  least  take  much  more   time-­‐  and  effort  consuming  to  get  to  know  the  eco-­‐system  and  to  be  able   to  identify  possible  business  opportunities.  

Each eco-­‐system   requires   a   different   approach   concerning   the   business   models  used.  Different  business  models  in  different  eco-­‐systems  need  to   be  set  up  in  order  to  benefit  from  the  roles  of  the  different  stakeholders,   the  different  way  of  working,  the  established  financial  streams,  etc.  

Importance of   regulations,   policies   and   legal   requirements   can   not   be   forgotten   when   bringing   a   product   across   borders.   Especially   in   the   Health   care   domain,   this   factor   can   not   be   underestimated.   Different   financial   streams   based   on   specific   local/governmental   guidelines   and   regulations  are  in  order.  For  a  business  model  to  succeed,  one  needs  to  be   aware  of  these  policies  and  take  them  into  account.   Having  good  links  to  the  stakeholders  of  the  local  eco-­‐system  will  greatly   improve   the   success   rate   of   doing   business,   however   this   can   only   be   accomplished   when   the   importance   of   efficient   communication   is   acknowledged.   Being   able   to   communicate   directly,   preferable   with   the   correct  nuances,  and  in  time  with  the  involved  partners  is  crucial.  Part  if   this  efficient  communication  is  strongly  linked  to  the  importance  of  clear   contact   persons   (and   their   roles   and   responsibilities).   When   is   aspect   is   clear,  communication  can  be  much  more  efficient.  

Being aware  of  the  different  terminology  that  is  sometimes  used  (e.g.  the   use  of  resident/patient  versus  client  is  a  huge  difference)  in  different  eco-­‐ systems   is   important   too,   since   this   will   only   ameliorate   the   understanding  between  the  different  partners.  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

34

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 •

In setting   up   business   across   borders,   the   importance   of   third   parties   and   the  role  of  the  living  lab  to  act  as  mediator  can  not  be  underestimated  and   has  a  great  added  value.  

In order   to   set   up   a   business   model   across   borders,   it   needs   to   be   identified   which   are   the   differences   in   the   case   specific   settings.   For   example,   e.g.   selling   products   versus   services   can   be   related   to   the   differences  in  eco-­‐systems.  Another  example  in  case  of  the  Xtramira™  case   is   the   use   of   social   communication   versus   alarming   a   very   important   issues,  social  communication  is  a  very  important  part  of  wellbeing  in  one   eco-­‐system,   but   not   in   the   other.   Another   example   is   having   an   alarm   centrally   dispatched   to   a   central   desk   or   peer   to   peer   communication   in   a   community,   which   makes   a   big   difference   in   how   the   product   needs   to   be   launched   in   a   new   eco-­‐system.   Also   the   difference   in   in   case   specific   requirements  and  functionalities  needs  to  be  taken  into  account,  e.g.   •

Secured and  encrypted  communication  needed  in  the  Finnish  case   versus  non-­‐encrypted  in  the  Flemish  case.  

Backhaul solution   for   alarm   needed   in   case   the   IP   connection   fails,   then   the   alarm   can   still   be   dispatched   over   the   analogue   or   mobile   phone  network.  

Private configuration   portal   for   the   devices   in   local   network   is   wanted  instead  of  having  a  centrally  located  configuration  portal.  

Different resolution   is   wanted   for   the   camera   which   part   of   the   product   (or   even   different   types   of   cameras   for   instance   with   remotely   controlled   steering   or   infrared   functionalities   for   night   vision).  

Support for   specific   protocols   is   requested   in   order   to   improve   the   communication  security.  

These are   all   examples   of   different   functionalities   required   in   the   new   eco-­‐ system,  which  need  to  be  addressed  otherwise  the  product  will  not  be  sold.   •

Other aspects  are  the  ethical/social  requirements/issues,  e.g.  social  norm:   putting   cameras   in   the   living   space   of   the   people   is   subject   to   some   anxiety   in   Flanders,   in   Finland   the   healthcare   provider   decides   that   the   people  get  camera  in  their  living  spaces  to  improve  safety  and  the  people   accept  this.  

Operational  issues   •

Localization issues   (such   as   different   languages   in   the   user   interface   need   to  be  used):   •

Technical issue   with   the   different   languages:   the   lengths   of   the   fields   in   the   user   interface   are   different   and   can   form   an   issue   so   that   the   user   interface   needs   to   be   redesigned   (length   of   Finnish   words  is  very  long  compared  to  Dutch).  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

35

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 •

Language experts   are   needed:   it   would   be   best   of   there   is   one   mutual   language   so   that   the   translation   can   be   done   with   the   needed   nuances,   otherwise   the   translation   is   done   from   Dutch   to   English,   then   from   English   to   Finnish,   resulting   in   loss   of   specific   meaning  due  to  semantics).  

“How to”   procedures:   there   need   to   be   translated   manuals   for   instance   for   how   to   use   the   product   or   service,   how   to   install   the   product,  trouble  shooting,  much  frequently  asked  questions,  etc.  

Extensive product   knowledge   transfer:   much   more   explicit   technical   information  is  needed,  and  it  needs  to  be  written  down  in  order  to  be  able   to  more  easily  and  efficiently  introduce  the  product  in  the  eco-­‐system.  

Documentation and  training  needs  to  be  available  in  a  different  language   and   much   more   elaborate   since   informal   communication   is   much   less   used   with   partners   you   do   not   have   relationship   with.   Examples   of   documentation  and  training  needed  are  listed  below.   •

Manuals (quick   installation   guide,   quick   starting   guide,   and   configuration  guidelines)  

Helpdesk troubleshooting  +  FAQ  

Technical (device  +  configuration)  

Workshop material  

Case study  

Training material  

Content list  

Functionalities

Set up  information  

Set up  of  a  support  desk  is  needed  (decisions  need  to  be  made  whether  a   local   or   not   (remote)   desk   is   needed,   logging   and   tracing   needs   to   be   available   and   someone   needs   to   be   training   to   evaluate   this   data   when   needed).    

Need for   remote   software   updates:   since   the   distance   is   bigger,   the   devices   or   services   need   to   be   remotely   updated   when   new   features   or   bug  fixes  are  available.  

Before rollout   of   the   devices   at   the   people’s  homes,   enough   time   needs   to   be  sent  on  setup  of  the  system  and  the  back  end,  such  as  network,  servers,   and  configuration  portal.  

When problems  occur,  there  is  a  need  for  a  local  validation  environment   so   that   the   issues   can   be   reproduced   and   a   technical   solution   can   be   found.  

Clear definition  of  the  different  functionalities  and  applications  is  needed   in  order  to  define  a  good  business  model.  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

36

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 •

Thorough testing  is  needed  of  existing  functionalities  to  be  sure  that  the   functionality  is  still  working  as  intended  in  the  new  environment.  

The new   eco-­‐system   gives   the   opportunity   to   test   new   functionalities   since   the   stakeholders   and   the   requirements   are   different.   This   may   result   in   a   broader   vision   on   functionalities   and   applications   and   the   identification   of   main   mutual   functionalities.   Knowing   these   functionalities,   the   resulting   product   can   be   adapted  and  can  be  optimized.   •

It needs   to   be   clear   to   all   stakeholders   involved   in   the   transfer   across   border  that  there  is  a  different  focus  in  the  remote  living  lab  than  in  the   local  living  lab  introduced  by  the  difference  in  ecosystems.  

However, we   also   need   to   be   aware   of   the   fact   that   the   focus   on   applications/services/functionalities   which   are   different   than   for   the   “home”  market  might  result  in  loss  of  focus  for  the  local  market.  

Living  lab  issues   •

Distance requires   a   different   approach   including   communication   means   and  a  local  representative  

Importance of  (friendly)  users  with  different  profiles  

Huge importance  of  local  representatives  

6.2 The Innoviting case The Innoviting   case   learns   us   that   it   is   better   to   involve   SME’s   in   cross   border   experiments  when  they:   •

Have a  real  business  in  their  own  market,  i.e:   o revenue   stream   from   existing   clients.   This   will   help   to   define   the   target   group   and   needed   ecosystem.   The   whole   proposition   can’t   be  turned  if  there  a  stable  income.  If  a  working  proposition  is  not   present  the  SME  is  able  to  shift  it  goals  and  strategy  very  easily  and   in   big   project   this   will   not   be   recommended.   Also   this   will   make   the   start-­‐up   phase   of   the   project   slow.   There   is   no   clear   goal   of   scope  and  the  end  result  will  be  able  to  drift  into  other  directions.   o commercial   products.   Same   as   description   above.   A   finalised   product  sets  boundaries  on  the  projects  and  prevents  drifting.  Also   when   there   is   an   amount   of   clients   using   the   solution   this   means   the   project   is   tested.   Innoviting   transferred   the   new   (and   still   in   development)   solution   to   Spain.   Keep   in   mind   to   use   the   same   product   as   used   in   the   local   country   and   not   transfer   to   the   next   generation.  This  means  also  that  you  have  to  get  rid  of  hiccups  at   the  start,  and  there  will  be  enough  already  so  you  don’t  want  these   extra  ones.     o On   the   plus   side,   the   flexibility   can   come   in   handy   when   modifications  are  needed  to  be  done  to  make  the  solution  work  in  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

37

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3

other countries.   And   lessons   learned   that   this   is   a   100%   chance   this  is  going  to  occur.   Have   sufficient   capacity   (manpower)   that   can   be   used   for   cross   boarder   experimentation,  as  current  business  always  prevails  above  (subsidized)   research   projects,   e.g.   a   large   business   deal   in   home   country   is   always   more   interesting   than   small   pilots   abroad.   Capital-­‐intensive   projects   have   a  much  lower  heart-­‐beat  than  SME  product  development.     o For  an  SME  in  the  start-­‐up  phase  the  liquidity  of  the  business  is  a   main  concern.  This  can  put  the  focus  on  sales  and  income  instead   of  the  long  term  R&D.  

Involvement of  SME’s  should  be  as  late  as  possible  in  crossborder  projects,  not   long  before  the  actual  start  of  the  research  project  as  currently  is  needed  in  the   EU   projects,   SME’s   need   flexibility   and   planning   needs   to   be   anticipating   on   ongoing  product  development  during  project  as  SME’s  have   •

No desire  to  work  on  last-­‐years  technology  

New insights  in  needs  from  cross-­‐border  cooperation  

The whole  research  setup  is  not  interesting  for  an  SME.  It’s  interesting  to   have   a   look   on   the   side   and   take   some   parts   that   are   applicable   for   the   SME.   But   an   SME   just   wants   to   work,   move   forward   and   see   results,   research  frameworks  are  more  seen  as  a  delay.  

There could  be  a  risk  if  you  involve  SME’s  later  on  in  the  project  that  you   can’t  find  one?  But  don’t  forget  that  SME’s  can  decided  much  faster  than   multinationals,   can   shift   their   goals   more   easily   and   could   use   some   money  for  R&D.  You  can  only  pull  off  this  risk  if  you  have  a  large  network   of   SME’s   and   you   know   a   few   who   would   fit   in   the   project   and   are   willing   to   do   the   work.   If   you   have   to   find   SME’s   you’re   going   to   lose   a   lot   of   time   because   they   are   hard   to   find   because   of   the   lack   of   external   communication.  

6.3 General conclusions Both cases   provided   lessons   learned   with   regard   to   the   pilot   setup   and   preparations.   All   aspects   can   be   integrated   in   to   a   SWOT   analysis   to   speed   up   the   setup   and   preparations   when   wanting   to   conduct   a   cross   border   pilot.   In   Deliverable  2.4  we  will  provide  more  cross-­‐border  lessons  learned,  also  from  the   execution  of  the  pilots.    To  sum  up,  important  aspects  are:     Importance  of  local  ecosystem  with  its  stakeholders  and  their  roles   •

Need for  solid  eco-­‐system  covering  all  roles  and  activities  

Early identification  of  (local)  business  opportunities.  

Early investigation  of  local  regulations,  policies  and  legal  requirements  

Setting-­‐up partner   meetings   at   the   early   stage   so   that   scope   can   still   be   adjusted  

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

38

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3 •

Need for   a   central   actor   in   the   remote   context   (Living   Lab   or   business   unit)  that  act  as  coordinator  

Importance of  (friendly)  users  with  different  profiles  

Define the   win-­‐win   for   all   parties   and   use   this   as   the   framework   for   the   pilot  set-­‐up  

Involve SME’s   in   cross   border   experiments   that   have   existing   revenue   stream   from   existing   product   in   their   own   market   real   business   in   their   own  market,  i.e:  

Operational  issues   •

Perform an  SWOT  analysis  

Iterative, quick  adjustment  of  technologies  

Follow-­‐up by  all  partners  –get  them  involved  

Keep partners  in  the  loop  

Use tracking   methods   so   every   partners   knows   what   the   other   is   doing   and  their  status  (as  close  to  real-­‐time)  

Local technical   validation   as   soon   as   possible,   i.e.   take   into   account   the   differences  in  language  (documentation,  interface,  etc.)  

Set-­‐up support  helpdesk  

Think of  the  language    

 

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

39

Version: Final, 06/02/2012


Apollon – Deliverable 2.3

References Apollon  Deliverable  1.1:  “A  Catalogue  of  state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art  concepts,  existing  tools   and  lessons  learned  for  cross  border  Living  Lab   networks”     Apollon  Deliverable  1.2:  “Research  Framework  and  investigation  strategy”   Apollon  Deliverable  1.3:  “Framework  for  APOLLON  Evaluation  and  Impact   Assessment  including  KPI  definition  and  measurement”   Apollon  Deliverable  2.1:  “Requirements”   Apollon  Deliverable  2.2: “Common  Living  Lab  Approach”    

ICT PSP Project Reporting Template

40

Version: Final, 06/02/2012

Profile for European Network of Living Labs

Apollon - Homecare and Well-Being - Cross Border Living Lab Set-up  

As stated in the Description of Work Document (DoW) and in Deliverable 2.2 of this Work Package (“Common Approach”), Work Package 2 within A...

Apollon - Homecare and Well-Being - Cross Border Living Lab Set-up  

As stated in the Description of Work Document (DoW) and in Deliverable 2.2 of this Work Package (“Common Approach”), Work Package 2 within A...

Profile for enoll
Advertisement