Apollon - Energy Efficiency - Recommendations for a Cross Border Network of Living Labs in Energy Ef

D.3.6

DELIVERABLE Project Acronym:

APOLLON

Grant Agreement number:

250516

Project Title:

Advanced Pilots of Living Labs Operating in Networks

D3.6 - Recommendations for a cross border network of Living labs in Energy Efficiency

Version: Final Authors: Francisco Gonçalves (LBN) – Deliverable responsible Miguel Águas (LBN) Veli-Pekka Nitamo (PV) – Task responsible Riitta Oja (PV) Rob van Oirsouw (PV) Marita Holst (CDT) Anna Ståhlbröst (CDT) Álvaro Oliveira (ALF) Manuel Nina (ALF) JochemFloor (LIA) GoharSargsyan (LOG) Idália Torres (ISA) João Nogueira (ISA) Pentti Lauononen (HSE) AndreasAndersson(LEN)

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

1

x

Final Version

D.3.6

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Statement of originality: This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise.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.

2

Final Version

D.3.6

Table of contents Table of contents............................................................................................................. 3 1

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5

2 Energy Efficiency in Europe and Innovation (current problems/ challenges/ opportunities) ................................................................................................................. 6 3

Living Labs ............................................................................................................... 11

4

Energy Efficiency Living Labs.................................................................................... 14 4.1

Stakeholders analysis in an Energy Efficiency Living Lab ......................................... 20

4.1.1

SME involvement .................................................................................................... 21

4.1.2

User involvement.................................................................................................... 23

4.1.2.1

Effect-logic with user involvement .................................................................. 23

4.1.2.2

Different kind of users and contributors ......................................................... 24

4.1.2.3

Different Degrees of User Involvement........................................................... 25

4.1.2.4

Selecting Users................................................................................................. 26

4.1.3

Utilities involvement............................................................................................... 27

4.1.4

Large enterprises involvement ............................................................................... 30

4.1.4.1

5

Contribution to Standards: .............................................................................. 31

4.1.5

Public authorities .................................................................................................... 31

4.1.6

Research ................................................................................................................. 32

4.1.7

Other stakeholders ................................................................................................. 33

4.1.7.1

Energy Regulators ............................................................................................ 33

4.1.7.2

Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) ................................................................. 34

Cross border piloting and networking...................................................................... 35 5.1

Technology Transfer ............................................................................................... 37

5.1.1

Knowing the context............................................................................................... 37

5.1.2

Local energy context ............................................................................................... 37

5.1.2.1

Finland ............................................................................................................. 37

5.1.2.2

Netherlands ..................................................................................................... 37

5.1.2.3

Sweden ............................................................................................................ 38

5.1.2.4

Portugal ........................................................................................................... 38

5.1.3

Technology transfer and testing ............................................................................. 38

5.2

Knowledge Transfer ............................................................................................... 39

5.3

Business Transfer ................................................................................................... 40

6

Guidelines for the establishment of a network of EE LL ........................................... 41

3

Final Version

D.3.6 6.1

Framework ............................................................................................................. 41

6.2

Identify the current energy efficiency LL from ENoLL and national clusters ............. 45

6.3

Connecting ............................................................................................................. 45

6.3.1

Tools and Methods that can be of use in this phase .............................................. 46

6.3.1.1

Cross Border Living Lab Contract Template .................................................... 46

6.3.1.2

Implementation of the Method....................................................................... 46

6.3.1.3

Business model design for cross border living labs networks ......................... 47

I.

Business model building block framework (Osterwalder) .................................... 47

II.

Target group: Living Labs ..................................................................................... 48

6.3.1.4

Policies and Regulations Databases................................................................. 48

6.4

Set-up boundaries and engage ............................................................................... 49

6.5

Support and govern knowledge transfer................................................................. 49

6.6

Manage and track (data issues, relation among partners)....................................... 50

6.6.1

Management of Living Lab projects ....................................................................... 50

6.6.1.1

Living lab as an innovation approach ............................................................. 51

6.6.1.2

Open innovation ............................................................................................. 51

6.6.1.3

Networked innovation .................................................................................... 51

6.6.1.4

Living Lab projects as networked innovation ................................................ 51

6.6.1.5

Competences for management of Living Lab projects .................................. 51

6.6.1.6

Selecting and finding partners ........................................................................ 53

6.6.1.7

Expected benefits and drawbacks .................................................................. 53

6.6.1.8

Recruitment of participants............................................................................ 53

6.7

Communication and cooperation with stakeholders ............................................... 53

6.8

Lessons learned from Apollon’s Energy Efficiency Experiments............................... 54

7

References .............................................................................................................. 55

4

Final Version

D.3.6

1

Introduction

As stated in the Description of Work Document (DoW) and in Deliverable 3.1 of this Work Package (“Requirements”), Work Package 3 within APOLLON clustered four Living Labs that focus on energy efficient solutions that were transferred and piloted from one Living Lab to another (receiving) Living Lab. This experiment targeted the challenges in terms of Energy Efficiency which the European Union is currently facing. To identify and address these key challenges, an ICT-based transformation of the sector is needed both in production and consumption. Knowing that heating, cooling and lighting of buildings account for more than 40% of European energy consumption, the Energy Efficiency use case focused on the stimulation of behavioural changes by providing real-time updates on energy consumption through smart meters. This required a cross-border large scale demonstration approach.

Therefore the Energy Efficiency vertical experiment clustered four running local Living Lab projects in four countries dealing with Energy efficiency in general and Smart metering in particular: the Energy Pilot in Sweden, the Pilot for real-time in Finland, the Amsterdam Smart City in the Netherlands and the Lisbon Energy Pilot in Portugal. Each of these projects was independently investigating how smart metering technology could be used in the most efficient way and created behavioural change. The goal was to validate the outcomes of these projects on a broader scale by using a common research benchmark and, by doing so, enhance the scalability of Living Lab research.

This deliverable is coordinated by Lisboa E-Nova, Lisbon’s Municipal Energy and Environmental Agency, and is inserted in Task 3.4, under the responsibility of Process Vision, being a natural consequence of D 3.5 Evaluation report on the cross-border experiment and on D 3.4 Setup of the Experiment in the cross-border Living Lab. This D3.6 makes an overall description of the interaction between ICT and behaviour change, Apollon methodology contribution, a state of the art in user behavioural change regarding energy efficiency, current Policy and Regulations and stakeholder analysis.

5

Final Version

D.3.6

2

Energy Efficiency in Europe and Innovation (current problems/ challenges/ opportunities)

People's well-being, industrial competitiveness and the overall functioning of society are dependent on safe, secure, sustainable and affordable energy. The energy infrastructure which will power citizens' homes, industry and services in 2050, as well as the buildings which people will use, are being designed and built now. The pattern of energy production and use in 2050 is already being set. The EU is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050 in the context of necessary reductions by developed countries (The Roadmap for moving to a competitive low-carbon economy in 2050).[21] The EU policies and measures to achieve the Energy 2020 goals and the Energy 2020 strategy are ambitious. They will continue to deliver beyond 2020 helping to reduce emissions by about 40% by 2050. They will however still be insufficient to achieve the EU's 2050 decarbonisation objective as only less than half of the decarbonisation goal will be achieved in 2050. This gives an indication of the level of effort and change, both structural and social, which will be required to make the necessary emissions reduction, while keeping a competitive and secure energy sector.[22] Today, there is inadequate direction as to what should follow the 2020 agenda. This creates uncertainty among investors, governments and citizens. [22] Energy efficiency is at the heart of the EU’s Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and of the transition to a resource efficient economy. Energy efficiency is one of the most cost effective ways to enhance security of energy supply, and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. In many ways, energy efficiency can be seen as Europe's biggest energy resource. This is why the Union has set itself a target for 2020 of saving 20% of its primary energy consumption compared to projections , and why this objective was identified in the Commission’s Communication on Energy 2020 as a key step towards achieving our long-term energy and climate goals. [21] Figure 1

Substantial steps have been taken towards this objective – notably in the appliances and buildings markets. Nonetheless, recent Commission estimates suggest that the EU is on course to achieve only half of the 20% objective [21]. The EU needs to act now to get on track to achieve its target. Responding to the call of the European Council of 4 February 2011 to take 'determined action to tap the considerable potential for higher energy savings of buildings, transport and products and processes', the Commission has therefore developed this comprehensive new Energy Efficiency Plan.

It will be pursued consistently with other policy actions under the Europe 2020 Strategy's Flagship Initiative for a Resource Efficient Europe , including the 2050 roadmap for a lowcarbon economy , to ensure policy coherence, assess trade-offs between policy areas and benefit from potential synergies. The energy efficiency measures will be implemented as part 6

Final Version

D.3.6 of the EU's wider resource efficiency goal encompassing efficient use of all natural resources and ensuring high standards of environmental protection [22].

The combined effects of full implementation of the existing and new measures will transform our daily life and have the potential to generate financial savings of up to € 1 000 per household every year; improve Europe’s industrial competitiveness; create up to 2 million jobs; and reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 740 million tons [21].

The greatest energy saving potential lies on buildings. The plan focuses on instruments to trigger the renovation process in public and private buildings and to improve the energy performance of the components and appliances used in them. It promotes the exemplary role of the public sector, proposing to accelerate the refurbishment rate of public buildings through a binding target and to introduce energy efficiency criteria in public spending. It also foresees obligations for utilities to enable their customers to cut their energy consumption [21].

Targets for energy efficiency are an effective way to trigger action and create political momentum.

Improvements to the energy performance of devices used by consumers – such as appliances and smart meters – should play a greater role in monitoring or optimizing their energy consumption, allowing for possible cost savings ensuring that consumer interests are properly taken into account in technical work on labelling, energy saving information, metering and the use of ICT[21] .

Consumers need clear, precise and up to date information on their energy consumption – something that is rarely available today. For example, only 47% of consumers are currently aware of how much energy they consume. They also need trustworthy advice on the costs and benefits of energy efficiency investments. The Commission will address all of this in revising the legislative framework for energy efficiency policy [21].

Under current EU legislation, final consumers should already be informed frequently about their energy consumption at the time of use to enable them to regulate their consumption through individual meters for all important types of energy: electricity, gas, heating and cooling and hot water. They should also be provided with information through their bills and contracts about prices and energy costs. This should be presented in ways which help them improve their energy efficiency, for instance relating their consumption to benchmarks or available energy efficient solutions[21].

In accordance with Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC and Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC2, Member States are required to ensure the implementation of smart metering systems that assist the active participation of consumers in the electricity supply and gas supply markets and implementation of those metering systems may be subject to an economic assessment of all the long-term costs and benefits to the market and the individual

7

Final Version

D.3.6 consumer or which form of smart metering is economically reasonable and cost-effective and which timeframe is feasible for their deployment[20].

In future years the deployment of a European "smart grid" will bring about a step change in the scope for gathering and communicating information about energy supply and consumption. This information will allow consumers to save energy. Member States are obliged to roll out smart electricity meters for at least 80% of their final consumers by 2020 provided this is supported by a favourable national cost-benefit analysis. It is important to ensure that intelligence can also develop in other networks, such as heat, cooling and gas, and that these intelligent networks all contribute to build a well-functioning, interoperable market for energy efficiency services. Smart grids and smart meters will serve as a backbone for smart appliances, adding to the energy savings obtained by buying more energy efficient appliances[21].

New services will emerge around the development of smart grids, permitting ESCOs and ICT providers to offer services to consumers for tracking their energy consumption at frequent intervals (through channels like the internet or mobile phones) and making it possible for energy bills to indicate consumption for individual appliances. Beyond the benefits for household consumers, the availability of exact consumption data through smart meters will stimulate the demand for energy services by companies and public authorities, allowing ESCOs to offer credible energy performance contracts to deliver reduced energy consumption. Smart grids, meters and appliances will allow consumers to choose to permit their appliances to be activated at moments when off peak cheaper energy supply or abundant wind and solar power are available – in exchange for financial incentives. Finally, they will offer consumers the convenience and energy saving potential of turning appliances on and off remotely[21].

Delivering on this potential requires appropriate standards for meters and appliances, and obligations for suppliers to provide consumers with appropriate information (e.g. clear billing) about their energy consumption including access to advice on how to make their consumption less energy intensive and thus reduce their costs.

Further, the Commission needs to ensure that energy labels (energy performance certificates) and standards for buildings and appliances reflect, where appropriate, the incorporation of technology that makes appliances and buildings “smart grid ready” and capable of being seamlessly integrated into the smart grid and smart meter infrastructure. Appliances such as fridges, freezers and heat pumps could be the first to be tackled [21].

The smart grid—an electricity grid that uses two-way digital technology to create greater equilibrium in the supply-and-demand relationship—has long been an aspiration of energy experts and system managers. Its approaching implementation promises improved reliability, fewer outages, and greater customer awareness of energy usage and costs. The smart grid is also expected to advance the adoption of socially beneficial technologies such as renewable generation sources and electric vehicles. A business model is emerging, especially for customer applications, while regulators, utilities, and third-party service providers define their roles and set technology standards [35].

8

Final Version

D.3.6 Public awareness of smart grid technology has expanded in Europe, especially as a result of the adoption by the EU of the Third European Energy Liberalization Package, which resulted in the above mentioned Directive where it is stated the obligation of installation of smart meters in 80% of the households by 2020 [5].

The lack of clear technology standards for smart meters and home-area network (HAN) communications, uncertainty about the level of regulatory support for necessary investments and disappointing demand for smart grid-enabled services by consumers (who do not perceive a strong valid proposition for bringing this technology into their homes), have slowed the more comprehensive application of smart meters in Europe [35].

Within the EU, country level deployment of smart meters falls into four groups [3]: -

Early adopters Countries with mandated rollouts, but limited deployment Countries with active pilot projects, but no mandated rollout Inactive countries

Figure 2 – Smart meter deployment by EU member states; [36]

Following the Final Guidelines of Good Practice on Regulatory Aspects of Smart Metering for Electricity and Gas, published by the European Regulators’ Group for Electricity and Gas (hereafter referred as ERGEG) in relation to the concept of smart metering systems, concerns might be raised regarding [5]: 1. The security of the metering data that is stored, transmitted and retrieved; and 2. The privacy of the customer.

ERGEG supports the on-going work within the Smart Grids Task Force launched by the European Commission. ERGEG would in particular like to emphasise the importance of the 9

Final Version

D.3.6 work being done which deals with regulatory recommendations for data safety, data protection and data handling.

For ERGEG it is of the utmost importance that the privacy of customers is protected. All reasonable endeavours have to be undertaken to address data security and privacy issues before implementing a smart meter roll-out. ERGEG suggests that national solutions are applied but stresses the importance of cooperation with national agencies dealing with privacy issues and data security, to make sure that the specificities relating to energy are taken into account [5].

Open data applications resources will be available in a normalized way, through an easy-toaccess established communication channel. This is a fundamental asset in a governance established policy, focused on the citizen’s active participation in the decision making process and in the city’s development strategy. It intends to stimulate innovation, entrepreneurship and foster the appearance of crowd sourcing phenomena in which the problems resolution participation process is enhanced as well as in the effort to improve the city’s services and infrastructures.

10

Final Version

D.3.6

3

Living Labs

Throughout Europe there is a concept called Living Lab that is emerging at rapid pace. At this moment, 274 Living Labs are members of the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) and this network is continuously growing. The members of the network are operating all around the world, but their main residence is in Europe. The rationale behind these Living Labs is to support companies to open up their boundaries toward their environment and to elicit creative ideas and work capabilities existing among different stakeholder. The primary goal of these Living Labs is thus to support the innovation process for all involved stakeholders, from manufacturers to end-users and to do that with users in the centre and in real world contexts.

A Living Lab can be defined as an innovation organization that supports the involvement of the whole value chain in the development of innovative services in co-creative activities with users in their real world context[31].

In this section, a short presentation of our interpretation of the Living Lab concept is given together with a description of the key principles that formed the basis of work in the separate pilots.

Viewing Living Labs as an environment several different types of Living Lab environments can exists such as, research Living Labs that might focus on performing research on different aspects of the innovation process, corporate Living Labs that focus on having a physical place where they invite other stakeholder (e.g. users) to cocreate innovations with them, organizational Living Lab where members of an organization co-creatively develop innovations, and intermediary Living Labs where independent partners are invited to collaboratively innovate at a neutral arena. Due to development of the concept other types certainly exists. To be able to understand what a Living Lab is there are some should have. The components for a research Living Lab are ICT and Management, Partners and Users, Research and Approach, see figure above.

Figure 3

the constant of Living Labs components it Infrastructure,

The ICT & Infrastructure component outlines the role that new and existing ICT technology can play to facilitate new ways of cooperating and co-creating new innovations among stakeholders. Management represent the ownership, organization, and policy aspects of a Living Lab, a Living Lab can be managed by e.g. consultants, companies or researchers. The Living Lab Partners & Users bring their own specific wealth of knowledge and expertise to the collective, helping to achieve boundary spanning knowledge transfer. Research symbolizes the collective learning and reflection that take place in the Living Lab, and should result in contributions to both theory and practice.

Technological research partners can also provide direct access to research that can benefit the outcome of a technological innovation.

11

Figure 4

Final Version

D.3.6 Finally, Approach stand for methods and techniques that emerge as best practice within the Living Labs environment [17].

A Living Lab can also have a specific approach to innovation. This approach is built on five key principles. These are: Value, Sustainability, Influence, Realism and Openness and these should permeate all Living Lab operations, see figure 2 above.

In more detail, the key principles can be described as follows: - Value: The notion of value and value creation in a Living Lab concerns several different aspects such as economical value, business value and consumer/user value. A Living Lab might also provide insights about how users perceive value. These insights should guide the innovation process to be able to deliver innovations that are perceived as valuable from an economical, business, and a consumer perspective. A Living Lab has the opportunity to create value based on all aspects of the value term - Sustainability: This key principle refers both to the viability of a Living Lab and to its responsibility to the wider community in which it operates. Focusing on the viability of the Living Lab highlights aspects such as continuous learning and development over time. Here, the research component of each Lab plays a vital role in transforming the everyday knowledge generation into models, methods and theories. Other important aspects related to the sustainability of a Living Lab is the partnership and its related networks since good cross-border collaboration, which strengthens creativity and innovation, builds on trust, and this takes time to build up. Also, in line with the general sustainability and environmental trends in society it is equally important that Living Labs also take responsibility of its environmental, social, and economic effects [18].

- Influence: A key aspect of the influence principle is to view "users" as active and competent partners and domain experts. As such their involvement and influence in innovation and development processes shaping society is essential. A key aspect of the influence principle is to view "users" as active and competent partners and domain experts. As such their involvement and influence in innovation and development processes shaping society is essential. Equally important is to base these innovations on the needs and desires of potential users [4], and to realize that these users often represent a heterogeneous group. While users often are described as drivers and shapers of technology [15], [26] they still very often are treated as a homogeneous and passive group that carry out activities assigned to them. Hence, one important issue that Living Labs need to manage is how to assure that participation, influence and responsibility among different partners harmonizes with each other and with the ideology of the user influence of the project.

- Realism: One of the cornerstones for the Living Lab approach is that innovation activities should be carried out in a realistic, natural, real life setting. Orchestrating realistic use situation and user behaviour is seen as one way to generate results that are valid for real markets in Living Lab operations[24][32]. However, the aim to create and facilitate realism is an endeavour that needs to be grappled with on different levels and in correlation to different elements such as contexts, users, use situations, technologies, and partners. The principle does not separate between the physical and

12

Final Version

D.3.6 the online world. Instead we argue that activities carried out in both worlds are as real and realistic to its actors.

When it comes to facilitating as realistic use situations as possible two different approaches can be observed in relation to Living Labs. In the first approach, environments for test and evaluation of products or services are created in ways that are similar to the real world[27], while in the second approach products and services are tested and evaluated in users’ real world environments [25]. Another important aspect related to the principle of realism, but not specifically addressed by the principle, is the fact that different stakeholders face different realities. Different perspectives and views on the reality are also often mentioned reasons for why it is crucial to involve users as well as many different stakeholders in the development process. The reality aspect is also considered by focusing on involving real users, not using personas or other user representative theories.

- Openness: The principle of openness emphasizes that the innovation process should be as open as possible. The idea is that multiple perspectives bring power to the development process and achieve rapid progress. The openness supports the process of user-driven innovation [16][30]. In a Living Lab, digital innovations are created and validated in collaborative multi-contextual empirical real-world environments.

Openness is crucial for the innovation process in a Living Lab, where it is essential to gather a multitude of perspectives that might lead to faster and more successful development, new ideas and unexpected business openings in markets. However, to be able to co-operate and share in a multi-stakeholder milieu, different levels of openness between the stakeholders seems to be a requirement [24].

In open innovation literature [19] the perspective of openness is of concern, firms driving innovation processes to reach for example new products, services or new markets. I Living Labs, usually three dimensions of openness is applied. These are the open mind, open with results and open process. Having an open mind means that individuals involved in the innovation process should be open to take in new perspectives and feedback during the process. Being open with results refers to the situation where the Living Lab opens up their processes and feedback their knowledge to their environment. This is an in-side out perspective on openness. Finally, the open process means that the innovation process should be designed to support continuous and unanticipated input from the surrounding. This is an out-side in perspective on openness. Openness can also be seen as an overarching philosophy that is being used as the basis of how various groups and organizations operate.

13

Final Version

D.3.6

4

Energy Efficiency Living Labs

The use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in the dynamics of energy has been largely applied in several sectors of the society, promoting awareness at an operational, management or user level.

The ICT sector can supply services and tools that simplify energy management and communication. Considering that energy efficiency can only be achieved through technological solutions together with behavioural changes, this WP3 was the driver to improve the sustainability of the energy chain at the local level, enhancing the potential for energy consumption reduction and engagement in user behaviour change and creating a network of pilots focused on ICT applications at the energy management level, engaging the stakeholders in reducing energy consumption, and hence decreasing CO2 emissions.

A real-life experiment was specifically designed to pilot and validate that cross-border domainspecific collaboration between Living Labs leads to measurable improvements in ICT product and service innovation, that it brings significant added value to SMEs including micro entrepreneurs, and that it leads to sustainable networks strengthening the European innovation fabric. Furthermore, each experiment will have a complementary focus on specific harmonisation and networking aspects, i.e. a common ecosystem, a common benchmark framework, a common technology platform, and a common integration framework. The APOLLON general framework for piloting a cross-border domain-specific Living Lab network is depicted below [11]: The activities involved in the energy efficiency pilot had the main focus of cross-border transfer of both technology and knowledge. For this we have distinguished the following different type of cross boarder activities [2]: − − − − −

Business partnerships; Technology transfers; Road shows & demos; Clustering SMEs; Other experiments & activities.

The analysis and evaluation of these activities are depicted in D 3.4 and D 3.5 [11][12].

The involvement of the SMEs in these cross border activities was one of the objectives of the Apollon project. The challenge was to identify and show the benefits that cross-border activities have to offer to the SME’s. Being private companies, the goal, in the end of the day, is to make business and have profit. Thus, the best benefit offer is helping them on achieving more profit by the establishment of partnerships and the creation of synergies between themselves [10].

Another target of these activities is the end-user. Each technology transfer pilot has its own specific target users but they are using common methodologies what allows for generalising the findings to other Living Labs.

Cities and urban areas of today are complex ecosystems with a diversity and quantity of people, companies, authorities with their specific needs and demands, different challenges.

14

Final Version

D.3.6 This also creates a critical mass when it comes to experimentation: experimentation in an open user driven innovation environment [29].

The Living Lab approach aims to gain sufficient knowledge about users’ needs and desires within their own environment, using that information as knowledge for the deployment of future ICT based systems. Hence, the objective of the Living Lab methodology is to apply a methodology to IT systems development that will attract users and therefore succeed in an increasingly competitive market, facilitating the interaction between other relevant stakeholders, such as research organizations, companies, public and civic sectors and the society [30], as described in 4.1.

This methodology can be resumed to a communication - feed-back – user behaviour change mechanisms that should be sensitive to the need for an inclusive approach to ensure that ICT systems functionalities and services are perceived and can be used by all people, inclusively the semi-literate, the visually impaired, elderly people, etc. Involving schools is an essential asset in this approach to attract parents, as children are excellent vehicles for absorbing information and motivating engagement from their family and friends. Moreover, households’ energy consumption is not static and children grow-up becoming major energy consumers in their own right, what makes this effort a significant one, as user behaviour change does not happen overnight. It’s the fruit of long and continuous information, communication and awareness programme that persists until behaviour is no longer a change, but rather a normal action in daily habits [30].

In the service sector, buildings are the greatest consumer, playing electricity the largest share of the consumption. The strategies set so far to support this increasing consumption are based on energy supply diversification. To increase the set of available energy sources, from conventional energy sources to renewable energy, to maximize local potential for decentralized production, to work on smart energy grids, an essentially supply based strategy, much focused on technology development. It’s proven by now that the achievements of this strategy come with a price as the costs of energy are steadily rising. Its’ within this framework that the European Commission launched the Near Zero Energy Buildings Directive, aiming at promoting buildings balanced equilibrium between energy demand and in site energy supply.

The fact that renewable energy technologies, namely those more easily introduced in the urban environment, have not yet reached grid parity motivated the adoption of the “first reduce energy consumption and then meet these energy needs with renewable energy technologies” concept. This has been the main motor to embrace the other field in the energy equation, demand. Working on demand is working on energy efficiency, towards maximizing the potential for a new source of energy, the so called “negajoules”, which is the avoided toe, the energy we can spare and live without.

15

Final Version

D.3.6

Figure 5- Development of primary energy demand and of “negajoules” in EU-25 1971-2005 “Negajoules”: energy savings calculated on the basis pf 1971 energy intensity - (Source: EU 2006c: 5)

The basis of “negajoules” is knowledge, knowledge on how to reduce energy consumption and act more efficiently, as the shifting of the demand’s energy profile ultimately leads to changes in the energy supply structure. To this end it’s essential to know where to act, what’s the starting point, how is the energy consumption prolife, which are the highest consumptions, at what time, and so on. This is where ICT allies with energy, being recognized as an enabler of higher energy efficiency [13]. ICT can contribute to delivering a sustainable, low carbon society and help progress towards the Europe 2020 targets on climate and energy. ICT can assist in reshaping the demand side of our energy-dependant society, providing the basis to achieve energy consumption reduction, and subsequently CO2 emissions, in particular in electricity distribution, buildings and construction, transport and logistics, the public sector, rural areas and cities. The perception of the energy demand profile is essential to reduce and reshape energy consumption, smooth peak hours, transfer consumption to off peak hours, settle dynamic baselines of consumption according to energy supply conditions. This also means an integrated approach to the combination of conventional energy supply with renewable energy technologies, according to existing resources and energy needs [21].

One of the strengths in the deployment of ICT projects is the possibility and successfully proven benefit of involving users and encourages them to act as equal co-creators, in a Living Lab approach, bridging the pre-commercial gap between research and the market by building business-citizens-government partnerships [2].

In the last years there has been an increasing number of Living Labs throughout Europe. As mentioned, these Living Labs do not only differ in the composition and approach but also in the domains addressed. As a first step in networking these initiatives, the exchange of highlevel principles and best practices for individual Living Lab set-up and implementation is now being addressed in a number of national and European projects. The concept of Living Labs can be interpreted and used as a human-centric research, a development approach in which ICT innovations are co-created, tested, and evaluated in open, collaborative, multi-contextual real16

Final Version

D.3.6 world settings. Additionally, the Living Lab approach does not focus only on involving users in the development processes; it also strives to facilitate the interaction between other relevant stakeholders, such as research organizations, companies, public and civic sectors and the society [29].

The main difference between the Living Lab approach and traditional user involvement processes is the precondition that the user involvement activities should take place in realworld contexts. This means, for example, that potential users are involved in their own private context all day round. Hence, when a Living Lab approach is applied, the aim is to create as authentic a use situation as possible. In traditional user involvement processes, users can be asked to use a system or device in a so-called field study. In these processes, the user is requested to use the device in a context in which the researcher, or developer, can observe users’ actions and how the technology impacts them. The creations of such “test conditions” fail to be authentic and to give real results due users influence to these “standard conditions” and perception of observed answers and behaviours [29].

In the table below is the summary of the 4 different Common Research Benchmark table gathered from 4 different LLs in the energy efficiency experiment, within Apollon [12]: Activities/ Outputs Constructs

Model

17

Build

Evaluate

Justify

Generalize

What are the variables that you study?

1. Feasibility of business model and cross-border cooperation between SMEs. 2. Changes in user behaviour.

3. Energy consumption patterns.

4. User response to smart metering technology as a service/impro ved usability of your solution.

What are the elements that you measure?

1. SME interest and collaboration activities.

Openness and trust, willingness to invest.

2. Behavioural change data against energy consumption.

3. Changes in daily, weekly, monthly and yearly patterns.

4. Exchanging best practices when designing user interphases, impact of user feedback.

How do you decide best practices across the experiments?

1. Integrated technical solution, cooperation agreement, possible business value.

2. Effectiveness of user intervention and empowerment of users.

3. Level of user participation created.

4. Comparison between sites sites and understanding difference in context.

How do you filter pilot specific elements out?

1. Understanding socio-economic and technical context.

2. Understanding the socio-cultural context of each practical experiment.

3. Understanding technical solution and its applicability.

4. Understanding specific technical solutions depending on different climate conditions or other variables.

What are the basic assumptions, causalities and

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

1. Replicability of

What are the success criteria that you use?

1. Follow-up few years behaviours of LL sites against consumption

How do you assess the wider applicability of the model?

1. Refer to common

Final Version

D.3.6

Method

18

outcomes that you perceive?

1. The user behaviour is changed only through proactive project dissemination and communicatio n of best practices.

2. Establishing co operation protocols between SMEs is to promote technological transfer with assurance that SMEs won’t deviate from their natural core business.

3. Create sustainability between energy centred LLs in Europe with EnoLL 4. If trust and value sharing takes place it will result sustainable business consortia.

interventions in other LLs. Comparing user populations.

2. Replicability in common practices.

Common value propositions and transparency between LLs and active participants (SMEs) 3. Evaluation should start soon by ENoLL 4. Did not yet materialize in great scale. Also to be evaluated by EnoLL members among their partners

2. Follow up LL questionnaires on value between collaboration 3. Follow up cross border activities and their value propositions and how they are met.

4. Questionnaires to companies, continued Apollon like projects.

research 2. Growth of LL activities in Energy savings 3. Received funding and efficiency of EnoLL 4. Very difficult but common regulation needed for Europe and EnoLL role important

What is the process for validating the assumptions?

1. Level of partner commitment and efficiency of ecosystem building.

2. Continuous measurement of behavioural change

How do you evaluate and adjust the validation process?

1. Quality of commitment and contingency plans 2. Measurement of user behaviour, introduction of new interventions 3. Quality of data and localisation success in business terms

How do you justify the use of selected methods?

1.Effectiveness of partnering activities, level of trust, partner accessibility 2. Effectiveness of intervention 3. User trust and accessibility and business results

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

1. Understanding the roles in and expectations for the business ecosystem.

Common business proposals and success rate 2. Understanding the drivers for change in user

Final Version

D.3.6 3. Iterative development of technical solution and its localisation.

Installation

Who are the stakeholders at your experiment?

Portugal: ISA (technology provider); building dwellers and building administration; Lisboa E-Nova (local energy agency).

Finland: Process Vision (SW and service provider); ISA, There, Aidon, UTU Powel (technology providers); Varma Insurance company (Client and building owner); Aalto University (academic partner)

behaviour 3. Installation total cost, time to market and other business parameters.

How do you evaluate added value for each stakeholder?

Portugal: ISA: solution demo and user feedback on the usability; Dwellers and building administration: lower energy costs and increased energy and global sustainability awareness Lisboa E-Nova: mainstreaming the best environmental and energy practices at a residential level Proof of new market potential for each partner.

Finland: New business for Process Vision and service model for Varma. New opportunities for testing to other companies involved.

How do you justify the selected collaboration model?

Portugal: ISA: creating new service business with partners, reasonability and feasibility of offers; creation of common vision and readiness to invest.

Dwellers and building’s administration: understanding the pilot and scaling it up Lisboa E-Nova: Obtaining an energy reduction pattern at a residential level.

Finland: Strong common business interest and willing to scale with Varma. More LL activities with EnoLL.

How do you compile recommendations for sustainability?

ALL Countries: Sustainable revenue sharing and business model for ISA and partners; Pay-back model for the dwellers Data collection: Dwellers and SME Interviews, savings proven, user satisfaction and behavioural change.

Common plans agreed locally and desired goal for the 4 LL sites to continue.

Sweden: Proof of Concept among different LLs

Sweden: Extended business for KYAB, Benchmarks for LuleĂĽ Energi

Sweden: KYAB/Saber (technology and service provider); LuleĂĽ Energi (Supporting partner) Netherlands: Amsterdam LL and Amsterdam Innovation

19

Final Version

D.3.6 Motor (facilitators, Technical solutions and service providers); Liander and Home automation Europe (Operator) Table 1 - Common Research Benchmark table gathered from 4 different LLs in the energy efficiency experiment

Energy savings achieved in the four different living labs have been achieved as means of three different layers; smart metering solutions with their 'built-in' reporting to end-users, partner SME/LL operator's created reporting to end-users and end-user engagement activities designed by the living lab operators. In all the four LLs there has been many stakeholders involved that have all contributed to some of these three layers, it is quite difficult to deduct the individual impacts but instead the whole impact is quite clear in terms of energy saving results. Also the results will still continue even after this project has ended and the energy savings will most likely cumulate to even higher level in the future, but this does not say to which LLs and in what rate. The research framework has given all the LLs the possibility to evaluate all the three layers individually and to view the feasibility and business prospects between themselves and the partners contributing to each layer. As a whole the research framework has given the partners in WP3 a tool to view their own actions individually and also the possibility to exchange the best practices from their own LLs, whether they be the solution from just one layer of the experiment or a practice that has been molded from the all.

4.1

Stakeholders analysis in an Energy Efficiency Living Lab

Cities and urban areas of today are complex ecosystems with a diversity and quantity of people, companies, authorities with their specific needs and demands, different challenges.

This also creates a critical mass when it comes to experimentation: experimentation in an open user driven innovation environment.

The Living Lab approach aims to gain sufficient knowledge about users’ needs and desires within their own environment, using that information as knowledge for the deployment of future ICT based systems. Hence, the objective of the Living Lab methodology is to apply a methodology to IT systems development that will attract users and therefore succeed in an increasingly competitive market, facilitating the interaction between other relevant stakeholders, such as research organizations, companies, public and civic sectors and the society.

The figure below summarizes the stakeholders’ involvement in an Energy Efficiency Living Lab:

20

Final Version

D.3.6

Figure 6 - Stakeholders’ involvement in an Energy Efficiency Living Lab

4.1.1 SME involvement The involvement of a SME in an Energy Efficiency Living Lab aims the access to new markets beyond the home market, the access to new ecosystem partners and business opportunities aneasy access to all local relevant stakeholders via a Single Point Of Access, the access to tools, applications, services and infrastructure of the different Living Labs aswell as the other partners related to the Living Lab, as well as, lower thresholds to engage in cross-border Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) [2].

A variety of SME can be interested in integrating an Energy Efficiency Living Lab, such as: smart metering devices providers, energy consultants, technology providers (LED, electrical vehicles, software, etc) SMEs can participate in Living Labs by submitting their own projects to be tested or developed inside the network. Living Labs must provide companies’ access to Users Test Platforms and Large Scale Pilots (helping to understand and study market needs, new opportunities, impacts and dissemination approach) and R&D Entities that will contribute with technological developments.

Living Labs allows SMEs to sell or license new products, services or technologies that are being developed by other companies or Research Institutions.

They also have access to a large number of companies and contacts, what will increase their networking and of course provide new business opportunities.

SMEs are fundamental for the network dynamics. They bring innovative vision and projects and often have high growth and are technology driven. They are the entities responsible for 21

Final Version

D.3.6 converting scientific research into services and products with commercial application. The growth capacity and technology intensity of these companies have a positive impact on their respective countries in many ways, so it is very important to support them in their early stages.

This kind of companies can be very attractive for investors looking for the high potential investment returns generated by high growth technology-based companies [2].

In a Living Lab SMEs have the opportunity to share risks, as well as access R&D institutions and, of course, management support, market advice and validation by user groups (who also help them in developing products and services). SMEs will find opportunities to conduct research to validate assess and develop ideas or business concepts and enhance their understanding of market implementation and trends. Having a brilliant idea is not enough, as the implementation and business model are crucial to the success of any business.

Being ISA, Apollon partner, a SME with expertise in telemetry the main role in the project was sharing know how and exchange experiences.

The main output expected was to better understand and know leveraging investments in foreign markets, high profile cross-border partnerships, projects and pilots in consistent Living Lab networks and ecosystems with the possibility of understand users, their trends and changing their behaviours to reach a more sustainable society.

Apollon allowed working closely with markets, methodologies and networks. This interaction was a fundamental contribution to access and search for future applications, services and structures that could help in internationalization process as well as access new partnerships and pilot. It was very interesting because help to understand how Living Labs and other Institutions around Europe work, their expertise and methodologies, enabling valuable ideas to implement.

As an Innovation consultancy and Research company specialized in Living Lab methodologies and deeply involved in the implementation of Energy Efficiency projects, Alfamicro, in this project, provided Project Management competencies, acted as a matchmaker for European and International project ecosystems and defines and manages Web 2.0 dissemination strategies for companies, Living Labs and projects.

Alfamicro’s services increased the impact and dissemination activities of projects and Living Labs at National, European and International level, providing and communicating high visibility events in Brazil, China and Africa.

It has been also through Alfamicro that the negotiations of the APOLLON WP3 with ENoLL have occurred, namely in the preparation of the Energy Efficiency Network

22

Final Version

D.3.6 4.1.2

User involvement

When it comes to why users should be involved in the development of information systems, several reasons are given. In the following a selection of such motives and benefits is presented and clustered into three end-motives: ethical (democracy), curiosity (theoretical), and economic (pragmatic) [32] .

The first motive is guided by the values of ethics and democracy, the second is driven by curiosity and theoretical values while the third perspective is governed by the value of economy and efficiency.

Economic (pragmatic) perspective: The main motive for user participation from an economic perspective is to get the job done better. This usually entails improving innovation quality (effectiveness and efficiency) and the acceptance of the innovation. When it comes to the quality of the innovation, the emphasis is on improving functional requirements by increasing designers understanding of the actual use context and gain access to, and combine, different stakeholders knowledge, skills, and expertise. When it comes to system acceptance, commitment and expectation management among the users are crucial. The key concept for this perspective is getting the job done better and more costeffectively.

Ethical (democracy) perspective: According to the ethical motive for user participation, people have a moral right to influence their own destiny, and users have a right to influence technological decisions affecting their private and professional life. To do this they need to participate in the design process and be given influence and mandate in the decision-making process. The guiding concepts for this perspective are democracy, power to the people, and improved quality of life. Hence, the focus is on strengthening the position of the users of technology, hence, balancing power relations [32].

Curiosity (theoretical) perspective: The curiosity motive for involving users is to learn more about the nature of participation, and operational findings from this type of research can be used both for ethical and pragmatic motives. This involves exploring issues such as the location of knowledge and knowledge sharing, different degrees and types of participation, and the ways in which corporate and national culture affect participation. The guiding concepts for this perspective are cooperation, communication, and mutual learning between participants and contributors. Hence, the focus is on creating gains for all key stakeholders [32]

4.1.2.1

Effect-logic with user involvement

The effect-logic with user involvement in innovative processes is that: − users generates more ideas − the ideas are of more innovative character [30]

23

Final Version

D.3.6 − there is a positive correlation between user involvement and users attitude towards the end product − users’ become more positive to actually use the final product − the understanding between developers and users increases which leads to a decreased development time through their continuous involvement in tests [30]; This means that it is important to involve users during the idea generation stage where their ideas can function as inspiration to new ideas, a kind of catalyst that facilitate professional developers to think outside the box.

4.1.2.2

Different kind of users and contributors

Users can also be defined as different types of users. The most apparent users are those who directly interacts with the system with the aim to finalising a task, but there are other definitions as well. Eason (1987) has clustered users into three categories: − Primary users; those likely to be frequent users of the system

Primary Users

− Secondary users; those likely to use the system through some kind of agent

Secondary Users

− Tertiary users; those likely to be affected by the introduction of the system or those affected by the purchase of the system

Non-users

In addition, Selwyn (2003) has identified a cluster of:

Lead-Users

− non-users. These are defined as those who have actively chosen to delimit or completely relinquish to use IT artefacts in their home or private life (Selwyn 2003).

End-Users

Tertiary Users

Modders

Customers Consumers

Arkaji and Lang (Arakji and Lang 2007) define users as: − modders. This means that they contribute to the product or service with modifications of different kind. This category of contributors is common in the gaming industry.

There are also many similarities between the notion user and other notions that are used within areas such as business development. That results in following concepts: − Lead users are defined as those who are in the leading edge of an important market and so are currently experiencing needs that will later be experienced by many users in the same market. In addition, they anticipate relatively high benefits from obtaining a solution to their needs, and so may innovate (von Hippel 2005, 1986; von Hippel 2001). − End users include the users who actually use the system in some way and this can be both as a content user and as a content provider and can be divided into actual end users and potential end-users. −

24

Customer and consumer, which are defined by Magnusson (2003) as follows: a customer is the person who is paying for the product, not necessarily meaning that the product will be used by that person, and a consumer is the person who both pays and Final Version

D.3.6 uses the product. In the online world, especially in e-commerce, the consumer concept can be divided into two types, the individual consumer, who is given most attention in media, and the organizational consumer, who does most of the actual shopping (Turban and King 2003).

4.1.2.3

Different Degrees of User Involvement

Ives and Olson (Ives and Olson 1984) categorized different sets of degrees of user involvement into the six subsequent clusters: −

No involvement; refers to the situation in which users are unwilling, or not invited, to take part of the development

−

Symbolic involvement; refers to the situation in which input from users is requested but not used

−

Involvement by advice; in this category, users’ advice is asked for with help of interviews or questionnaires

−

Involvement by weak control; refers to the situation in which users have the responsibility to “sign off” at each stage of the development process

−

Involvement by doing; refers to the perspective that users are design team members, or official “liaisons” with the development team

−

Involvement by strong control; in this category, users might pay for new development out of their own budget, or the users’ organizational performance evaluation is dependent on the outcome of the development effort.

An additional degree of user involvement in design processes is that of users as hostages (Larsson, 2004). This means that in the initial steps of the design process, users are encouraged to make demands, and after this, the users are excluded from the process but the design is based on the users’ demands. Then, if the final product is not acceptable to the users, the designer refers back to the demands the users stated initially and explains how these have been satisfied and considered in the design, leaving the users with all the responsibility but no actual influence (Larsson 2004).

Another way to differentiate degrees of user involvement is the for, with, and by categorization (Bekker and Long 2000; Eason 1987; Kaulio 1998). This refers both to users’ degree of involvement and their responsibility in design processes in which users are involved in development and innovation processes in different ways.

− The first type, design for users, means that the system is developed on behalf of the user. Data about the users, general theories, and models of users’ behavior are used as a base for the design. This approach often includes specific studies of users, such as interviews or focus groups. See picture on the left below. − The second type, design with users, denotes a product development approach, focusing on the user, utilizing data on user preferences, needs, and requirements as in a design for approach, but, in addition, includes a demonstration of different solutions or concepts for the users, so they can react to the differing design solutions (Kaulio 1998; Larsson 2004). See picture on the right below.

25

Final Version

D.3.6

In the third type of user involvement, design by users, a product development approach is applied, in which the users are involved actively and partake in the design of their own product (Kaulio 1998; Larsson 2004). See picture in the bottom above.

4.1.2.4

Selecting Users

There is one ground rule what selecting users to include in user involvement activities and that is that the involved user should represent the actual end-use as good as possible

This is something that needs to be considered when user from a specific group of the society are involved (Nielsen, 1993).

To select people that are suited for involvement activities, such as for example tests there are many factors to consider. GulliksenochGöransson (2002) has developed a number of guidelines for selecting users to ensure that they are as representative as possible.

−

Strive to maximize the difference between different categories of users.

−

Involve users who are flexible and willing to change and who has a strong social competence. One single sabotour can destroy a development project completely.

−

The participation must be voluntary.

−

Strive for a distribution among gender under the circumstances that the distribution occurs in the user group. Traditionally it has shown that male participants has lead to a development more focused on technical performance, while female participation has lead to a development more focused on human needs.

−

To maximize the difference among the use categories, all kind of ages needs to be represented.

−

Focus in the selection should be on the users who are the least knowledgeable about the area.

In addition, users’ involvement in the energy services market as smart meters and associated services should be used in a way to help them to manage and save energy. Consumers should be empowered and consideration should be given to their needs, expectations and acceptance as these are prerequisites to guarantee a successful take up of this new technology: − −

26

Empowering households to ensure the success of smart meters and informative billing Actions enabling tenants and building owners to fully benefit from the roll out of smart meters and from informative billing e.g. empowering consumers by involving and informing them, making sure that end-users understand the on-going changes and feel part of the development; Final Version

D.3.6 − −

Facilitating the transition towards innovative smart metering services that can help households reduce their energy consumption; Helping consumers take energy efficiency measures on the basis of the information they read on their meters or on their bills.

Living Labs can support well-guided individual and group behavioural changes triggered by immediate sensory feedback showing the related actual savings in terms of money, energy, carbon footprint at individual and group levels, within and across regions and countries. Living Labs thereby contribute to empowering the users in their endeavours to efficiently use all kinds of energy [29].

4.1.3 Utilities involvement Utilities play a major role in energy efficiency Living Lab. Although most of all are not directly present. In the case of Apollon, WP3 counted with some work and direct participation of the Dutch Utility Liander and the Swedish Luleå Energi.

Several types of utility companies may play a role of importance in Living Labs. Due to the unbundling of energy utilities within the EU, two types of entities should separately be considered: energy supplier and distribution system operator (hereafter referred as DSO) for e.g. electricity, gas, heat. Energy utilities that are not discussed here are: transmission system operator, energy trading company, raw materials supplier (e.g. oil). Below, the possible role of a DSO is described. The DSO builds, maintains and improves local energy distribution systems and can also be responsible for metering of energy usage. In the latter case, the DSO manages the energy usage data flows between consumer and energy supplier. The DSO is typically tightly bound to its region, both through infrastructure and often local government ownership.

Thus, and in view of its utility role, the DSO is an evident partner for societally relevant (but possibly not commercially viable) activities, such as pilot projects on energy savings.

Unbundled DSO’s such as Liander are deliberating which (additional) role to take in the evolving energy business.

Trends include European targets related to energy efficiency, sustainable (distributed) energy generation and electrification (electric vehicles).

Current targets include: providing insight in energy usage and savings potential of energy endusers, facilitating peak-shaving and charging infrastructure, peer-to-peer energy trading.

From its typically strong regional orientation, the future role of the DSO in a living lab might typically comprise several possible activities: 1. Current activities within Apollon and Amsterdam Living Lab a. deliver expertise related to the local power grid and implementation of energy efficiency measures b. providing (technical) insight in energy usage and savings potential c. exchange knowledge and expertise across borders on energy efficiency pilots d. carry out pilot projects and research on energy efficiency for end users; e. provide motivated pilot project participants from its large pool of consumers; f. supporting partner of LL Amsterdam Smart City.

2. Possible future activities may include 27

Final Version

D.3.6 a. Liaising between foreign and local SME’s b. Coordination of pilot projects related to energy efficiency with a link to energy infrastructure Utilities play a major role in LL in response to new challenges in electricity sector around the world. At the heart of these changes lie new ways of generating energy using fossil fuel alternatives, new electricity supply reliability requirements and the promotion of market competitiveness. These developments strength inevitably the active role played by consumers and the electricity grid, as well as the interaction between the two towards a smart grid initiative, which infrastructure will provide data concerning Medium Voltage (MV) and Low Voltage (LV) operational status, including load diagrams of the LV feeders and consumption points.

The changes involved in projects involving utilities require a significant intervention in the distribution grid, with the introduction of advanced remote energy management functionalities, the capacity to integrate microgeneration and, first and foremost, intelligent mechanisms to establish a new form of grid management and control in line with the Smart Grid concept.

In this way, utilities are creating a grid that provides the consumer: − − −

Access to energy generation facilities through microgeneration schemes, thus providing a new source of income; An active role in managing their energy consumption, helping to match supply and demand while reducing their energy costs through improved energy efficiency; Through the suppliers present in the market, access to new services, new billing methods and innovative price plans that are better targeted at each customer's individual needs, with a tendency to reduce the size of their electricity bills.

This transformation provides significant benefits not only for the new consumer/generator, but also for the remaining stakeholders in the electricity sector, including: − − −

The suppliers, who will be able to broaden their range of services, offer customers new billing methods, and use new instruments to enter the market and compete with each other; The regulators, as it will facilitate market liberalisation by generating more competition, with positive knock-on effects on electricity bills; The distribution grid operator, as it will increase the reliability and quality of energy supplies while reducing operating costs and energy losses;

The transformation under way is a top priority for European electricity distribution grid operators, involving research and development into emerging technologies. Those who manage to excel in the design and operation of “intelligent” solutions stand to benefit from their pioneering approach and secure themselves a competitive position in the field (first mover advantage) [34].

Liander is a DSO specifically for electricity and gas, which aims to facilitate the energy transition towards a sustainable and affordable energy system, together with its 2.8 million 28

Final Version

D.3.6 customers.Liander constitutes the largest part of the holding Alliander N.V. next to Liandon and Endinet.

Liander’s motivation to participate in Apollon consisted of three parts: (1) to stimulate SME’s working on energy efficiency in the Amsterdam region to explore business opportunities across borders and to provide a piloting environment and participants for foreign SME’s to the same end; (2) to gain knowledge about energy efficiency initiatives in Europe and share knowledge and expertise that we’ve developed in our own energy efficiency pilot projects; (3) to research the optimization of participation in energy efficiency pilots.

The cross-border collaboration within the Apollon framework has led to useful insights related to pilot project operation and new innovation initiatives within Liander.

Within Apollon, Liander has had the following role: - Supporting partner in Amsterdam Living Lab: Amsterdam Smart City. Liander has carried out numerous pilot projects related to energy efficiency within Amsterdam Smart City, some of which are still ongoing. E.g. Liander was leading partner in the pilot project in Geuzenveld and responsible for the overall technical realization, infrastructural work and organization of the project, which includes the installation of the smart meters and energy displays.

- Liander has provided knowledge and experience to LL Amsterdam Smart City and to conferences related to the Apollon project; - Within Apollon, Liander has offered opportunities for pilot projects to foreign SME’s within our service area, specifically with Liander customers within Amsterdam Smart City; - Liander has carried out user engagement research related to energy efficiency pilot projects and shared the major insights within the project; - Liander has engaged in and is willing to continue engagement in cross-border exchange of experience related to energy efficiency pilots with end-users; - Liander has engaged in liaising between energy efficiency SME’s within and outside the Apollon project and across borders.

The major benefits of the Apollon project for Liander are the following: - insights in optimization of customer / participant engagement in energy efficiency pilot projects; - connections with innovative SME’s within Apollon and outside the project; - insights in best practices of energy efficiency pilots and new energy efficiency products; Lulea energy’s vision is to be a driving force for clients and society and we work hard to make long time relations with our customers. So in Apollon we focused on finding a product for our 29

Final Version

D.3.6 private customers who could help them save energy. Our prime focus in Apollon has been to learn more about, and test different techniques for visualize energy consumption in real time at private households. The secondary focus was to find out if there is a market for our services in this area.

The benefits for Lulea Energy in Apollon and work with Living Labs are to get a better understanding in user involvement, methods to interact, and how important it is go get feedback before introducing new products and services.

4.1.4 Large enterprises involvement A participation in an Energy Efficiency Living Lab will provide large enterprises with a better methodological support for Pan-European research projects, new users for solutions and platforms and an expansion of their traditional ecosystems through new strategic partnerships with SMEs. Logica, for example, joint Apollon for experimenting/piloting potential business propositions to the clients which are being developed or were developed in house. For WP3 energy efficiency pilots (early proposals and finally the last selected one) were communicated with potential clients and Logica knew there was an interest. Logica mainly communicated those pilots within Dutch potential clients. As Apollon is about cross-border LL collaboration, Logica had the opportunity to explore the needs of the international/EU market on the same services. Within Apollon timelines in WP3 Logica could not extend the cross-border pilot in terms of actual set up and implementation with real user engagement, however, could extend and experiment in terms of knowledge exchange, support in services and potential partnership. This cross-border collaboration guidedLogica to the improvements of ita services. It also allowedto determine and validate what was needed to shape the services around charging electrical vehicles (EV) using a home controlled environment in the specific countries and how to organize the local and cross-border business ecosystems.

The engagement in local and cross-border experiment with LL and other partners involved in Apollon was valuable for Logica in terms of : 1. Fine-tuning Logica CiMS (Chargepoint Interactive Management System) with the input from the potential local clientsas well as clients in other countries 2. Extending Logica CiMS into smart metering device developed by Quby 3. Getting external view on the demonstrator and service from other country’s LLs and other potential local and cross-border partners/clients Logica invested in Apollon with its own products/services (CiMS), but gained the return on the investment: the experience of experiment which has a potential to widen Logica’s market and expansion of our solution/service.

Another motivation for Logica in Apollon pilot was the increased interest in two aspects of smart grid adoption and growth: 1. Consumer engagement, 2. Interoperability aspects. This will be experimented in a cross-border Living Lab environment, mostly on exchanging knowledge.

30

Final Version

D.3.6 Logica was also preparing demonstrators for the services experimented within Apollon, which will be installed in Logica SPARK innovation centre (Logica NL, Amstelveen Keesomlaan building) as a show-case success story of Apollon project work and partnership collaboration, which guarantees the sustainability aspect of the project.

4.1.4.1

Contribution to Standards:

Through Apollon electric charging pilot Logica aimed at contributing to the standards that bridgeprivate domains (home controlled environments) and the district level domains (public charge stations, network providers and utility companies). This will result to contribution to Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP).

4.1.5 Public authorities According to IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2008, 67% of global energy is used in urban areas, and cities are responsible for 76% of energy related CO2 emissions.

Further the average annual growth rate is predicted to be around 2% during the period 20062030. The energy infrastructure that every city and town depends on will need to be continually adapted and upgraded if it is to meet the ever-increasing demands for energy services. This provides the opportunity and demand for city and local government leaders to encourage increased deployment and use of energy efficient systems and behaviour .

Cities as % of world primary energy demand

Average annual growth rate 2006-2030

2006

2015

2030

Coal

76 %

78 %

81 %

2,2 %

Oil

63 %

63 %

66 %

1,2 %

Gas

82 %

83 %

87 %

2,0 %

Nuclear

76 %

77 %

81 %

1,2 %

Hydro

75 %

76 %

79 %

2,2 %

Biomass & Waste

24 %

26 %

31 %

2,6 %

Other Renewables

72 %

73 %

75 %

7,4 %

Total

67 %

69 %

73 %

1,9 %

Electricity

76 %

77 %

79 %

2,7 %

Table 2 World primary energy demand in cities by fuel according to IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2008

Local authorities and city decision makers, being the closest administration to the citizens are ideally positioned to understand their concerns and to influence the energy behaviour of their citizens. Moreover, local authorities can address the challenges in a comprehensive way, facilitating the conciliation between the public and private interest and the integration of sustainable energy into overall local development goals, be it development of alternative energy more efficient energy use or changes in behaviour.

31

Final Version

D.3.6 There are several advantages for addressing local policy-makers in coping with energy and environmental issues: -

-

A significant share of the world population is found in urban areas An urban orientation of energy and environmental policy may also encourage a direct involvement of citizens, as such policy initiatives are usually resource-based, effectoriented and visible so that sufficient local support base may be generated Urban areas are a suitable spatial scale for systematic data collection, monitoring and analysis of energy/environmental indicators

Further, at a local level there is a wealth of practical insights and ideas that can be developed to cope and improve inefficiencies in energy supply, energy use and environmental issues.

1

According to IEA’s report "Cities, Towns and Renewable Energy: Yes In My Front Yard” many local governments tend to follow early innovators rather than lead. However there are advantages for cities that lead in the design, investment and monitoring of renewable energy and energy efficiency demonstration projects that can be scaled up and replicated. Local authorities can serve as a vehicle to implement top-down policies from national governments, deliver meaningful results, and ensure national mandates are carried out. They can design solutions to climate change that are adapted to the needs of local constituents and are consistent with local policy priorities. This process can help build resilience to climate change in the urban infrastructure. Experimentation on new forms of policy at the local level can provide learning and experience and, when successful and where appropriate, can lead to bottom-up diffusion of approaches between cities, as well as at the national and international levels.

Local governments therefore have an important role of becoming leading actors for implementing sustainable energy policies, and must be recognized and supported in their effort. Leaders and officials of local governments have started to become more involved in climate change policymaking by undertaking strategic planning; formulating, approving and implementing appropriate policies; evaluating their effectiveness; and disseminating successful actions that might be replicated elsewhere.

While there are many examples of cities that have already acted upon climate change and energy security issues by developing support policies to stimulate renewable energy and energy efficiency activities (like Covenant of Mayors) 2, there is still strong requirement for cities to increase the actions. The combination of high and growing energy use in cities and the ability to have a direct impact on the citizens means that cities role in increasing energy efficiency and clean energy technologies is inevitable [8].

4.1.6 Research From a researcher perspective, the importance of determining research questions in projects has been clear. In this energy efficiency experiment within Apollon, the focus has been to do research

1 2

Report “Cities, Towns and Renewable Energy: Yes In My Front Yard”, IEA, 8 December 2009 http://www.eumayors.eu/home_en.htm

32

Final Version

D.3.6 on how to stimulate users to change their energy consumption behavior by means of new technology and by means of tasks that stimulates their use of the implemented technology.

Thanks to the research work in this experiment, it waspossible to elaborate with methods and tools for user behaviour transformation and a lot of experiencewas gained. For instance, one aspect of the experiment has been that a longitudinal study has been done with user involvement for a longer period of time. Here it has become obvious that it is difficult to involve users and to keep them engaged for several months.

One way that was tried to stimulate their engagement has been to give them assignments that users should carry out, with the objective to stimulate use transformation and adoption of the innovation and to stimulate the users to change their behaviour in terms of energy consumption.

By this mean, it hasbeen learned that the users do change their energy behaviour to some extent, and they do also become more aware in the area of energy saving.

The added value for the Living Lab has been the increased knowledge base in the area of energy saving. This has led to new project initiatives that in turn have increased research collaboration with partners around Europe. Another aspect of added value has been a strengthened collaboration with local SME who had not been involved in similar projects before, like Apollon [14].

4.1.7 4.1.7.1

Other stakeholders Energy Regulators

Markets supervision is an important aspect in the development of the energy markets. In a context of deepening the internal market for energy at European level, the affirmation of a context of liberalization of the production and trading activities requires closer attention to the practices in the market regime.

On the other hand, the affirmation of a culture of competition or, in highly concentrated markets such as the energy markets, of performance conditions which allow for the replication of the benefits of competition for the market and consumers, the need arises for closer, effective monitoring adapted to the current and future context of the energy markets.

The energy regulators fit the supervision of the markets into its strategic performance options, namely pertaining to the promotion of competition in the sector and the defence of consumer interests.

The provision of information and its dissemination in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner is an essential element for the affirmation of efficient and competitive markets. What the regulators seek to do through its overall actions and, in a more focused context, through the supervision of the markets, is to ensure that such conditions are real and effective.

It is also important to show how energy prices are made up taking into account the evolution of conditions in the wider context, namely through information on prices of primary energy (oil, coal, etc.) along with other components of the price (such as the cost of carbon dioxide

33

Final Version

D.3.6 emissions), so that the consumer knows the make-up of energy prices and can, therefore, make informed and conscious choices.

Following the Final Guidelines of Good Practice onRegulatory Aspects of Smart Meteringfor Electricity and Gas, published by the European Regulators’ Group for Electricity and Gas (hereafter referred as ERGEG) in relation to the concept of smart metering systems, concerns might be raised regarding: 1. The security of the metering data that is stored, transmitted and retrieved; and 2. The privacy of the customer.

ERGEG supports the on-going work within the Smart Grids Task Force launched by the European Commission. ERGEG would in particular like to emphasisethe importance of the work being done which deals with regulatoryrecommendations for data safety, data protection and data handling.

For ERGEG it is of the utmost importance that the privacy of customers is protected.

Allreasonable endeavours have to be undertaken to address data security and privacyissues before implementing a smart meter roll-out. ERGEG suggests that nationalsolutions are applied but stresses the importance of cooperation with national agenciesdealing with privacy issues and data security, to make sure that the specificities relatingto energy are taken into account.

The living labs for energy efficiency are essential to work on these two concerns from ERGEG and all the stakeholders involved must bear them in mind for a truly and successful implementation of new ICT in the energy market [5].

4.1.7.2

Energy Service Companies (ESCOs)

New services will emerge around the development of smart grids, permitting ESCOs and ICT providers to offer services to consumers for tracking their energy consumption at frequent intervals (through channels like the internet or mobile phones) and making it possible for energy bills to indicate consumption for individual appliances. Beyond the benefits for household consumers, the availability of exact consumption data through smart meters will stimulate the demand for energy services by companies and public authorities, allowing ESCOs to offer credible energy performance contracts to deliver reduced energy consumption. Smart grids, meters and appliances will allow consumers to choose to permit their appliances to be activated at moments when off peak cheaper energy supply or abundant wind and solar power are available – in exchange for financial incentives. Finally, they will offer consumers the convenience and energy saving potential of turning appliances on and off remotely.

34

Final Version

D.3.6

5

Cross border piloting and networking

The cross border living labs network establishes collaboration among different partners: living labs, SMEs, larger companies and agencies. A collaborative workspace enables partners to share and co-author documents, exchange messages, engage in synchronous conferences.

Cross border living labs networks will benefit from using collaborative working environments and social networking software. Different pilot challenges may need different functionalities.Over the past decade, Living Labs have become an established part of local and regional innovation systems, using a variety of methods and tools, and focusing on a wide array of domains and themes. The role of Living Labs is also the bridging of the pre-commercial gap between research and the market by building business-citizens-government partnerships [2].

One of the main strengths of the Living Lab approach in general, and in energy efficiency, in particular, is its ability to merge research and innovation processes with the daily, local, reallife context, close to people in their role as both citizen and consumer. This makes this approach particularly suited to improve the R&D process by involving the user and by tackling issues of behavioural change and innovation, impact on business models, organisational processes and structures, multi-stakeholder participation, and taking into account multicultural specificities. However, the experimental, learning-by-doing set up of energy efficiency Living Labs and the disconnection between individual Living Labs has lead to a wide variation of approaches, results and impacts of Living Lab activities. Therefore, as this innovation instrument matures, it is paramount to ensure that its main strength in terms of local embedding does not turn into a significant weakness in terms of the general applicability, validity and robustness of Living Lab test results. Also, there is a need of providing SMEs that partner and interact with local Living Labs with access to other European national markets and of scaling up lead markets to enable pan-European product and service innovation. It follows that there is a clear need for hands-on experiences with intensive networking, collaboration, cross-comparison and scaling up of local LL initiatives. This is the reason for the strengthen of networking among different energy LL, in various levels [2].

In the last years there has been an increasing number of Living Labs throughout Europe, which are gradually forming a vibrant and still growing community. As a first step in networking these initiatives, the exchange of high-level principles and best practices for individual Living Lab setup and implementation is now being addressed in a number of national and European projects.

International cooperation benefits from exchange of experiences and lessons learnt from the partners, allowing the results of an initiative developed elsewhere to be appropriated and worked upon in other projects. This allows a convergence of resources, leveraging Europeanwide available assets (scientific excellence, technologies, methodologies, tools, experimental facilities, Living Labs, user communities) and avoids double work while achieving the same results.

A European level initiative can more broadly assess a wider range of topics, methodologies and technologies, count on a wider network of stakeholders and reach a far bigger audience and so prompt results on a totally different scale from those achieved if the experiments are solely 35

Final Version

D.3.6 conducted at the local level, which, due to a lack of economies of scale and budgetary constraints, would of necessity be deficient and incomplete[2].

Each technology transfer pilot has its own specific target users but uses common methodologies, allowing for generalization of findings to other Living Labs. Working at the European level is complementary to city initiatives, fostering public collaboration in the form of city’s cooperation to enhance impulse and build upon each city’s strengths and expertise, providing also the basis for harmonization in areas where this is both essential and beneficial in advancing and initiating follow-up studies [10].

Benefits for Research and business are: − − −

Knowledge transfer Business matching & partnerships – SMEs and LEs Technology testing and validation

The cross border activities, within Apollon energy efficiency experiment, consisted of several cases all having the purpose to test and evaluate new technology for energy saving and change of behaviour in terms of consumption of energy, at the same time as the cases strived to share experiences, methods and tools among the four living labs. Hence, the cases took the form of e.g. workshops, showcases, showrooms and real life tests. See the figure below which illustrates the different cross border activities.

Figure 7 - Different cross border activities within Apollon energy efficiency experiment [11]

Together the activities contributed to the creation of a common benchmarking framework including a service model for clients, business model for sustainability as well as a reference model to share date, knowledge, experience and competencies. The cross border activities also tested the impact of real time data on the consumers as well as fostered SME innovation commitment and supported its scalability in the European market place.

The benchmark formed consists of best practices experimented in these contexts, the lessons learned and related recommendations for future Living Lab operations. The cross-border 36

Final Version

D.3.6 benchmark contains three layers as depicted in Deliverable 3.3 [10]: technology transfer, knowledge transfer and business partnerships. These are described in the following.

5.1

Technology Transfer

5.1.1 Knowing the context Different countries use different products and standards in their electrical grids. Products will need to be adapted to suit local conditions.

5.1.2 Local energy context Climate change, energy security, market competition and private sector involvement are some of the dominant influences on energy policy. Energy supplies from fossil fuels are a major contributor to the greenhouse gases that cause climate change and much of the international climate negotiations are related to the energy demands of the world’s economies.

The European energy regulators deals with issues related to the European electricity grids and the EU electricity market, so it is important to know the following issues [4]: − − − −

Quality of supply Smart grids Sustainable development ( in the form of energy efficiency, renewable energy and emissions trading this area has an effect on electricity markets and networks) Security of supply

Herbelow one can find the contexts for the four Apollon pilots [12]: 5.1.2.1

Finland

Finland has very harsh winters and a very low population density, making for high energy consumption and high energy transfer cost. It is mostly a single-fuel environment dedicated to becoming a leader in clean energy production and intelligent demand management. Smart meter roll-out is mandatory, with 80% coverage being the aim for 2013. The approach to the development of a smart grid is well under way, involving SME’s in smaller pilots and larger scape pilots being the domain of the bigger players in various forms of two-way information flows being piloted between energy users and energy producers. There are multiple players in the energy market, with a significant local impact from local players. The public sector provides an active support, viewing clean energy combined with intelligent demand management as an opportunity both for Finland’s economy and for Finland’s environment.

5.1.2.2

Netherlands

The Netherlands’ temperate climate and dense population notably in the western part make for an energy consumption which is lower per capita than e.g. Finland but higher per square km, posing different challenges to the grid than less densely populated countries. Also, Netherlands is a dual-fuel environment relying very strongly on natural gas for heating purposes. Easy access to sea ports allows for large-scale relatively conventional generation of electricity (coal) mostly in the hands of large energy conglomerates, making the Netherlands a net energy exporter with limited attention to microgeneration and no feed-in tariffs.

Regulation has separated energy (notably electricity) production, which is for a large part in 37

Final Version

D.3.6 the hands on non-NL companies, and grid access, with three major players and only very few minor players . While there is a cautiously government-supported drive to move towards smart metering and smart grids and some major cities are quite active in the ‘smart city’ arena (notably Amsterdam), the level of regulatory compulsion for such development is relatively low and much is left to market workings and commercial initiatives from private companies.

5.1.2.3

Sweden

Sweden, like the Netherlands and Finland, does not have feed-in tariffs and relies strongly on market forces for electricity tariff setting. Sweden, being part of the Nordics, participates in a common electricity market with Norway and Finland, with equal prices for electricity but different price areas within the country. There is a relatively strong penetration of smart meters (90% capable of delivering hourly readings) but limited exploitation of this capability – many meters still need to be configured for hourly tariff setting. The grid also poses some barriers to microgeneration and co-generation. It is currently not possible to offset generation against production, and the grid is tuned more towards local delivery than to local reception of electricity, with reluctance from the grid operators to allow feed-in for operational continuity reasons. Also pricing, and thereby the short - and long term economic viability of microgeneration, are not secure, and no firm calendar has been set for the roll-out of smart grid functionality and its concomitant frequent meter readings.

5.1.2.4

Portugal

Portugal has a relatively small CO2 footprint, but has witnessed a steady increase in its environmental impact over the last 30 years – although the per capita CO2 production is below European average, energy consumption per unit of GDP has consistently increased. The economic and environmental challenges this poses has led Portugal to move into the forefront of renewable energy, and energy efficiency, with regulated feed-in tariffs, restrictions on energy-inefficient construction, intelligent networks and sustainable mobility as spearheads.

This drive towards diversification, efficiency and sustainability is driven from the national and local (notably Lisbon) levels, involving energy sources such as water, wind, solar, and biomass, and economizing on CO2 emission in the areas of transport (electrical vehicles) lighting, and general production. Also there is a strong drive towards awareness creation and behavioral change in combating energy wastage.

5.1.3 Technology transfer and testing Based on the learnings from the cross-border activities for technology transfer in WP3, the following recommendations are made [11]: 1) Technical feasibility of the goals of the project need to be verified – local context, user drivers and applications matter Environment for energy efficiency measures varies between countries as do the drivers of usage (e.g. heating by gas, air-conditioning by electricity, water consumption); 2) Products to be tested need to be sufficiently mature to be integrated into Living Lab experiments and for the use by the end-users 3) Local technical support for the receiving Living Lab needs to be resourced and trained sufficiently, with remote support and resources for problem-solving at the sending Living Lab 38

Final Version

D.3.6 4) Sufficient time between product tests and roll-out need to be allocated in case of emerging challenges 5) Access to and ownership of installation sites may vary between the countries, complicating planning and installations 6) Site solutions need to plan Sites, including electricity cabinets, differ in terms of space available and radio-frequency fields which may complicate installing metering and communication equipment to homes and offices.

7) Interfaces between energy system components and products need to be defined 8) Verify regulations and standards that differ from country to country 9) Ownership of customer and energy data need to be agreed

5.2 Knowledge Transfer Knowledge Transfer methodology developed and utilized in Apollon WP3 consisted of the following cross-border activities [11]: −

User behaviour transformation methodology, the benchmark for cross-border case methodology

−

Competence transfer and monitoring with regular face-to-face workshops and conference calls

−

Dissemination among WP3 partners via sharing of case studies, existing research, and research results

−

Roadshows open to local ecosystems, arranged adjacent to WP3 meetings

−

Site visits and demonstrations of each experiment and partner

These took place via regular official and unofficial cross-border meetings among partners. The partners have additionally participated in numerous external seminars and conferences, disseminating learnings from Apollon experiments to a wider audience.

The main outcome, Apollon methodology for user behavior transformation, exchanged best practices from local and cross-border pilots regarding user-behavior change mechanisms and measurements. Partners have documented and shared their experiences in measuring energy consumption changes among end-users when experimenting with new ICT solutions for energy saving. From an overarching perspective the process for the case was designed in three steps where it started with a presentation of the case and a template was distributed among the teams to ensure that all cases were reported in the same format. In this case, the local pilots from all four sites were used as a basis for sharing experiences. These cases were discussed and analyzed jointly in workshops in which all WP3 participants were invited and participated.

The results from these knowledge-sharing workshops were then analyzed and the results formed the basis for the unified methodology for use transformation. Furthermore, all living labs have answered a questionnaire at the end of the work.

Several methods to support the cross-border knowledge sharing process were utilised: usage of local pilots, a template, a test storyline distributed to the other Living Labs, workshops and a 39

Final Version

D.3.6 survey study carried out in the case. All these methods together comprise the cross-border case methodology.

5.3 Business Transfer The experiments have provided the following benefits for partners [11]: 1. An increased awareness of opportunities in EU – both funding and market opportunities 2. Increased awareness of socio-technical factors 3. Privacy issues at homes vary between markets as explained in Deliverable 3.4 4. Contribution to the internal development 5. Knowledge transfer and actual site visits during roadshows providing most value 6. Apollon meetings arranged jointly with other EU programs expanded the networking and learning opportunities for partners 7. Tools and methodologies available 8. Creation of Energy Efficiency network 9. Increasing interest in companies to do further research with the research partners and Living Labs 10. Access to the users and recommendations for improving the product or service 11. Research serves as a market study, as a feasibility study and as a business reference 12. The experiments have deepened the cooperation relationships with partners 13. An experiment in one Living Lab can lead to replication at and entry to another Living Lab based on established relationships Thus, recommendations for the experiments are as follows: 1. Involve business planning prior to a technology test in order to evaluate long-term commitment from all the partners 2. To ensure sustainability, business partners should include market analysis and prioritized Go To Market planning into the process of deciding involvement 3. If not running experiments for only learning purposes of one project, evaluate the market potential and competitiveness of your offering first 4. Think the whole service offering, not only product but also related services, and arrange a local representative 5. If there are competing local solutions, those are preferred for easiness and capability to deliver, compared to a solution from a foreign SME that does not have local technical support.

The local representative can be also the other company in the receiving Living Lab if that supports expansion to that market.

6. Think the complete value chain and related business drivers

40

Final Version

D.3.6 7. For household energy efficiency, the business case needs to be proven The cost of smart metering and related services seems to be still high both for energy companies and for consumers, and the value proposition from energy companies seems to be in improving control of and understanding of consumers’ energy consumption 8. Sharing of energy savings in monetary terms needs to addressed in order to motivate people to get involved and to continue in the experiments 9. Privacy issues need to be addressed 10. Normal agenda alignment and trust building activities are required for networking 11. Facilitation process for partnering needs to be continuous and close, matchmaking is not sufficient 12. Co-operation and competition needs to be addressed in the planning between the partners 13. Plan for extra resources for product development due to different contexts and integration 14. Equipment costs should be allocated into budgets, especially rollouts of hundreds of pieces of equipment 15. Include project management, cooperation and administration overheads into the budget 16. Travelling budgets for cross-border activities need to be planned sufficiently large for a.o. regular meetings and knowledge transfer, business negotiations and technical support unless there are local representatives 17. Use project management methods to ensure communication throughout the experiments and to manage risks 6

Guidelines for the establishment of a network of EE LL

6.1 Framework In this chapter it is intended to give a briefmethodology and recommendations to create and extend a large community of LL in the energy efficiency domain, based on the Open Living Lab Knowledge Centre [33], on The Use Transformation Methodology Case [14] and from the evaluation and the lessons learned of the experiments in energy efficiency within Apollon.

This will be focused on contextual factors, eco-systems, interoperability issues and lead market opportunities. These insights will be shared with the different stakeholders in each Living Lab and extended towards the larger community of the society.

These experiences and results ended up in a five step method that starts with a step called Case Definition. In this phase the purpose is determined for the pilot, in the second step the process is designed and planned for. Thereafter, the technology implementation step is carried out in which guidance for how to carry out this step is given. The fourth step is the user interaction step where the actual use transformation process is carried out and users are engaged. Finally, the results are evaluated in the last step, evaluation. In this method, the overarching goal is to support the design of a process that is focusing in studying use transformation among users of innovative technology. Based on that, this method is targeted at stimulating use of new technology, which in turn influences user’s behavior. The aim of this 41

Final Version

D.3.6 method is to provide SMEs and Living Lab managers with a framework that facilitates the design of user involvement studies. The process is also designed to support knowledge sharing between experiments to facilitate the possibility that the results from an experiment can be compared with other experiments since the set up of the experiment is similar and considers similar matters.

Figure 8- Method based on Apollon WP3 experiments [14]

The aim of this method is to support and stimulate users to change usage of technology by stimulating them to use the implemented innovation. The underlying proposition is that users that are guided and encouraged to use innovations are stimulated in their innovation decision processes which in turn leads to changes in their social systems where behavior is one part.

This framework should be envisioned as both a framework to guide the process of the experiments set up, but also as a template for documentation of the case. This is important in order to make it possible to share knowledge between different stakeholders.

Within WP3 energy efficiency experiment there has been in place during the Apollon project four different LLs in four different countries; Finland, Sweden, Netherlands and Portugal. All the four countries set a different basis for energy efficiency because of climate differences in energy consumption. Legal entities as well as national energy players set demands to mitigate energy consumption as well as lowering/shifting of consumption peaks. The living lab are in most part similar except for the Finland pilot that is located in a higher voltage office building when in the other living labs the pilot is of low-voltage metering point; namely private homes.

Cross border piloting as a concept has shifted from technological implementation cross-border into knowledge sharing among WP3 partners. Metering set-ups cross-border were tested in the beginning of the project but with lack of common interest of partners operating in different countries the interfaces were deemed unprofitable to SMEs and were therefore finished. The living labs have been in close contact of each other through work package meeting and roadshows and with common tools and methodologies in use have been able to share lessons learned and common practices instead.

Nonetheless, networking and to create and extend a large community of LL in the energy efficiency domain, needs another and more ambitious approach.

42

Final Version

D.3.6

Figure 9 - General establishment of a network of LL [33]

The deployment of concrete Europe-wide and visible measures to support the European policy for competitiveness and innovation is necessary to show progress towards the Lisbon objectives. The European Network of Living Labs is such a concrete and specific proposal. One of its core values is to improve and add momentum to the transfer of R&D insights and new technologies into real world applications and solutions. It will also provide opportunities to address societal issues by mobilizing the “collective intelligence and creativity” by means of new tools and methods using advanced information and communication technologies.

Traditionally, companies and other organizations have approached users in order to improve their innovation activities, but similarly, users can also be the driving force of innovation. How can these innovative users be supported so that their ideas actually become innovations? Due to the increasing emphasis on user involvement in innovation activities, a network of LivingLabs has been formed in Europe to facilitate the cooperation.

Living Labs can help users to pursue their ideas and reduce risks by providing resources, contacts, and expert knowledge, bysearching for funding or by even adopting the development project. This way, Living Labs couldfacilitate more efficient network building between innovating users and companies and otherstakeholders who take care of the later phases of the development process and finally put out the innovations on the market.

Energy efficiency is at the heart of the EU’s Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and of the transition to a resource efficient economy. Energy efficiency is one of the most cost effective ways to enhance security of energy supply, and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

Improvements to the energy performance of devices used by consumers – such as appliances and smart meters – should play a greater role in monitoring or optimizing their energy consumption, allowing for possible cost savings ensuring that consumer interests are properly taken into account in technical work on labelling, energy saving information, metering and the use of ICT.

43

Final Version

D.3.6 In future years the deployment of a European "smart grid" will bring about a step change in the scope for gathering and communicating information about energy supply and consumption. This information will allow consumers to save energy. It is important to ensure that intelligence can also develop in other networks, such as heat, cooling and gas, and that these intelligent networks all contribute to build a well-functioning, interoperable market for energy efficiency services. Smart grids and smart meters will serve as a backbone for smart appliances, adding to the energy savings obtained by buying more energy efficient appliances.

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are recognised as enablers for economic growth and higher energy efficiency combined with the transformation of the behaviour of users regarding Energy Efficiency through real time energy consumption information.

Living Labs methodology are to provide an engaging co-creative environment for users, citizens and policy makers to gain awareness, understanding and experience associated with energy saving attitudes.

Therefore, setting up cross-border domain-specific energy efficiency Living Lab networks is a reliable tool for SMEs are enabled to take part in cross-border Living Lab experiments beyond their home markets, and are supported by large industrial companies, academic centres and other stakeholders.

Networking between Living Labs is primarily aimed at harmonising best practices for setting up and conducting individual Living Lab research. Strongly increased cross-border Living Lab collaboration would potentially yield huge added value for Europe, as it enables firms, most particularly SMEs, to participate in domain-specific innovation ecosystems at a European scale, without losing sight of local circumstances and idiosyncrasies. Therefore, the next step in Living Lab networking is to pilot a more intensive, permanent and scalable collaboration, resulting in methodologies, tools and sustainable organisational structures for cross-border domain-specific Living Lab networks.

Bringing together a strong selection of committed partners that lead the current cross-border Living Lab developments on a European and even worldwide scale, will encourage a broad variety of stakeholders to participate in an energy efficiency living lab at a European scale, without losing sight of local circumstances. These partners include the current European Living Labs and their associated academic and public partners that are arguably among the most prominent and/or promising Living Lab entities in their respective domains and that have already taken the lead in federating and networking Living Labs throughout Europe. This is matched with the participation and support of leading European ICT industrial stakeholders, and with the active involvement of innovative SMEs that have or need access to other European national markets.

In the last years there has been an increasing number of Living Labs throughout Europe, which are gradually forming a vibrant and still growing community. As mentioned above, these Living Labs do not only differ in the composition and approach but also in the domains they address and their approach. As a first step in networking these initiatives, the exchange of high-level principles and best practices for individual Living Lab set-up and implementation is now being addressed in a number of national and European projects.

44

Final Version

D.3.6

6.2

Identify the current energy efficiency LL from ENoLL and national clusters

ENoLL has currently 37 Living Labs that operate within the domain of Energy Efficiency. We have identified 12 of those which have actively been involved in Energy Efficiency activities and will be invited to be part of the core group of the Energy Efficiency Network of APOLLON (Table 3).

Name Bird Living Lab Botnia Living Lab Digital Birmingham EDP/Brasil LL Flemish Living Lab Platform iHome Lab Living Lab Lighting Living Lab SI Lab Telecommunication Networks and Integrated Services (TNS) Laboratory Trentino asa Lab - TASLAB UbiLL

Website www.beingbird.com www.testplats.com www.digitalbirmingham.co.uk www.edpbr.com.br www.flemishlivinglabplatform.com www.iHomeLab.ch www.lighting-living-lab.pt www.ncl.ac.uk/nubs/staff/rob.wilson http://tns.ds.unipi.gr

Country Spain Sweden UK Brazil Belgium China Portugal UK Greece

www.taslab.eu -

Italy Portugal

Amsterdam Smart City

http://www.amsterdamlivinglab.nl/

The Netherlands

Table 3 - Core proposed Living Labs for the Energy Efficiency Network of APOLLON

6.3

Connecting

This is the first phase of a collaborative project between cross border Living Labs. In this phase the initial contacts between the cross border partners are made and the basic ideas and plans are evaluated, concretised and a more formal approach to working together is initiated.

To support the actions in this phase there are a number of tools and methods that are available to the partners.

Finding partners to collaborate with and defining the scope and this is the first thing one has to do when wants to set up a project in collaboration with others regarding energy efficiency.

This can be a challenging thing to do, especially when one is looking for partners abroad. In the previews chapter, an overview of the existing energy efficiency Living Labs was given.

This stage includes the following tasks: − − − − − − − 45

Define goals and objectives for the energy efficiency project Define who is on board for what reason and with what contribution Define initial roles and responsibilities Define the rewards (both monetary and non-monetary) for each of the partners Define your project identity, consisting of logos, presentation templates, and so on Choose and set up communication, collaboration, and knowledge sharing tools Organize a kick-off meeting with all project partners Final Version

D.3.6 Identified critical success factors in the connect stage of the development include: − − − 6.3.1 − − −

6.3.1.1

Establishing mutual trust between partners and investing in social structures Connect partners with similar interests Commitment of each partner’s management Tools and Methods that can be of use in this phase Cross Border Living Lab Contract Template Business Model design for Cross Border Living Labs networks Policies and Regulations Databases Cross Border Living Lab Contract Template

Following the Open Living Lab Knowledge Centre [33], during the process of setting up the cross border living lab (in its finalization stage), different types of agreements among stakeholders (living labs, SMEs, utilities, other entities) are being elaborated. These agreements regulate cooperation among parties, and address different aspects that may need implementation through formal contracts: the general partnership collaboration agreement and arrangement of legal issues such as IP arrangements in relation to (in relation to using technology know-how and software licensing). Both the contract structure as the process of development of contracts, and the negotiation, needs attention. The contract defines duties, rights and obligations of the parties, remedy clauses as well as other clauses that are important to characterize the goals of the contract.

A worst case “scenario” reveals the elements that need to be agreed upon. Some of the elements are: − −

− −

Identification of partner interests in relation to the cross-border project goals.

Identification of all negotiation issues, for example in relation to: access to and use of assets and resources from partners, financial or other risks of the project, distribution of benefits and costs.

Duties, obligations, rights and responsibilities of the partners. Responsibility for the cross border network.

Partnership aspects, also handling of new partners and third parties.

Contract agreements are required before collaboration in a cross border living labs network can start.

6.3.1.2

Implementation of the Method

The contract agreements should be produced at the beginning of the Plan and Engage phase of the cross border living lab project. These should be done in cooperation with partners of the project. The Project Manager/Owner and the possible Steering Group Head should be in charge of developing the contract agreements. The contract agreements should be disseminated to all relevant parties.

The following cross border living lab project processes are supported by producing the business model description: 46

Final Version

D.3.6 − − − − − − −

6.3.1.3

Identification of partners and trust building among partners and stakeholders Building project consortium and establishing agreements and contracts Expectations management:Collecting and aligning stakeholder and partner expectations Stakeholder analysis Identification and scoping: objectives, results, outputs, dissemination, profit and cost sharing, liabilities, responsibilities, organizing, risk sharing Checklisting for things to consider Identification of IPR issues, IPR handling.

Business model design for cross border living labs networks

A living lab network business model defines the totality of stakeholders and resources needed to implement a collaborative partnership and to jointly create value through offering living labs services to target groups. It determines the business modalities, working relationships, the added value per stakeholder, governance and legal frameworks etc. A network of living labs may apply different models than single entities, in particular if they are across different countries.

Figure 10 - Business model design for cross border living labs networks [33]

The most relevant stakeholders in an energy efficiency Living Lab are described in detail in 4.1.

I.

Business model building block framework (Osterwalder)

The following aspects of the business model are relevant in terms of cross border transfer of solutions, following the Open Living Lab Knowledge Centre [33]: − − − − −

47

Value proposition in the new context, which can be different from the original context Targeted customers in the new context, but also the stakeholders other than end customers (e.g. local government agencies, SMEs, Utilities) Distribution channels: marketing and distribution strategy should adapt to the local situation.

Partner network: will be different in the new situation as different partners and different roles will be involved.

Revenue model, this could be different in the new situation because of the different actors and their role.

Final Version

D.3.6 − −

Infrastructure: different technical (network infrastructure and services) and organizational infrastructure will probably be required in the new environment.

Last but not least, adoption of the business model by the stakeholders involved, and resolving any legal and regulatory constraints hindering introduction of the solution.

Business model design is highly relevant in the initial phases of preparing and planning the living labs collaboration network. Business model aspects are addressed in all pilots.

II.

Target group: Living Labs

As partner agreements have already been prepared in advance of starting the Apollon project, the business model approach was not tested. However the business model design is a critical step in building the living labs network for sustainability. Some of the success and failure factors of the network pilots can be related to the business model agreement. Business model aspects are addressed in all pilots.

Figure 11 - Business model designed among Apollon partners [10]

6.3.1.4

Policies and Regulations Databases

Living Labs and SMEs willing to work together in a network may need to understand the regulations and policies concerning how to set-up contracts with local partners, import of hardware equipment, tax regulations, legal aspects concerning cross-border collaborations.

There is a need to provide answers to questions like: −

− − −

48

How to do business in such a country? Are there any pre-requisites before being able to start doing business in this country, e.g. have a registered local contact/representative?

Who knows about the relevant regulations to sell a technology (e.g. smart meter) into the country or would it be easier to find a local hardware provider?

What to consider when licensing software to a local SME in this foreign country.

How does “OEM”–like or software-licensing contracts look like in that country.

Final Version

D.3.6 To answer such questions, the European Living Lab Knowledge Centre [33] states that Living Labs and SMEs will access a database of information and experts. The approach is based on following steps: − − − −

6.4

Identification of the business (doing business indicator).

Collect available information sources, prioritize Identify the need for external experts.

Find and contact experts.

Set-up boundaries and engage

In the plan and engage phase it is time to become more specific about what you want to do in the project and how you will organize this. This applies to: I. II.

Roles and responsibilities for each of the partners What should every partner contribute to the project, and what will get each of them in return?

Governance structure: how is the project management organized? This is in particular relevant for cross-border projects Ownerships and issues related to intellectual property rights Relationship with the European living lab community

III. IV. V.

This phase should result in a detailed project plan that covers all these issues. The project plan is part of a contract that is signed by all parties. Of course, the signing of the contracts should be celebrated during a kick-off meeting.

In this phase project partners should also think about the network of partners, how this can be sustained and expanded, and under what conditions new partners may join the network. To strengthen the social ties and the trust between the partners in this phase activities such as workshops should be organized. Finally, one should think about how partners will collaborate: what tools and platforms will be used? When are project meetings held? When are phone conferences scheduled? And so on…

6.5

Support and govern knowledge transfer

Below you will find a list of the best practices and the core competences for management of Living Lab projects, based on ideas from networked innovation[33]. − −

−

−

49

Projects with clearly defined objectives and a set of questions arising from the market generally have greater impact.

The differences in the corporate cultures and research competences of the project partners have a great influence on the project. The use of scenarios, the elaboration of case studies and the development of concrete prototypes help to foster mutual understanding as well as to achieve specific, usable results.

Projects in which all parties are intensively involved and all parties collaborated in research and development are more successful than projects in which some parties only invest money.

Subsidies can help to establish a project and to increase the available research efforts.

If subsidy is the main reason to collaborate, then the collaboration tends to achieve less synergy.

Final Version

D.3.6 −

− −

Collaboration runs more smoothly if the project includes few direct competitors.

Otherwise it is clearly more difficult to achieve agreement on project results and knowledge sharing.

Clear agreements on intellectual property are essential and are a highly sensitive subject matter. The aims an interests of parties may vary widely.

The commitment of senior management and chairmen of sectorial associations etc. is required for projects to be set up and for their results to be successfully spread and adopted by organisation

When one wants to involve end-users in design or evaluation projects, one may want to make use of the following advice: Listening to your end users is invaluable, but following them without thinking actually hinders the innovation process (Cooper, 1999 referred in [33]) − − − − − −

6.6

Involve end users in every stage of the design process – when feasible Listen to your end users, but do not follow them Make sure that the end users you involve are representative of your user base Stick to the inclusion criteria and make sure that your user groups are covered.

Provide incentives to participants as this helps to create commitment Write an inviting call for participation

Manage and track (data issues, relation among partners)

Regarding governance and management of a Living Lab project, the following issues are relevant: −

Management of Living Lab Projects − Living lab as an innovation approach − − −

−

− 6.6.1

Open innovation Networked innovation Living Lab projects as networked innovation

− Competences for management of living lab projects − Selecting and finding partners Involving end-users − Kinds of end-user involvement − Expected benefits and drawbacks − Recruiting participants Dissemination Management of Living Lab projects

Here we discuss Living Lab projects as a type of networked innovation. Therefore, the core competences for management of Living Lab projects presented here are based on ideas form networked innovation. This section is based on the European Living Lab Knowledge Centre [33].

50

Final Version

D.3.6 6.6.1.1

Living lab as an innovation approach

Innovation plays an important role for organisations both in terms of process optimization and in developing new products, services or even business models (Den Hertog, 2000; Forfas, 2006). The way innovation takes place varied over the years. Innovation changed from innovation to compete with other organisations (see for instance Porter (1985) and Hamel and Prahalad (1990) to more recent types of innovation such as open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003) and networked innovation (Vanhaverbeke, 2007).

6.6.1.2

Open innovation

Open innovation suggests a ‘reconsideration’ of the internal innovation process, distinguishing itself by its specific focus on bringing in and passing on knowledge and technology. In Chesbrough’s work, the business model of the ‘parent’ company and the business model for a new technology/service are central. Added value is sought in increasing the efficiency of the internal innovation process by becoming aware of your environment. Insufficient light is cast on the innovation process itself and the collaboration with partners during innovation.

6.6.1.3

Networked innovation

Vanhaverbeke (2007) expands on Chesbrough’s ideas about open innovation in a number of essential respects and applies them to the value network perspective and the management of relationships in the associated innovation networks. The central question is: how can successful co-production be achieved? He emphasizes that a structural capacity for innovation requires network management both in and between companies. The innovation is strongly focused on short-term market introductions, with less attention being paid to jointly exploring new opportunities.

6.6.1.4

Living Lab projects as networked innovation

Living Lab projects are a form of networked innovation. Networked innovation involves the collaboration of different organisations. This kind of innovation has important advantages, but it also implies complexity. The management of this kind of innovation make high demands on the competences of the management of such projects. Participating in a Living Lab project also makes high demands upon the competences of the organisations involved. In the following section we discuss the core innovation competences for networked innovation.

6.6.1.5

Competences for management of Living Lab projects

In the table below four core competences for networked innovation are combined with three innovation phases. The core competences are: physical systems, managerial systems, skills & knowledge and values. The innovation phases are: idea & planning, exploration & development and implementation.

51

Final Version

D.3.6

Physical systems

Idea & Planning Environment for inspiration and networking

Exploration & Development ICT and other tools for effective collaboration and sharing Experimental environment

Implementation Scaling-up environment Project environment

management

Access to ICT platforms and services

Managerial systems

Leadership IPR management Multilevel involvement

Skills & knowledge

Vision of the potential of ICT Sectoral/company knowledge Multidisciplinary knowledge

Values

Turning ideas into project plans Open

Project management environment Effective management of collaboration Effective involvement of the customer

Effective diffusion mechanisms (marketing, distribution channels) Business venturing

Multilevel involvement Synthesis: linking ICT to specific sectoral/company knowledge

Business case modelling

Business modelling

Market knowledge/marketing

Service engineering

System integration

Absorption capacity

Commercialization Sharing

Risk/reward balance

Above and beyond individual companies

Active involvement

Geared towards impact

Cross-sectoral

Geared opportunities

Learning towards

Sharing of risk Table 4 - Competences for the management of Living Lab projects [33]

The collaboration in networked innovation takes place especially in the exploration and development phase. Collaboration takes place on innovations that go above and beyond the individual company or that are cross-sectoral, through joint exploration and under shared leadership. ‘Collaboration’ simply means working together. It requires active involvement from the parties at both operational and management level.

In networked innovation there is a specific role of ICT, which we see in all of the phases. The most important ICT-related competences can be found in the areas of skills and knowledge and physical infrastructure/systems. In addition to ICT knowledge and a vision of the opportunities that ICT offers, innovation using ICT also requires knowledge specific to the individual company and sector.

52

Final Version

D.3.6 The networked innovation principle of connecting organizations, knowledge and resources in collaborative structures that have specific aims, is evident in every phase. Connecting organizations requires leadership in the planning phase, in formulating joint objectives that result in win-win situations for the partners involved, and continuous management commitment in the subsequent phases. Connecting knowledge (knowledge of ICT and the company/sector) and resources (ICT platforms and services) to create new value requires multidisciplinary collaboration and active operational involvement.

The competences specified need to be present in the network of partners. In the area of values, all partners need to have these competences; their thinking must be based on a shared system of values.

The physical working environment will also be shared by the parties, while they may have different roles or interests. The chain partners will play a role in the physical and/or virtual experimental environment, while in the scaling-up environment the knowledge partners will have a smaller role than the development partners. Industry- or company-specific knowledge will also be unevenly distributed through the network.

6.6.1.6

Selecting and finding partners

A Living Lab needs access to a diversity of expertise in terms of different partners, since the scope of Living Lab activities often differ in character. There are a number of stakeholders important to include, or at least consider, in Living Lab initiatives (go to 4.1).

The collaboration between stakeholders needs to be managed. For the process of collaboration, an environment including tools and services is needed.

6.6.1.7

Expected benefits and drawbacks

A large body of research is available on the benefits and costs of involving end users in the product and service development. Little is known about the costs and benefits of living lab research. Below we outline the expected costs and benefits from user involvement in general, and from field tests in particular.

The benefits of user involvement have shown to be dependent on the product development phase and the methods and techniques that are used (See chapter 4.1.2).

6.6.1.8

Recruitment of participants

Recruiting participants is a task that should not be underestimated. See chapter 4.1.2.4.

6.7

Communication and cooperation with stakeholders

The outcomes of a Living Lab project can be knowledge, new products and services and/or IPR. Outcomes can be in the form of finished end-user applications but also in the form of prototypes or mere knowledge about usage patterns. Important issues include: − − −

53

the process of selecting the best results and building upon those collaboration of involved parties in relation to IPR agreement of the involved parties how to share results Final Version

D.3.6 The latter issues are part of how the collaboration between stakeholders is managed.

6.8

Lessons learned from Apollon’s Energy Efficiency Experiments

From the four different living labs few key issues have risen above others in terms of user involvement and notification. The most flagrant issues in energy saving is the avenue with which the users are notified of their energy consumption and therefore are incorporated in the process as well how to keep them engaged long-term. End users are most likely to change their consumption habits to greener ones if they have a good knowledge on what their usage has been before, what this usage means in terms of minutes and euros as well clear objectives on what the consumption could be and with what means this could be achieved.

Users demonstrate an interest at the start of ICT use and interaction, but interest tend to decrease in time if users are not engaged and challenge on regular intervals. Hence, energy efficiency information workshops are essential to raise user awareness, provided messaging and language are appropriate to the audience involved. With this in mind cross border activities are vital in sense of fresh ideas and common methodologies for interpreting the user behaviour changes.

Real time data is an added value if the presentation is adequate to the audience, namely baseline and real time consumption display. Real time measurement has gathered new players to the field of energy efficiency that necessarily have no motivation or the knowhow to create integratable solutions into the emerging industry of smart metering vendors, instead all want to create a full range solution providing full package from measurements into costumer displays. This creates a large number of players in the market and creates interface challenges as all are compatible with only their own software. Conventional metering vendors or established energy management software providers can co-operate quite easily on national level because of old partnerships but new SMEs lack the knowledge or network of partners so they could focus on their core knowledge part of the solution.

The challenge for SME’s is to take the advantage of being in permanent touch with up-to-date technologies, from different companies, in the field of energy metering, with partners from different European countries, sharing ideas and forming business alliances. The most obvious benefit is for the Living Lab community and network to be able to actively disseminate Apollon experiences and pilot results, at the local, national and European levels. The greatest challenge is the absence of a single uniform European Energy service market for consumers. There are different industry legacies, regulatory environments, standards and supporting instruments for each individual European country. This emphasizes the prime importance of an instrument like to bring obstacles and challenges in this emergent lead market to the attention of the European Commission.

Within Apollon project international cooperation has shown benefits from exchange of experiences and lessons learnt from the partners, allowing the results of an initiative developed elsewhere to be appropriated and worked upon in other projects. This allows a convergence of resources, leveraging European-wide available assets (scientific excellence, technologies, methodologies, tools, experimental facilities, Living Labs, user communities) and avoids double work while achieving the same results.

54

Final Version

D.3.6

7

References [1] 2011 Technology Map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan); European Commission Joint Research Centre; Institute for Energy and Transport; EUR 24979 EN – 2011; [2] Advanced Pilots Of Living Labs Operating in Networks; Description of Work; Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme - ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP); Open innovation, user experience and living labs ICT PSP call identifier: CIP-ICT PSP-2009-3; [3] A joint contribution of DG ENER and DG INFSO towards the Digital Agenda, Action 73:Set of common functional requirements of the smart meter; European Commission; Information Society and Media Directorate-General; ICT addressing Societal Challenges; ICT for Sustainable Growth;October 2011; [4] Paolo BERTOLDI; Bogdan ATANASIU; Electricity Consumption and Efficiency;Trends in European Union; Status Report 2009; [5] European Regulators’ Group for Electricity and Gas; Final Guidelines of Good Practice on Regulatory Aspects of Smart Metering for Electricity and Gas; Brussels, 2011; [6] Joint Research Centre; Guidelines for cost benefit analysis of smart metering deployment; Brussels, 2012; [7] Robin Neven; An Exploratory Study on the Motivation to Join, Stay & Contribute based on Need Theory; Energy Transition Pilot Projects: Optimizing Acquisition,Retention& Contribution of Participants; MSc Thesis; 2011; [8] Green Paper; SAVE ENERGY; Grant agreement no.: 238882; October 2011 [9] Advanced Pilots Of Living Labs Operating in Networks; Deliverable 3.1; Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme - ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP); Open innovation, user experience and living labs ICT PSP call identifier: CIP-ICT PSP-2009-3;2010; [10]Advanced Pilots Of Living Labs Operating in Networks; Deliverable 3.3; Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme - ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP); Open innovation, user experience and living labs ICT PSP call identifier: CIP-ICT PSP-2009-3;2012; [11]Advanced Pilots Of Living Labs Operating in Networks; Deliverable 3.4; Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme - ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP); Open innovation, user experience and living labs ICT PSP call identifier: CIP-ICT PSP-2009-3;2012; [12]Advanced Pilots Of Living Labs Operating in Networks; Deliverable 3.5; Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme - ICT Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP); Open innovation, user experience and living labs ICT PSP call identifier: CIP-ICT PSP-2009-3; 2012; [13]Álvaro de OLIVEIRA, João RAPOSO, Veli-Pekka NIITAMO; SAVE ENERGY: Transforming Human Behaviour for Energy Efficiency; eChallenges e-2010 Conference Paper; [14]Andreas Andersson, Luleå Energy AB; Marita Holst, Centre for Distance-spanning Technology; Anna Ståhlbröst, Luleå University of Technology; Use Transformation Methodology Case; Luleå; 2012.

55

Final Version

D.3.6 [15]Attasiriluk, S. A., Nakasone, A., Hantanong, W., Prada, R., Kanongchaiyos, P. and Prendinger, H. (2009). Co-Presence, Collaboration, and Control in Environmental Studies a Second Life-Based Approach. Virtual Reality, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp.195-204.

[16]Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Holst, M. and Ståhlbröst, A., (2009). Concept Design with a Living Lab Approach Paper read at HICSS-42, at Big Island, Hawaii, 431, [17]Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Ihlström Eriksson, C., Ståhlbröst, A. and Svensson, J. (2009). A Milieu for Innovation - Defining Living Labs. The 2nd ISPIM Innovation Symposium Stimulating Recovery - The Role of Innovation Management, New York City, USA., 6-9 December 2009 [18]Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. and Ståhlbröst, A. (2009). Living Lab - an Open and CitizenCentric Approach for Innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.356-370.

[19]Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Innovation; a New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation. In Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, edited by Chesbrough, H.Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[20]Commission Recommendation on preparations for the roll-out of smart metering systems; Brussels, 2012; [21]Communication from the Commission Europe 2020; A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; Brussels, 3.3.2010;Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament; The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; Energy Efficiency Plan 2011; Brussels; 2011; [22]Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament; The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; Energy Roadmap 2050; [23]Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; Energy 2020; A strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure energy; Brussels 2010; [24]CoreLabs, I. (2007). Building Sustainable Competiveness - Living Labs Roadmap 2007 2010.

[25]Feurstein, K., Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K. A., Thoben, T. D. and Schumacher, J. (2008).

Living Labs: A New Development Strategy. In European Living Labs - a New Approach for Human Centric Regional Innovation, edited by Schumacher, J. and Niitamo, V. P. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher.

[26]Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C. and von Hippel, E. (2005). User-Innovators and "Local" Information: The Case of Mountain Biking. Research Policy, Vol. 34, No., pp.951-965.

[27]Markopoulos, P. and Rauterberg, G. W. M. (2000). Livinglab: A White Paper.

[28]Sleeswijk Visser, F., van der Lugt, R. and Stappers, P. J. (2007). Sharing User Experiences in the Product Innovation Process: Participatory Design Needs Participatory Communication. Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.35-45.

[29]Ståhlbröst, A. Forming future IT: the living lab way of user involvement; Luleå TekniskaUniversitet. 139 p. (Doctoral thesis / Luleå University of Technology; 2008:62) Luleå;2008; [30]Ståhlbröst, A. (2008). Forming Future It - the Living Lab Way of User Involvement.

Doctoral Thesis, Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Luleå University of Technology.

[31]Ståhlbröst, A. and Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. (2011). Exploring Users Motivation in Innovation Communities. International Journal ofEntrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.298-314.

56

Final Version

D.3.6 [32] Ståhlbröst, A., Holst, M., Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. and Sällström, A., (2009). Striving for Realism in a User-Involvement Process. Paper read at 2nd ISPIM Innovation Symposium - Stimulating Recovery - The Role of Innovation Management, at New York City, USA., 553, [33]http://knowledgecenter.openlivinglabs.eu/ [34]www.edpdistribuicao.pt/pt/rede/InovGrid [35]http://www.mckinsey.com/Client_Service/Electric_Power_and_Natural_Gas/Latest_th inking/McKinsey_on_Smart_Grid [36]http://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/dotcom/client_service/EPNG/PDFs/Mc K%20on%20smart%20grids/MoSG_Europe_VF.ashx

57

Final Version