Apollon - Validated Apollon Methodology

DELIVERABLE Project Acronym:

APOLLON

Grant Agreement number:

250516

Project Title:

Advanced Pilots of Living Labs Operating in Networks

D1.5 Validated APOLLON Methodology for Cross-Border Living Lab activities Final

Authors: Petra Hochstein (SAP) Julia Wiegel (SAP) Hans Schaffers (Aalto University) Hendrik Hielkema (Aalto University) Sampo Tukiainen (Aalto University) Bram Lievens (IBBT) Anna Stรฅhlbrรถst (LTU) Mari Runardotter (LTU) Claudio Vandi (UP8)

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

Public

C

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

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 1 Living Lab networks

X

03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

Revision History Revision Date

Author

Organization Description

2011/05/05 Petra SAP Hochstein

Initial Deliverable doc

2011/08/24 Petra SAP Hochstein

Distribution of work, additional structure - Agreed!

28/03/2012 Julia Wiegel

Integration of analysis of M&T use in all documents across all experiments

Petra SAP 2011/07/07 Hochstein

Still initial deliverable doc

2012/03/05 Petra SAP Hochstein

Consolidation of input from Liaison persons

SAP

17/04/2012 Petra SAP Hochstein 23/04/2012 Hans Schaffers

AAL

02/05/2012 Petra SAP Hochstein

Finalization for internal review

Editing and reworking of all chapters Final editing & reviewing

Statement of originality: This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise.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

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.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 2 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ 2 1.

2.

3.

4.

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Introduction............................................................................................................... 6 Objective of this document............................................................................................ 6 Positioning of this Deliverable within APOLLON .................................................. 6 Previous work .................................................................................................................... 7 Defining Methodology Validation ............................................................................... 8 This document ................................................................................................................. 10

Methodological Foundation .............................................................................. 12

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Early foundations of APOLLON Methodology ....................................................... 12 2.3 Extending the foundations to a comprehensive framework .......................... 13 2.4 Addressing the Interoperability Challenge ........................................................... 14 2.5 Methods and tools within the framework ............................................................. 15 2.6 Extending the set of methods and tools.................................................................. 17 2.7 APOLLON focus within Living Labs research ........................................................ 18 2.8 Organizing the methodology validation process ................................................ 19 2.8.1 Pilots experimentation and methodology support ................................................20 2.8.2 Cyclic collaboration process ............................................................................................20 2.8.3 Methodology Validation Data Collection and Analysis .........................................22

Implementing the Methodology Validation Approach ............................ 23

3.1 The methodology validation approach................................................................... 24 3.1.1 Step 1: Review of pilot documents to identify methodology needs ................ 24 3.1.2 Step 2: Baseline investigation of initial needs: questionnaire ...........................24 3.1.3 Step 3: Application of the APOLLON Research Framework ...............................25 3.1.4 Step 4: Describe cross-border Living Labs networking in a Scenario ............ 26 3.1.5 Step 5: Monitoring methodology adoption and pilot experiment....................27 3.1.6 Step 6: Identify experiences and lessons learned in the pilots..........................28 3.2 Implementation .............................................................................................................. 28 3.2.1 Review of Pilot documents to identify methodology needs ...............................29 3.2.2 Findings of the Baseline Investigation.........................................................................29 3.2.3 Application of the Research Framework in the Pilots...........................................30 3.2.4 Scenario development ........................................................................................................37 3.2.5 Three-monthly Monitoring Reports .............................................................................42 3.2.6 Experiences summarized from Pilot Validation documents ..............................44

Methodology Validation Results of the Four Pilots .................................. 47

4.1 WP2: Homecare and Independent Living experiment ...................................... 47 4.1.1 Collaboration & Communication Tools .......................................................................47 4.1.2 User interface translation .................................................................................................47 4.1.3 Ticketing tool .........................................................................................................................48 4.1.4 Scenario method ...................................................................................................................48 4.1.5 User participation agreement .........................................................................................48 4.1.6 Document sharing platform .............................................................................................49 4.1.7 Panel-Management software ...........................................................................................49 4.1.8 Manual ......................................................................................................................................50

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 3 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 4.1.9 Training ....................................................................................................................................50 4.1.10 Living Lab research methodology .................................................................................51 4.1.11 Access policy...........................................................................................................................51 4.1.12 Cascade system for helpdesk ...........................................................................................52 4.1.13 Requirement analysis .........................................................................................................52 4.1.14 Ecosystem analysis ..............................................................................................................52 4.1.15 Value-analysis ........................................................................................................................54 4.1.16 Monthly reporting template ............................................................................................54 4.2 WP3: Energy Efficiency pilot ...................................................................................... 55 4.3 WP4: eManufacturing pilot ......................................................................................... 64 4.3.1 Communication Tools .........................................................................................................64 4.3.2 Technical Support ................................................................................................................65 4.3.3 Joint decision making .........................................................................................................65 4.3.4 Kick Off Workshop ...............................................................................................................66 4.3.5 Experience Report Template / Feedback Gathering .............................................66 4.3.6 Partner Involvement Strategies .....................................................................................66 4.3.7 Scheduling and monitoring ..............................................................................................67 4.3.8 Strategy Networking ...........................................................................................................68 4.3.9 Early technical feasibility check .....................................................................................68 4.3.10 Contractual Template .........................................................................................................68 4.3.11 Public relations plan ...........................................................................................................69 4.3.12 Customer Identification .....................................................................................................69 4.3.13 Web Cam Tour .......................................................................................................................70 4.3.14 Use of LinkedIn as a communication tool ..................................................................70 4.3.15 Service Platform (named ‘Collaboration Platform’ in Scenario) ......................71 4.3.16 Experiment Review .............................................................................................................71 4.3.17 Local & Cross Border Expertise Database ..................................................................72 4.3.18 Checklist ...................................................................................................................................73 4.3.19 Visualisation ...........................................................................................................................74 4.3.20 Living Lab Knowledge Center .........................................................................................74 4.3.21 Web-based Communications Platform ........................................................................75 4.3.22 Business Potential Validation ..........................................................................................75 4.3.23 Skills & Competency Observation..................................................................................76 4.3.24 Final interviews ....................................................................................................................76 4.4 WP5: eParticipation Pilot ............................................................................................ 76 4.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 83

5.

Validated APOLLON Methodology................................................................... 84

5.1 Validated Methods and Tools ..................................................................................... 84 5.2 Execution of Cross-Border pilots ........................................................................... 103 5.2.1 Connect Phase ..................................................................................................................... 103 5.2.2 Plan & Engage Phase ........................................................................................................ 104 5.2.3 Support & Govern Phase ................................................................................................ 107 5.2.4 Manage & Track Phase .................................................................................................... 110 5.3 Harmonization and interoperability challenges .............................................. 114 5.3.1 End-user/consumer challenge .................................................................................... 116 5.3.2 Language Barriers ............................................................................................................. 116 5.3.3 Physical presence .............................................................................................................. 116 5.3.4 Contractual agreements / consortium enhancement ........................................ 117 5.3.5 Large enterprises versus start-ups ............................................................................ 117

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 4 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 5.4

6.

Validated APOLLON Methodology Framework ................................................. 117

APPENDIX .............................................................................................................. 121

7.

6.1 Baseline Questionnaire ............................................................................................. 121 6.2 Research Frameworks ............................................................................................... 134 6.2.1 WP4. eManufacturing ...................................................................................................... 134 6.3 The WPx scenarios ...................................................................................................... 139 6.3.1 SME Scenario Manufacturing (WP4) ......................................................................... 139 6.3.2 SME Scenario Home Care & Independent Living (WP2) ................................... 147 6.3.3 SME Scenario/s Energy Efficiency (WP3) ............................................................... 149 6.3.4 SME Scenario eParticipation (WP5) .......................................................................... 163 6.4 Quarterly Session reports ........................................................................................ 168 6.4.1 1st quarterly session report from WP5: “eParticipation” ................................ 168 6.4.2 3rd quarterly session report from WP4: eManufacturing ............................... 183 6.5 Method Validation Documents ............................................................................... 217 6.5.1 WP2: Home Care & Independent Living .................................................................. 217 6.5.2 WP3: Energy Efficiency ................................................................................................... 218 6.5.3 WP4: eManufacturing ...................................................................................................... 219 6.5.4 WP5: eParticipation ......................................................................................................... 266

8.

List of Tables......................................................................................................... 267

9.

References ............................................................................................................. 268

Table of Figures ................................................................................................... 267

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 5 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

1. Introduction 1.1 Objective of this document A major challenge within the APOLLON project and in particular within the horizontal work package 1 on “Methodology and Tools” is to create and validate a methodology and toolset aiming to support the set-up and operation of crossborder Living Labs networks. This D1.5 deliverable presents the results of that activity, focusing on the methodology creation and validation, and eventually on the validated methodology 1. It sketches the main lines of the APOLLON methodology framework, and systematically addresses the process of methodology development, introduction in the vertical pilots, adoption and use, and finally evaluation.

1.2 Positioning of this Deliverable within APOLLON

Methodology development, adoption and validation works in two streams: both top down (WP1) and bottom up (pilots). In one stream of work, the role of WP1 has been to create a framework for methodology development and to initiate its development and elaboration into methods, tools and guidelines. The second stream of methodology development and validation happens within the APOLLON vertical pilots, and synchronized with actual experiment activities specifically within that pilot. There, emphasis has been on practical methods, tools and techniques that can be used within the specific pilot context. Both streams, top down and bottom up, are equally important. One of our challenges has been to synchronize both streams and create synergies. Our designated liaison persons, acting as linking pin between WP1 and pilots, have undertaken to establish this synergy and interworking.

Therefore, the work reported in this D1.5 document interrelates both with other deliverables of WP1 and with methodology work carried out in the vertical pilots. Whereas the over-all methodology development, adoption and evaluation has been a flow of coherent activities, the results are presented in different deliverables.

•

•

D1.1 [M6] “A Catalogue of State-of-the-Art Concepts, Existing Tools and Lessons Learned” presents an overview of past work on networks of Living Labs or independent Living Labs. This provided the point of departure for WP1 and in particular for D1.5.

D1.2 [M8] “Research Framework and Investigation Strategy” has undertaken some groundwork for methodology development and validation: it presented

1

The D1.4 Recommended Toolset and Collaboration Guidelines” describes the more generally applicable methodology and set of tools for supporting cross-border Living Labs networking while this D1.5 addresses the validated Methodology within APOLLON.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 6 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

•

•

•

the so-called Research Framework which defines the relations between WP1 and vertical pilots as well as the general approach to structuring the joint pilot experimentation and methodology development activities.

D1.3 [M12] “Framework for APOLLON Evaluation and Impact Assessment” has described the approach for evaluating the added value of cross border Living Lab network, including elements for assessing APOLLON methodology development. This D1.5 makes use of some of the proposed evaluation criteria applying it to methodology validation.

D1.4 [M29] “Recommended Toolset and Collaboration Guidelines” presents a generalized methodology, toolset and guidelines for cross-border Living Labs networking. As the D1.5 focuses on the validated methodology within APOLLON, the D1.4 and D1.5 are highly complementary.

D1.6 [M29] “Evaluation and impact assessment” provides a general comprehensive evaluation of the APLLON project, including the evaluation of the methodology. The D1.5 contributes to this evaluation.

In summary, this D1.5 builds upon the previous work in D1.1, D1.2 and D1.3, has been developed in close and mutual interaction and synchronisation with D1.4, and contributes to the D1.6. The D1.5 forms the linking pin with the methodology activities within the four APOLLON pilots.

The work presented here (D1.5) has been carried out within Task 1.2 “APOLLON Methodology Framework” which has resulted in D1.2 [M12} and is also contributing to D1.4 and D1.6. The activities within this task include “the creation of the APOLLON methodology for future Living Lab networks to use for setting up, running and assessing Living Lab networks. The methodology is developed starting from the identified State-of-the-Art, continuing in an iterative process together with the thematic APOLLON Living Lab networks. After the first interaction with the vertical experiments, an initial Draft APOLLON methodology will be defined and applied to the experiments as suitable. All stakeholders are actively involved in the cyclical process of specification and development in order to ensure that the process is controllable and the methodology relevant and applicable to their specific context. Finally this task will provide an overview of a highly transferable methodology for conducting cross-border pilots and experiments in and by any network of Living Labs.” (DoW).

1.3 Previous work

The D1.1 presents a state of the art of Living Labs methodologies. In the last years there has been an increasing number of Living Labs emerged throughout Europe, which are gradually forming a vibrant and still growing community.

These Living Labs do not only differ in the composition and approach but also in the domains they address.

Various emerging Living Lab networks have been set up on European, national, and regional levels which mainly exchange high-level principles and best practices for individual Living Lab set-up and implementation. Exchange of best APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 7 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 practices and lessons learned is seen as the most important goal of the networks followed by harmonizing and integrating tools and methods between the partners. Finally, a third objective that these networks indicated is to perform joint research and innovation activities. Here the aim is that between partners of the various Living Labs and over the border of each Living Lab research on a larger scale is set-up and executed.

Until now, such collaboration in a network of Living Labs does not yet exist.

Although some good examples exist where different Living Labs are using a shared infrastructure and services to enable a common platform use (Integrated Projects C@R and ECOSPACE, which ran 2006-2010), a real collaboration between cross-border Living Labs and with SMEs to jointly conduct research and innovation has not yet emerged.

The D1.2 has set up a basic framework for implementing cross-border Living Labs networks which forms the point of departure for D1.5. This framework follows a 4-phased approach to the setting up and operation of a Living Labs network. In summary: 1. Connect: opening up opportunities for joint research and innovation.

2. Plan and engage: defining the roles of the partners, negotiating their responsibilities.

3. Support and govern: executing joint research, including the harmonisation and integration of tools and methods applied by the partners.

4. Manage and track: managing joint research and innovation, including the exchange of information between partners and initiatives.

This 4-phase framework follows a general process of preparation, setting up and operation of a cross-border network. This framework has been elaborated in more detail in the D1.4 report.

1.4 Defining Methodology Validation

Terms like “Method”, “Methodology” and “Framework” easily lead to confusion as they are used differently across scientific and professional communities. We shortly explain these terms, which also helps us to distinguish between D1.4 and D1.5. A useful starting point is the definition in online dictionary, we learn about the following definitions for the terms “methodology” and “framework” which we find helpful to distinguish between what belongs in D1.4 and what in D1.5.

•

Merriam Webster: http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/methodology Definition of METHODOLOGY: 1: a body of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline

•

2: a particular procedure or set of procedures

3: the analysis of the principles or procedures of inquiry in a particular field Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 8 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 Methodology can be: • •

•

• •

"the analysis of the principles of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline"; 2

"the systematic study of methods that are, can be, or have been applied within a discipline" 3.

A documented process for management of projects that contains procedures, definitions and explanations of techniques used to collect, store, analyze and present information as part of a research process in a given discipline. the study or description of methods 4

Definition of Framework (by Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework Framework may refer to: •

Software framework, a reusable set of libraries or classes for a software system (or subsystem).

•

• • • •

•

Application framework, a software framework used to implement the standard structure of an application for a specific operating system.

Web application framework, a software framework for development of dynamic websites, web applications, and web services

Framework (office suite), a DOS office application suite launched in 1984 to run on the original IBM PC under the MS-DOS operating system.

Process framework such as ITIL or Enhanced Telecom Operations Map

Conceptual framework, a set of theories widely accepted enough to serve as the guiding principles of research within a particular discipline.

Legal framework, a form of legal doctrine

According to Wikipedia, the term “method” is mostly reserved for a systematic and orderly procedure or process for attaining some objective. “Methodology” does not describe specific methods but specifies a guideline system for solving a problem. These processes constitute a generic framework and may be broken down in sub-processes, they may be combined, or their sequence may change. A task exercise must carry out these processes in one form or another. 5 Methodology thus may specify a process, but it may be expanded to include a coherent collection of theories, concepts or ideas as they relate to a particular discipline or field of inquiry. Methodology may refer to nothing more than a simple set of methods or procedures, or it may refer to the set of underlying assumptions.

In summary:

APOLLON Methodology denotes the over-all set of concepts, principles, generic processes and assumptions that can be used as a guiding system (“Handbook”) for creating and operating Living Labs networks.

1^ a b 2^ a b

Methodology, entry at Merriam–Webster Methodology, entry at Merriam–Webster

^ Baskerville, R. (1991). "“Risk Analysis as a Source of Professional Knowledge”". Computers & Security 10 (8): 749–764.

4

^ Katsicas, Sokratis K. (2009) "35" Computer and Information Security Handbook Morgan Kaufmann Pubblications Elsevier Inc p. 605 ISBN 978-0-12-374354-1 5

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 9 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 Methods and Tools within APOLLON are specific for a particular task within the activity of setting up and operating a Living Labs network. Typically, they provide an answer to a concrete “how to” question: how to set up a cross-border network, how to conduct joint research and innovation activities etc. This is explained in detail in D1.4.

The term “Validation” also may give rise to different interpretations. Our practical understanding of this term is based on the tracking of the process of development, adoption, use and evaluation of the APOLLON Methodology.

In this respect, the D1.5 and D1.4 are highly complementary. Main generally applicable elements of the Methodology Framework and the Methods and Tools as part of a “Guiding System” are being described in D1.4. Whereas the D1.5 has contributed to the insight in this “guiding system” it focuses more on the actual process of development and validation.

1.5 This document

Chapter 2 “Methodological Foundations” describes the methodological foundation of the work presented here. This foundation covers two aspects: 1.

The methodological structure that was chosen to create a validated APOLLON Methodology, and 2. The main elements and assumptions underlying the APOLLON Methodology Framework. This chapter provides the reader both an over-all view on our validation approach as well as the argumentation leading to the APOLLON Methodological Framework.

Chapter 3 “Implementing the Methodology Validation Approach” describes in detail the methodology validation approach and its implementation. The different phases of the validation process are described and the sources of information that have been used are being defined.

Chapter 4 “Methodology Validation results of the Four Pilots” summarizes the results of the different validation stages for each of the four pilots. The chapter ends with a short overview of conclusions. Details of the validation process are available in separate Pilot Validation documents; however, because of the size of these documents these are not included in this deliverable. As an example, however, the Pilot Validation Document of the Manufacturing pilot (WP4) has been included in the Appendix. Also, the tables of content of the other three Pilot Validation documents have been included in this Appendix.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 10 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 Chapter 5 “Validated APOLLON Methodology” focuses on the validated Methodology Framework as a “guiding system” for setting up and operating cross-border Living Labs networks. It presents the validated set of methods, tools and guidelines for setting up and operating cross-border projects within networks of Living Labs. It discusses (potential) interoperability challenges and how they may impact such projects and identifies new challenges emerging from the four pilots. Finally, the APOLLON Validated Methodology Framework is presented.

Chapter 6 is an Appendix. Here, we follow the validation approach and provide details concerning the “proof” for methodology validation which are the documents that served as the base for the validation. We have included the Baseline Questionnaire, four basic scenarios underlying the pilots, and two samples of quarterly session reports (one from the first phase, the other one from the second phase), and one example of the validation documents and the table of content of the others, in order to not overload the Appendix and the overall document too much.

The deliverable document concludes with the table of figures, list of tables and references.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 11 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

2. Methodological Foundation 2.1 Introduction This chapter describes the methodological foundation of the work presented here. This foundation covers two aspects: 1. The main elements and assumptions underlying the APOLLON Methodology Framework; and 2. The methodological structure that was chosen to create a validated APOLLON Methodology. This chapter provides the reader both an over-all view on our validation approach as well as the argumentation leading to the APOLLON Methodological Framework.

2.2 Early foundations of APOLLON Methodology

Previous work in WP1 (D1.1, D1.2) led to deciding on establishing a common approach to APOLLON methodology in terms of a phased approach to the setting up and operation of cross-border Living Labs networks. The phases were translated into processes and methods and tools. This categorization was further elaborated since then [M8] and has been applied in all APOLLON WP1 related tasks. This was done in order to ensure a common approach and understanding across the different tasks and experiments. This served also to ensure a consistent approach and a consistent set of results that can be integrated into the bigger picture which ultimately manifests with the validated APOLLON methodology framework, resulting at the end of the APOLLON project.

Phasing of cross-border network development

As described in the D1.1 and D1.2, the process of setting up, operating and managing a cross-border Living Labs network can be organized into four general phases: 1. Connect - relates to activities and considerations in the start-up phase of the collaboration. In this stage we are defining the primary intent of the community, as well as the domain and engaging issues: issues important to the organization, aspects that are important and motivating for people and can bring in new members.

2. Plan & Engage - needs to define the organizations’ roles more clearly, as well as negotiate partners’ responsibilities and addressing the power issues. A part of this process is measuring and making visible networks’ value for the organization and for individual members. Also the role and relationship of the network within the existing national and European networks need to be defined.

3. Support & Govern - includes issues and tasks related to supporting operational work within the network, including co-innovation, solution development, user interaction and field experimentation. This involves processes, methodologies and tools that the network will provide for its’ members’ disposal, and systematically follow in its’ operations.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 12 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 4. Manage & Track - refers to assessment of the potential and achieved benefits and impact that the network is creating. Evaluation is an ongoing process throughout the network engagement, and the results will be communicated in multiple levels, including customer, society & people and performance related results. Performance evaluation is closely related to the network objectives and key performance indicators, since Living Labs can have very different objectives ranging from purely economic objectives to policy implications.

2.3 Extending the foundations to a comprehensive framework

The phasing framework introduced in the previous section has been gradually extended towards a more comprehensive general guiding framework. As this framework is presented in detail in the D1.4 deliverable (Chapter 3) and has a more generic character, we only provide a short summary here. The framework addresses the different purposes of the methods, tools and guidelines:

1. Support the creation phase (preparation, setting up, planning) of the crossborder network. The creation includes preparation and planning of the Living Labs network until it can be launched.

2. Support the operation phase of the cross border Living Lab network, when this network is set in place. Methods and tools are required that will support the research, development, innovation and market creation activities within the network.

3. Resolve interoperability challenges. Within APOLLON these challenges address the use of common elements across the cross-border network. These common elements include 1. ecosystems, 2. data benchmarks, 3. platforms, 4. service frameworks. APOLLON distinguishes four pilots characterized by four distinct challenges to be addressed within a pilot.

4. Resolve specific problems or issues. Besides the mentioned interoperability challenges, many specific issues at pilot level are to be addressed that require specific method, tools and solutions or practices to cope with different stakeholders, objectives, innovation challenges, organizational contexts etc.

5. Address overarching issues in cross border networking of Living Labs. Here we point to the general, “foundational” theories and methodologies that are useful to guide the strategy for creation of Living Labs networks for open and user driven innovation.

The methods, tools and guidelines also include collaboration guidelines, of interest for actors and organizations. Because this is a “horizontal” issue this is not reflected in one specific category but included in the categories defined above, e.g. methods to agree on partnerships, manage a joint project, agree on a business plan.

Fig. 2-1 visualizes the comprehensive methodology structure as elaborated in D1.4. The vertical columns represent the different pilot environments whereas APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 13 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 the horizontal rows depict the main methodology emphasis. Many methodology elements are generic and can be applied in different pilot environments. The top row of specific methods and tools depict methodology elements that have been specifically elaborated within one particular pilot. However this should not be interpreted as a black-white representation.

Figure 2-1: Methodology Framework (D1.4 Chapter 3).

As already mentioned, this methodology structure represents a generally applicable framework and set of tools while D1.5 focuses on the validated methodology. Still, in order to understand this D1.5 it is important to be aware of the vision and end-product of D1.4.

2.4 Addressing the Interoperability Challenge

For each of the four vertical domains (Homecare and Independent Living, Energy Efficiency, eManufacturing, eParticipation), a real-life pilot experiment has been specifically designed to pilot and validate whether and how cross-border domain-specific collaboration between Living Labs leads to measurable improvements in ICT product and service innovation, brings significant added value to SMEs including micro entrepreneurs, and leads to sustainable networks strengthening the European innovation fabric.

Furthermore, each experiment has a complementary focus on specific challenges regarding interoperability and harmonization, i.e. building a common ecosystem, creating a common benchmark framework, using a common technology APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 14 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 platform, and developing a common integration framework. The focus of complementarities between the four pilot models implemented in the vertical experiments is depicted in Figure 2-2 below.

Figure 2-2: Four use cases (also called experiments) within APOLLON

The Interoperability Challenge will be observed throughout the piloting phases, whether and where it becomes relevant or makes a difference, e.g. in the methodology, the application of methods and tools, the phases or for the thematic approach. Then necessary recommendations will be depicted from these pilots.

2.5 Methods and tools within the framework

The general phasing structure introduced in section 2.2, which is also part of the comprehensive methodology structure presented in 2.3, has been translated into specific activities or processes, and methods and tools to be used within these processes. The following Figure 2-3 displays sample activities and tools stemming from D1.2 that can make up the different phases of Living Lab management of a thematic network within the APOLLON methodology. Again, this forms the point of departure for D1.5 while a more elaborated overview of methods and tools will be presented in later chapters.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 15 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

Connect:

Plan and Engage:

Support and Govern:

•Template for contacting LLs (in the online tool) •Format of how the LLs would profile themselves in the tool •Checklist for things to consider •References or quotes to success stories •Interaction and feedback

•Template for collecting SME (large company, LL) objectives for crossborder project •Standard agreement template including roles, risk sharing etc.

•Checklist for things to consider •Instructions to IPR handling •Description of applying STOF model in the planning •Interaction and Feedback

•Research Framework for collecting the materials •Checklist for things to consider •References to research methods and project management tools •Interaction and Feedback

Manage and Track: •Success stories •Checklist for things to consider •Impact evaluation templates (topics, SME, large company, LL, project outcome) •Commercialization related services description* •Business plan •Market analysis •Project closing checklist

Figure 2-3: Overview of sample methods & tools within the initial APOLLON methodology framework’s four phases (D1.2)

To a certain extent relevant methods, tools, governance and organizational structures exist already as they have been developed in previous Living Labs projects or other initiatives, and are applicable at the different stages of the cross-border Living Lab networking lifecycle. These include e.g. partner finding tools, partnership agreement approaches, collaborative project planning and management methods and tools, technological solutions such as reference architectures for Collaborative Working Environments (CWEs), collaboration and communication tools such as shared workspaces and conferencing tools, common frameworks and models e.g. for monitoring and evaluation, and frameworks tom define roles and responsibilities.

Looking at previous work, it seems that the Plan & Engage category is most prominently represented in terms of state of the art of existing methods and tools. Obviously the need to co-innovate across two or more Living Labs has brought up initial methods and tools that support the actual solution development between partners belonging to different Living Labs. In some cases the development of supporting structures, methods or tools has not been investigated systematically and offered big potential for the APOLLON consortium to take them to the next level.

A SWOT analysis carried out in D1.1 indicated that one of the shortcomings of state of the art methods and tools is the poor application in real life experiments in particular across two or more Living Labs.

At least some of the available Living Lab methods and tools have been well applied in real life on individual level but not in a networking context. The modification of these methods and tools for networking purposes offers a good starting point for the APOLLON methodology framework.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 16 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

2.6

Extending the set of methods and tools

As the four APOLLON pilots have demonstrated, cross-border Living Labs networks may fulfill an important role in strengthening open innovation in value networks. A sustainable “infrastructure” of processes, methods and tools is a prerequisite for enabling innovation in such value networks. In particular methods and tools to support open and collaborative innovation can be considered as critical as they act as platform for interaction, co-creation and feedback in product and service innovation.

In this context APOLLON studies open, collaborative innovation tools as platform for cross-border Living Labs networks and as environments for engaging and empowering users in a co-creation process with developer’s communities. The target stage is to enable a cross-border creative innovation environment where ideas and knowledge move freely across the network. Effective tools enable the leveraging of knowledge and managing relationships in sustainable co-creation processes.

Within Living Labs in general and within APOLLON in particular the objective is to develop and empirically validate multi-disciplinary methodologies and platforms to support cross border research and innovation through experimenting in real-life contexts. In the methodology development work, demand has also emerged for methodologies enabling the collection, modeling, analysis and storage of qualitative user generated data in various contextual settings and research domains in order to create a knowledge base of the various methodologies and ICT enabled tools for conducting Living Labs projects in cross-border network settings. Such Living Labs tools for human-centric research and innovation may include: •

• •

• • • •

Web based tools and platforms that provide companies and organizations with a controlled environment for collecting data, as well as for managing user communities and projects involving target group users.

Tools and an environment for initiating, planning, managing and reporting projects and project data; including support for multiple consecutive projects Tools and an environment for gathering findings and recommendations throughout the project run, as well as, a centralized action database for managing all project findings

Tools for maintaining and updating target group user databases for different types of consumer recruitment organizations Tools for recruiting consumers from own or partner’s target group user databases Tools for maintaining and managing testing facilities including video streaming and annotation support

Environment for consumers and testing projects to come together and discuss the research online (user community)

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 17 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 Such methods and tools are especially relevant for the operation phase of crossborder Living Labs networks. In order to effectively use these tools, several supporting functionalities and processes must be in place, including governance models, user engagement process, knowledge management principles etc.

In the deliverable D1.4 we have collected and described methods and tools as well as templates which can be used for cross-border projects within thematic networks of Living Labs.

2.7 APOLLON focus within Living Labs research

A sustainable methodology and research infrastructure is a prerequisite for distributing innovation through the value chain. The Living Labs community has already developed many methodologies, tools, methods, processes, templates.

Beyond what has been already accomplished, the APOLLON project focuses it’s on the methodology for setting up cross-border Living Labs networks and conducting cross-border experiments. The following cube (Fig. 2-4) has been created to visualize the particular APOLLON focus. Three dimensions are proposed that map the different forms, processes and maturity stages of Living Labs:

1. Maturity: stages of Living Labs development. We may distinguish between: preparation of Living Lab development, limited scale experimentation, extensive application development and field experimentation, user-led co-creation, and extension to cross border networking settings. APOLLON aims to target the last stage although it covers all stages mentioned.

2. Phasing: development of a Living Lab. Here we refer to section 2.2 where we introduced the phasing model: 1. Connect, 2. Plan and engage 3. Support and govern, 4. Manage and track. APOLLON fully adopts this model and has developed scenarios elaborating this phasing scheme.

3. Process: innovation process support within Living Labs. This dimension represents a typical “workflow scenario” of setting up a community, idea generation, elaboration of ideas, search of competencies, project definition, and project execution. This dimension describes the development of an innovation project. Within APOLLON, this view addresses the key targeting of SME innovation.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 18 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

Figure 2-4: Three-dimensional cube for positioning of APOLLON

This cube is not meant to have in the end a three-dimensional framework where each crossing point will have a clear definition of a set of methods & tools but rather as a help to clarify where APOLLON WP1 is having its focus: mature Living Labs, capable of interacting within a network of Living Labs, where the projects are specifically coming from along the innovation process of a company and the focus is setting up the necessary environment from scratch to full execution of the experiments.

2.8 Organizing the methodology validation process

Whereas previous sections in this chapter have elaborated on the methodology framework itself including methods and tools, we now turn to the process of methodology development and validation. For a good understanding of the validation process, we take our point of departure in the pilot experiment process and the role of methodology in this process, and then we explain in more detail how methodology activities of WP1 have been designed to support the pilot experimentation process. Here we need to keep in mind that methodology development and validation works through both top-down (WP1-led) and bottom-up (pilot-led) activities.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 19 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 2.8.1 Pilots experimentation and methodology support The pilots in the various thematic domains conduct their experiments following the same high level schedule (depicted in 2-5) but with very different emphasis and contexts. Therefore, already in the initial phases of the project (Pilot preparations, Deliverable Dx.1) it has become apparent that there is need for harmonization and methodological support for the experiments. The application of a common Research Framework as proposed by WP1 has assisted the pilots in structuring their activities in the experiments and putting them into a process oriented frame. This also has assisted communications with the various partners in various experiments and locations, and allows WP1 to collect validation data in pre-defined categories. The common Research Framework was developed also in order to establish a common language and terminology for the project as a whole.

Figure 2-5: Steps within the thematic experiments

We need, however, distinguish between two layers of methodology support:

1. Methodology support to prepare and implement the pilot experimentation process. This is where pilot experiment design is important (Fig. 2-4) as well as how the Research Framework enables a sound preparation of the experiments.

2. Methodology support to conduct the RDI activities. Here we refer to the specific methods, tools and guidelines that are important not to structure the experimentation but to carry out the particular tasks and activities within the pilot, such as partner finding, partnership agreement, value system analysis etc.

Methodology support activities have been initiated partly within the pilots themselves (directed to the immediate needs and demands of the pilots) and partly within WP1.

2.8.2 Cyclic collaboration process

Now we turn to the interaction between “horizontal” WP1 and the “vertical” pilots. WP1 as the provider meant to develop and introduce methodology, methods and tools whereas the pilots represent the “demand” side regarding methodology, methods and tools. Bridging demand and supply, WP1 APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 20 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 representatives acted as “liaisons” to support the four pilot experiments in applying the methodology framework and supporting them in the various stages of the pilot experiments.

Figure 2-6 visualizes the tight relation between the methodology-related activities and deliverables of WP1 and those of the pilot experiments.

Figure 2-6: Interaction between the APOLLON deliverables

Thus WP1 has implemented the following methodology support practices:

1. Dedicated Work package 1 members acted as liaisons to vertical experiments.

2. Liaisons used structured template-based collaboration mechanisms and formal meetings for iterative methodology analysis, and monitoring and consultation of the experiments with respect to methods and tools usage and support.

3. Regular exchange among liaisons within the WP1 conference calls and meetings in order to share insights and practices from each other’s vertical experiments and to feed it back to the experiments.

4. Development of the Living Lab Knowledge Centre where methodology, methods, tools and practices are collected and made available.

On initiative of WP1, the Living Lab Knowledge Centre http://knowledgecentre.openlivinglabs.eu/ will be used as the communication platform for the APOLLON project results, which are ready to be offered to a wider community. The platform includes methodology support in terms of practical tools, templates and guidelines for starting and running Living Lab experiments. The platform is interactive and continuously updated to include the latest findings and experiences from the experiments. The platform is accessible for all APOLLON partners and will be adjusted to the APOLLON setting.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 21 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 2.8.3 Methodology Validation Data Collection and Analysis Methodology validation implies reaching a conclusion regarding the actual appropriateness of the methodology (and its constituting elements) in the environments where it is applied. It is a confirmation of how methodology meets the needs of the users. Therefore, methodology validation must be based on tracking and analyzing the development, introduction, adoption and use of the methodology guidelines, methods and tools. WP1 has developed an approach to gather this information based on systematic 3-monthly monitoring reporting on how the methodology meets user need in the four pilot environments. Liaisons played an important role in this reporting approach. This is explained in more detail in Chapter 3.

We understand validation data collection as an iterative process of building new data and constantly comparing it to the existing knowledge on the field. We minimized biases by collecting the validation data in a structured manner based on 3-monthly monitoring reports during a 2-year period, and by establishing a textual “database” for the findings.

The lessons learned from this validation activity can be translated into principles, guidelines and processes that are applicable in the daily practice of Living Labs and SME’s. This knowledge is being transferred to the European Network of Living Labs and eventually can be consulted at the Living Lab Knowledge Centre. As far as available it also has been collected within the D1.4 Recommended Toolset and Collaboration Guidelines which has an elaborated analysis concerning collaboration processes and guidelines, and also includes a collection of templates, tools and best practices, as well as in the D1.6 Project Evaluation.

In order to implement the monitoring of the methodology development, adoption and use, qualitative techniques were used such as in-depth interviews, document reviews, data search. These are seen as the best methods for data collection and analysis. In these techniques, the liaison assumes an active role and works in close collaboration with both the WP1 methodology team and the vertical pilot team (WP- and task-leaders). Figure 2-7 explains the interaction between the liaisons from WP1 with the stakeholders of their respective pilots (WPx).

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 22 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

Figure 2-7: interaction between liaisons & experiments (WPx)

Our earlier research on collaboration processes, networked innovation, and Living Labs already resulted in knowledge on the key issues and stakeholders in cross-border Living Lab collaboration processes. Results from D1.1 and preparatory work of the vertical pilots have been used to draft a high-level “model� that represents the first iteration of APOLLON methodology. The evolving results from the experiments have been fed into the model by category to elaborate and validate the various elements. The integrated framework has been used as a steppingstone to integrate the lessons learned from the pilots and to provide an overview of the collaboration process, which is reported in the D1.4.

3. Implementing the Methodology Validation Approach The actors and stakeholders within a pilot environment (SMEs, large corporations, Living Labs and other actors) are facing a diversity of activities and issues when cooperating in the cross-border Living Labs networking pilot. Based upon the main structure and principles presented in the previous chapter, we identified these activities and issues and the corresponding methodology support. This chapter describes the approach for capturing and collecting validation data and for working towards the final APOLLON methodology framework.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 23 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

3.1 The methodology validation approach In order to assess the methodology needs of the organizations in each of the pilot environments and track the development, introduction, adoption and use of the methodology elements, we have taken an approach consisting of 6 consequent steps. This approach is leveraging on the methodological structure of the four experiments, on good “action research practices” and on the phasing model of setting up and operating cross-border loving labs networks. The 6 steps are the following: 1. Review of pilot documents to identify methodology needs

2. Baseline investigation of initial needs through a questionnaire 3. Application of the APOLLON Research Framework 4. Scenario description of the pilot

5. Monitoring methodology adoption through 3-monthly monitoring reports 6. Identify lessons learned based on pilot evaluations

3.1.1 Step 1: Review of pilot documents to identify methodology needs Due to the fact that the vertical experiments and the horizontal experiments started in parallel, an important source of identifying the need for methodological support was in the pilot deliverable documents. These documents describe, for the early stages of the pilot experiments, the “requirements”, the “use cases”, and the “technical & organizational set-up”.

These documents have been analyzed according to the need for and use of methods using the following three categories: •

• •

Proposed Methods: Methods that are explicitly named and/or described in the analyzed documents.

Identifiable Methods: Methods that are not named but may be identified from the course of action within the pilot as described in the document.

Reasonable Methods: Methods that can be derived from the document either as needed from the description of a problem, the activities the partner were planning or were especially asked for by the partners.

3.1.2 Step 2: Baseline investigation of initial needs: questionnaire

Baseline investigation of initial needs was carried out through a questionnaire.

The aim of this questionnaire was to get a view of the current status of crossborder collaboration and innovation activities among the SMEs and the Living Labs involved in the APOLLON project. The inquiry also included aspects such as requirements on methods and tools for cross-border collaboration. In addition, the survey collected input on methodological requirements for networking and was looking for ideas on how to measure the impact of the networking activities in the project. The questionnaire focused on various aspects of cross-border cooperation between Living Labs and SMEs. The different development phases of APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 24 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 the cross-border Living Labs network (Connect, Plan and Engage, Support and Govern, manage and Track) were used to structure the questions.

The complete questionnaire (see Annex Baseline Questionnaire), consisted of 43 questions, was hosted online by myBBT and invitations to participate were sent to the partners in the APOLLON project. A number of 14 partners provided their initial thoughts on their expectations for methodological support at a very early stage of their experiments.

3.1.3 Step 3: Application of the APOLLON Research Framework

Within APOLLON we apply a modified and simplified design science-based research framework (March and Smith 1995) as a basis for setting up, operation and evaluation of both pilot experiments and methodology. This research framework is framed by a matrix of research outputs and research activities (table 3-1). This matrix consists of a set of questions guiding the harmonized creation, implementation and evaluation of the cross-border Living Labs network pilot as well as the methodologies. The framework is translated to a systematic structured data collection process (see D1.2, D1.4).

According to this framework, which embodies important elements of action research, the research activities comprise building, evaluating, theorizing on and justifying artifacts, and therefore covering both the process of “development” and “understanding”. In the APOLLON context both the (scalable) APOLLON methodology for cross-border Living Lab collaboration and the cross-border Living Lab pilot activities and results represent the object of study (“artifacts”).

Our methodology validation activity focused on the tasks of building, validating and evaluating the methodology framework with the thematic pilots, however we have thoroughly studied the pilot development process as well better understand the adoption and use of methodology.

Activities/Outputs

Constructs (concepts)

Build

Development

Evaluate

Justify

Understanding

Generalize

Models (Living Lab network scenarios) Methods (methodologies)

Instantiations (Living Lab network pilots)

Table 3-1: Design science framework (March and Smith, 1995)

In the context of the experiments the APOLLON research framework was applied by answering dedicated questions in each field of the table. (see: Table 3-2).

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 25 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

Activities/Outputs

Build

Evaluate

Justify

Generalize

Models (Living Lab network scenarios)

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

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

What are the success criteria that you use?

How do you assess the wider applicability of the model?

Constructs (concepts)

Methods (methodologies) Instantiations (Living Lab network pilots)

What are the variables that you study?

What is the process for validating the assumptions?

Who are the stakeholders at your experiment?

What are the elements that you measure?

How do you evaluate and adjust the validation process?

How do you evaluate added value for each stakeholder?

How do you decide best practices across the experiments?

How do you justify the use of selected methods?

How do you justify the selected collaboration model?

How do you filter pilot specific elements out?

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

How do you compile recommendations for sustainability

Table 3-2: Thematic experiments’ focus and content communicated in categories of ‘activities’ and ‘outputs’

This approach allowed for a common view across the four pilots on the experiments and role of methodology, and for a continuous analysis of the experiments and the adoption and use of methodology.

It should be taken into account that the APOLLON Research Framework was revisited half way through the experiments and at the end for making necessary adjustments.

3.1.4 Step 4: Describe cross-border Living Labs networking in a Scenario

When drafting the initial APOLLON Methodology Framework it became obvious that despite the interaction with the vertical pilots there was a lack of a generic, but at the same time specific and operationalized common framework as regards the actual process of setting up and operating the cross-border Living Lab network. Therefore it was necessary to create shared process descriptions within WP1 and also in discussions between WP1 and the pilots, based on the objectives, activities and plans in the pilots. These process descriptions are to identify and frame the different methodology elements (guidelines, methods, tools) that support the activities of setting up and operating the cross-border Living Lab networks in the pilot environments.

For creating these process descriptions we opted to use a scenario approach.

According to Glenn, “a scenario is a story with plausible cause and effect links that connects a future condition with the present, while illustrating key decisions, events, and consequences throughout the narrative.” (Glenn, 2008). This view can be operationalized by stating “that a scenario is a description of a person’s interaction with a system. It helps to focus design efforts on the user’s APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 26 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 requirements, which are distinct from technical or business requirements.” (Gafney, 2000).

A scenario is different from the more classical, technological focused use case description. The latter specifically focuses on the technical interactions and requirements whereas scenarios are appropriate whenever there is the need to describe a system interaction from the user’s perspective. They are particularly useful when it is necessary to shift focus from the technology to the users in order to open up design possibilities. Scenarios help to confine complexity to the technology layer (where it belongs), and prevent it from becoming manifest within the user interface. The characteristics of a scenario are that they should be (a) narrative, (b) bounded and (c) descriptive (on the level of the actors, the activities as wells as on things or objects)(Fowler, 2007).

Within APOLLON the scenario approach was adapted to identify and concretize the different steps and processes that are needed in the set-up and operation of a cross-border collaboration, balancing between the various stakeholder perspectives: Living Labs, SMEs, and organizations. First, a generic scenario (see 0) was developed to describe a set of actions within the four development phases of cross-border loving labs network evolution: Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern and Manage & Track. This APOLLON scenario is more process oriented in comparison with the more traditional user based scenarios.

3.1.5 Step 5: Monitoring methodology adoption and pilot experiment

For each pilot experiment WP1 has nominated a liaison person who participates in the thematic experiments and related meetings and events of the pilot work package with special attention to methodology issues. Besides this ongoing involvement a regular collaboration process with formal meetings for iterative concept validation and methodology consulting and monitoring was introduced in a frequency of 3 months.

The aim of these activities was the following: • • • • •

Monitoring progress of the experiments, identifying methodology needs, as well as development, introduction, adoption and use of methodologies.

Plan and document the interaction between WP1 and the pilot experiment within the pilot work package.

Collect problems and topics that require methodology support.

Act as a “methodology consultant” to the pilot experiment and provide recommendations concerning methods, tools and templates.

Gather feedback on the proposed methods, tools, templates from the side of the pilots.

Responsibility for calling these meeting was with WP1 and all WP leaders’ commitment to participate in the process either themselves or with a nominated representative. This process was kicked-off at the APOLLON general assembly in

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 27 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 September 2010, and ran in 3 months intervals with reporting deadlines in December 2010, March 2011, June 2011, September 2011, December 2011 and March 2012.

The 3-monthly monitoring and reviewing process was supported by a Monitoring Guideline template to help making observations and doing the reporting for each 3-monthly period. Also this Monitoring Guideline template facilitated the consultation sessions between WP1 liaison and the Pilot team, ensuring data collection grounded in a common framework that was used across all pilot experiments.

The initial Monitoring Guideline was revised several times in order to address the emerging developments within the pilot experiments and our increased understanding of the methodology adoption process. This Monitoring Guideline can be considered as a tool that can be used in comparable situations in other projects.

3.1.6 Step 6: Identify experiences and lessons learned in the pilots 6

Due to the fact that the vertical Pilot work packages and the horizontal Methodology work package act in parallel, the Pilot deliverables describing the “execution & strategy”, “results & impact” or “evaluation and lessons learned” were an important source in identifying the need for methodological support and capture lessons learned. They reveal additional needs and usages of methods, tools and templates on one side and constitute an additional source of information regarding the success of the usage of various means of support. The findings have been synthesized into the D1.6 Project Evaluation report.

In line with the approach of analyzing the deliverables that cover the pilot preparation stage (section 3.1.1), the mentioned pilot documents have been analyzed with respect to the needs and usages of methods using the terminology of Proposed Methods, Identifiable Methods and Reasonable Methods.

3.2 Implementation

The results gained from the Pilot deliverables, the scenario, 3-monthly monitoring reports and the application of the Research Framework were gathered into Method Validation Documents for each Pilot (see Annex 6.5 Method Validation Documents). The information assembled by the pilot experiment partners is focusing on how the methods and tools were adopted, used or applied rather than on their concrete documentation in terms of content, which can be found in D1.4.

All four pilots were operating independently which led to different approaches and results with respect to overall methodology development, introduction and

These Deliverables are Dx.4-Dx.7. Some pilots have only Deliverables numbered until Dx.5, other up to Dx.7 6

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 28 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 adoption. Nevertheless there have been methods that were developed or used by one experiment and then transferred to another through the help of the liaisons.

A note on terminology: We are using the term “Pilot” to denote the over-all cross-border Living Lab networking activity within a work package. The terms ‘use case’ and ‘experiment’ are used interchangeable throughout this document.

The reason is that the four pilots chose to use either one of the terms because of the nature of their research but in the APOLLON context with respect to methodology the terms are interchangeable. For example: in the context of the “home care & independent living” pilot three cases have been experimented where Independent Living Systems (ILS) were transferred from one Living Lab to another. Different aspects of “localization” and “cultural adaptation” have been experimented in each of these cases. Each of these are “experiments” or “use cases” within the over-all Pilot. In context of the eManufacturing Pilot the term ‘use case’ addressed the application of one technology within two different application areas, thus addressing the standardization aspect of a technology.

3.2.1 Review of Pilot documents to identify methodology needs

Several working documents and deliverables of the vertical pilots have provided us insight in the methodology needs of these pilot activities. Furthermore, WP1 has participated in several joint meetings with vertical pilots to discuss these needs. The methodology needs are, to some extent, also described in the Evaluation deliverables of the vertical pilots, which have been synthesized into the D1.6 Project Evaluation report of WP1. Methodology needs as identified from the reports are summarized in Table 3-3.

Vertical Pilot

Proposed methods

Homecare and independent living (WP2)

Value system analysis

Energy efficiency (WP3) eManufacturing (WP4)

eParticipation (WP5)

Identifiable methods

Reasonable methods

Technology transfer project management

Applications development framework

Table 3-3: Methodology needs expressed in Pilot documents (Examples)

3.2.2 Findings of the Baseline Investigation The response was limited, with a total of 16 questionnaires completed. One reason for the response rate may be the difficulty of some of the questions, as APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 29 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 well as the fact that not all questions were relevant for all partners. The questionnaire was completed by 6 Living Labs, 7 SMEs, one Cluster and 2 large companies. The number of responses makes quantitative analysis difficult to be significant so the analysis is done looking more on the qualitative remarks made and the answers to the open questions.

The most valuable results of the Baseline Investigation are in the answers given to the open questions, they show that the problems and needs for the Living Labs do not significantly differ from those of the companies. One of the things learned from the baseline investigation is the importance of communication between the various partners in projects. This is illustrated by remarks like: “Communication, inter-personal skills, language skills, be willing to embrace new ways of working to embed communications. “ (by a Living Lab)

“Being open and able to communicate with other people and persons with other background and nationality as oneself. Without openness nobody will look you up, the only contacts you will get are those you initiate yourself. So with openness you get approached and can also initiate own contacts”. (By an SME) “Proactive collaboration, meaningful idea exchange, "walk the talk" “

These remarks illustrate a widely felt need for and recognition of the importance of communication between the partners in project. The need for people who are personally involved and enthusiastic about the experiments and the Living Lab community is demonstrated by comments such as: “The "strategies" and "visions" need to be backed up by proactive people who are ready to get their hands dirty.” (By a large corporation)

“A 'known person' - the 'face' of the network who people can approach for enquiries and to get more information.” (By a Living Lab) Both these comments illustrate the importance of a formalized division of roles between the participants. A structured approach will enable the parties to keep lines of communication short and work efficient.

As for requests towards methodologies and tools, there appears to be a need for language-barrier crossing methods that allow for structured and uniform data gathering.

3.2.3 Application of the Research Framework in the Pilots

The primary intention of the Research Framework is to help structuring of the research and innovation activities within APOLLON pilots. For work package 1 the Research Framework is a way to have a unified view of these research activities undertaken in the four experiments. Individual partners’ perspectives and outcomes are considered. The initial Research Framework had a set of questions to be answered by the Pilots. These questions were included in the template for the 3-monthly Monitoring reports (see Annex at 5.3). The Research Framework was used by all Pilots however to a different extend. Generally the APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 30 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 approach towards adopting the Research Framework by the Pilots was to consider it and fill it in at the beginning, either for the whole Pilot or individually for each experiment or use case and to review this document again by the time of finalizing.

Lessons learned

The Research Framework has not been used intensively by the different Pilots.

From the 3-monthly Monitoring reports we derived that this is mostly due to partners not being aware of how the Research Framework could be useful for their research and finding it too difficult to understand. From the final outcome a generalized application for Living Lab experiments could be useful for future experiments so that there is an example for better apprehension. Also we learned that stronger involvement of the Liaisons would have improved its adoption.

The Research Framework has been used primarily in the beginning and at the end of the project to describe a methodological process from definition to actual results achieved. It was also intended to use the Research Framework throughout the project, to verify whether the partners are still on the right track with their research and exploration activities, still on their way to reach their goals & objectives. This was not the case. The reason for this varied use was the fact that pilot experimental research was more of a focus for the four vertical Pilot work packages than the methodological research. Therefore the Research Framework was found more suited as a definition of the research to be evaluated later on. Despite this varied use, the feedback on this by the Pilot partners was very positive, because it helped them to really think about their companyspecific objectives within the upcoming project.

In the different cross-border Living Lab Pilot environments the application of the Research Framework turned out to be different. For the eManufacturing experiment it was possible to adopt the Research Framework as a general method, while in the “home care & independent living” experiment there were individual applications of the Research Framework for each pilot as well as a generalized approach.

Home Care & Independent Living Pilot (WP2)

The application of the Research Framework in the “home care & independent living” pilot (WP2) is presented in Table 3-4. This table provides an overview of what has been subject for the research activities in the various pilot experiments or use cases.

When we connect this to the specific tools and methods used in the different pilots, then we can map the adopted and used methods (see 4.1 for Homecare and Independent Living pilot) as presented in Table 3-5.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 31 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 Activities/ Outputs Constructs

Model

Method

Instantiation

Build

Evaluate

Justify

Generalize

Eco-system parameters for cross-border piloting Health specific requirements for crossborder piloting (such as security, privacy, liability) A transfer of an Health service or product has to be contextualized Local partners need to be involved to take up the different roles in the eco-system In a cross-border transfer the LL will be more than just a facilitator. It will have to take more responsibilities than in local pilots.

Determine specific hypothesis related to the set-up and process and assess them during and after the pilots Engaging required actors within the ecosystem: • Living Labs • Local actors • End-users

Capturing user experience Detecting impact on actors involved Collaboration between the partners Cross-border specific issues Status reporting Conducting Interviews Questionnaires

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

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

Transfer and deployment technology New business opportunities Efficient procedures, tools and methods Identification of the required eco-system building blocks Strategy for a network of Living Labs

Comparison of the different pilots, exchange with other Healthcare Living Lab

Three-monthly reporting using APOLLON evaluation tool

Based on the experiences in the local experiment, assisted to the experience of the remote Living Lab Based on a) the ecosystem and b) scope of the project and c) the implementation limitations

Adjusting technology to be multi-language, multi-contextual and scalable for large rollout Exchange lessons learned between partners, the consortium, other LLs. Working towards a thematic network

Build

Evaluate

Justify

Generalize

Interviews Questionnaires

Table 3-4 Applying the Research Framework in the Homecare Pilot Activities/ Outputs Constructs

Value analysis

Model

Method

Requirement analysis Eco-system analysis Value analysis

Instantiation

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

Monthly reporting Interviews Questionnaire Data gathering LL research methodology Monitoring tools (not used) Interview Impact assessment (not used)

Monthly reporting Scenario Value analysis Scenario Transferring

How do you justify the selected collaboration model?

Table 3-5: Methods and Tools in the Homecare pilot

Energy Efficiency Pilot (WP3)

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 32 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 Within the Energy Efficiency pilot there was an active interest in finding out what the joint research activities should focus on. It was decided to use the Research Framework in all of the experiments within WP3, in order to ensure that in each experiment the research is conducted according to a similar approach in order to be able to better compare the findings in the end. It was found, however, that the Research Framework was very complex and difficult to use. It was difficult to understand what each issue in the Research Framework indicated. A beneficial approach would have been to organize a common evaluation of the content of the Research Framework.

The Research Framework has been used in the beginning of the Pilot, which is documented in the first 3-monthly Monitoring report for this Pilot. Thereafter it was not specifically used anymore. WP3 Partners stated that the initial introduction of the Research Framework has influenced their work implicitly on how they perceived the project, but they are not aware of how and therefore cannot describe the usage explicitly.

Table 3-6: Applying the Research Framework in the Energy Efficiency pilot

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 33 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 Activities/ Outputs Constructs

Model

Method

Instantiation

Build

Evaluate

Justify

Theorize

Completeness of software platform New business opportunities Exploration of knowledge transfer possibilities Best position in the value chain of an SME Learning about the platform environments and building applications on top of it Implementation of use cases in various contexts Stable working pilot platform New global business Evaluate whether a LL environment is capable of being a test environment for large enterprises and other technology companies Piloting Weekly calls Business potential could be validated through interviews / workshops / demonstrations Executing the implementation of more than one use case Involvement of additional partners Collaborative environment: • Technology providers • Application developer • Hosting • Users • LLs & ecosystem

Use of middleware and services in use cases Skills & competency observation, indicator: fulfillment of the time plan Evaluation of benefit for SMEs Development of new project ideas Significance of used tools / support

Adaptation of common platform Whether implementation problems have been solved Systematic process how to do things including adjustments of the installation guidelines Improvements during repeated implementations

Benefits of harmonization

User-in-loop development

Benefits of user involvement

Performance evaluation Reviewing the process after each use case Interviews at the end

Harmonization Standard cyclic research process Use of Living Lab experiences from past collaborations with start-ups

Model for SME engagement

Platform adaptation and service deployment Technology/application/ hosting providers: technology validation; testing after set-up Users: • Use case 1: awareness of energy consumption providing a base for change management • Use case 2: asset viewing: transparency on asset, equipment usage etc. – e.g. loss of value

Proof of concept

Cross border collaboration

Working prototypes

Table 3-7: Applying the Research Framework in the Energy Efficiency pilot

eManufacturing experiment (WP4) The Research Framework has been introduced to WP4 and applied in collaboration with WP1 (See D4.3). The evolution of the usage of the Research APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 34 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 Framework can be tracked in the 3-monthly reports in the Appendix “6.2.1 WP4. eManufacturing”. During the earlier 3-monthly reports the main focus was on the Build and Evaluate activities of the Research Framework. Answers to these stages have been precise while only general answers had been given to the questions regarding the activities Justify and Theorize.

Several methods are mentioned or can be derived from the answers given to the questions related to the Research Framework. We follow the categorization of methods presented earlier. Table 3-7 provides an overview of methods and tools used, identified or derived from the answers to questions related to the Research Framework.

When we connect this to the specific tools and methods used in the different experiments, we can map the used methods (see chapter 4.3) as presented in table 3-8.

Activities/ Outputs

Build

Evaluate

Justify

Theorize

Constructs

Communication tools Customer identification

Scheduling & monitoring

Contractual template

Model

Communication tools Early technical feasibility check Web Cam Tour Local & cross border expertise database

Scheduling & monitoring Skills & competency observation Evaluation strategies

Communication tools Review Cycle after each use case Final Interviews Experience report

Scenario

Method

Instantiation

Communication tools Business Potential Validation Kick off workshop

Scenario

Onsite review

Table 3-8: Methods and Tools in the eManufacturing pilot

eParticipation Pilot (WP5) The eParticipation Pilot provided an initial application of the Research Framework within the first quarterly session report (see “6.4.1 1st quarterly session report from WP5: “eParticipation”). Within its application of an overall APOLLON Methodology the eParticipation experiment has been using a bottomup way of using methodology, adopting methods and tools during the piloting process instead of using a pre-assembled methodology. The Research Framework was used along the way to developing and adopting methods (Table 3-9).

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 35 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

Activities/Out puts

Build

Evaluate

Justify

Generalize

Constructs

Cross-border applications for User participation and user generated contents

Use and functionality of the application.

Changes needed implementation.

eMedia as a driver for citizens participation

Feedback gathered through user testing, expert evaluation

Tools and techniques that were effective to involve citizens during the experiments

Model

Method

Instantiation

Transfer and integrate cross-border eMedia technologies

User Experience

Durability of the solution

Impact of eMedia on citizen’s motivation to participate.

Transferability and cross cultural gaps

Comparing results in different settings.

Cross-border Technology integration in LL experiments

Direct observation, web and interaction log analysis, users and partners interviews

Knowledge transfer across LL.

Local authorities, citizens as users, SMES, LLs, cultural institutions

Questionnaires, interviews

Easiness of implementation

User testing and focus groups

LL evaluation

Penetration

Interface localization Habits and practices

Lesson learned on the integration of cross border eMedia technologies

Exchange best practices among LL

Adoption by local LL. Generalization for reuse by other LL

Exchange of best practices, lesson learned, validation from other LLs

Table 3-9: Application of the Research Framework within the eParticipation pilot

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 36 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 3.2.4 Scenario development As part of the initial work on methodology and inspired by the results of the baseline investigation (questionnaire), WP1 has developed a generic scenario of the process of setting up, operating and managing a cross-border Living Lab. The liaison person and WP leaders have developed specific adaptations of this generic scenario in order to reflect the specific pilot objective, thematic approach and harmonization or interoperability challenge. Fig. 3-1 presents the generic scenario.

Figure 3-1: Generic scenario with main steps within collaboration network phases

Storyboard of the generic Scenario The scenario has been described based on a storyboard. An SME developing assistive technologies, localized in the city of Luxembourg has developed a new, innovative product in the domain of smart living. The first prototypes of the product were evaluated in the local Living Lab in an open project with various partners along the value-chain. The objective of that research was threefold:

• • •

First, to set-up a complete value-chain with all partners necessary to offer the smart service, Second, to improve the product towards the user needs and expectations, and

Third, to assess the initial business model.

The research was done by setting-up a partnership with different stakeholders (the local government, a grocery store and a bank) and installing the service at 250 households. Those households were monitored over a period of 6 months.

Based on that project, SME has commercialized the product together with the partners involved in the project.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 37 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 Now, the SME wants to take the product to a next level and wants to offer their service immediately on a European scale. For this, the SME wants to set-up a project in other, foreign cities. The main objectives of SME now are: 1. Assessment of new markets,

2. Impact assessment of these new local markets on service and product design,

3. Search for local partners

4. Identification of appropriate business model (in each of the cities).

Connect

As our SME had very good experience with the local Living Lab experiment, they approach the same Living Lab to investigate whether the same experiment can be set-up in collaboration with foreign Living Labs. In order to investigate this, the local Living Lab starts with an inquiry meeting. The goal of this meeting is to get clarification on (i)

the goals and needs,

(iv)

the requirements and

(ii)

(iii)

(v)

the expectations,

the technical set-up,

the available budget, funding and timeline

Next step for the local Living Lab is to investigate the required eco-system (necessary roles within the value-chain – needed for offering the service). Thus the local Living Lab consults the Living Lab Network database. This instrument, offered e. g. to the members of ENoLL, provides up-to date information of all ENoLL member Living Labs in terms of amount of test-users, available technology, research capabilities, partner network etc., information requested from all members as a precondition to enter the network. The database will also provide an overview of running projects in the same thematic domains.

Based on this initial information collection, the Local Living Lab selects some initial Living Labs and contacts them with the request of the SME, also providing a detailed description of the local project they have executed with the SME (timing, amount of users, research approach, technological set-up…) as the basis for an initial project scope and plan. During this informative phase the remote Living Labs address a number of issues that need further clarification such as: required stakeholders, role of the local partners, number of iterations, any specific research topics, overall coordination, technologies and so forth. With these questions the local Living Lab contacts the SME again for clarification and submits the additional information to the remote Living Labs.

Based on this pre-investigation, four Living Labs have indicated that they are most likely able to participate. A first video conferencing meeting is being set-up APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 38 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 with the remote Living Labs and SME. SME addresses once again their needs. A first overall approach, based on the previous project and developed by the local Living Lab (together with SME), is being discussed. This will form the basis of the common benchmark that will be used in the execution of the project. This initial set-up will also be used as a framework for investigating additional funding possibilities and existing projects. After the first video conferencing meeting each Living Lab will, based on the first overall approach, start contacting potential local partners to investigate their willingness and conditions to participate in such a project. Based on the research set-up as previously executed they also start to identify the different requirements (in terms of cost, technical set-up etc...). Following specific elements are being listed: •

• • • • •

Contextualization issues: what is needed to implement the service in the foreign areas (translation…)

Role of local partners: what is expected from the local partners, what is the impact on their activities, what is the added value for them

Legal aspects: assessment what legal constraints, rules apply in offering the services in the foreign areas Privacy protection: how will the privacy of the users be guaranteed

Sharing of data: how will the data of the research activities be exchanged, compared…

Transfer of the technology: what technology will be provided by the SME, what integration work needs to be done and by whom…

After the explorative phase it turns out that only two Living Labs have found the required local stakeholders to participate and are able to integrate the various service components for the cross-border set-up.

Plan & Engage

The project planning starts with the identification of local partners, the scope refinement and the drafting of a contract. The project is executed in a collaborative model, meaning that also the local partners are willing to invest in the use of such a service. They have even found local funding to organize their endeavor. The other Living Labs also tried to apply for funding but did not succeed. Since SME sees the benefit to also run a test in that Living Lab, they decide to set-up the experiment on a contract bases. The local Living Lab will act as a research coordinator between the remote Living Labs and SME. They will be responsible for the research set-up. In order to perform a comparable research, they will, based on the previous project, distribute the questionnaires, topic lists etc.

Based on the earlier research approach the project is kicked off and a common benchmark framework is being set-up between the different Living Labs. In a meeting between the SMEs and the local stakeholders the roles and responsibilities, the technical framework, IPR issues, required training and other

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 39 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 operational issues are being discussed. During this meeting a first demonstration of the original service is given. A consortium agreement is being drafted in which the specific IPR rules are being determined.

During this conversation it is clear that the service, as originally developed, needs to be adjusted in order to meet the privacy rules of the different countries as well as to function with some specific local internet protocols. Based on the input of the local Living Labs and their stakeholders, SME makes a first adjusted version of their service.

Support & Govern

The adjusted version of the service is being pre-tested in the various Living Labs by so-called ‘friendly users’ to evaluate the sustainability of the service and to identify some possible other issues. SME travels to the different Living Labs for deployment support: 1. to make contact with the partners involved, 2. to demonstrate the technology live, and

3. to negotiate the studied service elements, KPIs, financial details and some of the terms and conditions (IPR, liability…)

During this visit SME also offers training to the local partners so that they can implement the service and provide the necessary first level support. The local Living Lab demonstrates the common platform that will be used to collect and exchange the user data.

After everything works correctly (some minor interface errors have been solved…) and the application is connected to the selected central platform (for usage monitoring) it is ready to launch. In the meantime the local Living Labs already made a selection of research methods and profiles of the possible testusers. In agreement with SME and the local stakeholders these profiles were documented and the local Living Labs start to recruit.

Once the panel is ready, the products are being handed-out and the 6 months of monitoring start. After each month there is a joint conference call in which the partners involved are running a status-check-up. SME provides the partners with the logging information (amount of times a service has been used, the technical problems…) and the local partners share their experience directly (or based on the research activities with the end-users).

After month 2 some problems were encountered with some of the features. SME starts to investigate the issues and provides, after a month, a new version of the product resolving these problems.

Manage & Track

At the end of the project all partners are coming together for a face-to-face final evaluation and reporting meeting. Based on the results of the cross-border experiments SME adjusts some small technical issues and develops different

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 40 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 business models to localize the service for new markets. SME has also analyzed the operational and financial impacts of these technical adjustments and operations in new markets. Together with the local Living Lab partner they have also assessed the wider business potential of the new market.

After one year SME has not only offered its’ service in the local city, but also in two remote cities, where they have been testing through the eco-system of networked Living Labs and their local partners. In each city a different business model and partner network has been applied with great success.

General level description, results and lessons learned in the project are collected as a success story to e. g. ENoLL database for the benefit of the network and future projects. SME as well as several partner SMEs in the cross-border Living Lab network have joined ENoLL interest network and actively explore ENoLL database and events for future collaborations with other ENoLL members and interest groups.

Lessons Learned: The Pilot-specific scenarios

The four vertical Pilots followed different approaches in applying the scenario. In the manufacturing pilot a general scenario for the transfer of a Manufacturing product or service was developed. Not much adjustment was needed here for the individual products or services, but rather an adjustment was done from experiences gathered during the implementation of the use cases. A second iteration of the scenario was done after phase two, when a second platform was introduced and explored to better support the collaboration between the potential stakeholders. The Energy Efficiency pilot found it more useful to work with different scenarios, one for each participating Living Lab. In all four Pilots, throughout the project the scenarios were adapted to the best practices and lessons learned from during the implementation and execution of the experiments or use cases.

As an example, we present the visual evolvement of the eManufacturing scenario in terms of the steps within the collaboration network phases. The entire evolution of the scenario for the manufacturing experiment (WP4) – especially with the changes after introducing the 2nd platform - can be found in Annex 6.3.1 SME Scenario Manufacturing.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 41 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

Figure 3-2: initial eManufacturing Scenario during the 1st phase

Figure 3-3: adapted eManufacturing Scenario during the 2nd phase

The scenarios and their usage in 6.3.2 SME Scenario Home Care & Independent Living (WP2), 6.3.3 SME Scenario/s Energy Efficiency (WP3) and 6.3.4 SME Scenario eParticipation (WP5) can be found in the appendix “6.3 The WPx scenarios” as well.

3.2.5 Three-monthly Monitoring Reports

The quarterly monitoring was the main source for collecting data and gathering information concerning the planned, expected, needed and used methods, tools, and templates during the course of the pilots. The role of the liaisons was to organize and conduct the monitoring and during this process to provide recommendations to the pilots. Although the monitoring and consulting turned out to be extremely time-consuming, the results, collected in the reports were helpful to facilitate the validation process and to collect empirical evidence.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 42 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 Below we introduce the Guideline template used in the three-monthly monitoring and consulting activities and we discuss their usage by the liaison persons. The Template was meant as a checklist for liaison persons to collect information, facilitate interviews and empirical evidence.

Quarterly Monitoring Template

The initial template has been used as a generic structure for the first three quarterly reports. The structure of this template is depicted in the Box. CONTENTS OF THE INITIAL TEMPLATE 1. Status Tracking - Describe the actual situation of the experiment 2. Proposed questions - Describe the planning for the next 3 months in experiment 3. Proposed questions - Analysis of Experiment according to Research Framework 1. Constructs 2. Model 3. Method 4. Instantiation 4. Evaluating the APOLLON Cross-Border Networking Methodology - General Section - Assessing the Connect Phase - Assessing the Plan & Engage Phase - Assessing the Support & Govern Phase - Assessing the Manage & Track Phase

Revised Template From mid of 2011 on, a modified template was used during the quarterly consulting and monitoring sessions, in order to better facilitate the data collection, relevant for the final deliverables for WP1. In particular the tracking of the development, introduction, adoption and use of methods and tools was focused on more than in the initial template. The modified template is depicted in the Box below.

CONTENTS OF THE REVISED TEMPLATE 1. Current Status Summary â&#x20AC;&#x201C; experiment <..> - Status topics - Methods and Tools tracking - Status Tracking Overview Table 2. Monitoring and Validation Results experiment <..> - Current situation of the WPx experiment 3. Interview guide and checklist of questions: - Characterize the current situation in the experiment.

- Describe the key activities that have been carried out last 3 months.

- What was the role of the various stakeholders / participants in the last 3

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 43 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 months and how did they collaborate?

What methods, tools, guidelines, templates were considered or adopted, in order to create, manage and run the cross-border Living Labs network within the WPx pilot?

- How well did the used Methods and Tools serve your activity?

Planning the next 3 months in the experiment - Interview guide and checklist of questions Application of the Research Framework - Questions regarding the Research Framework Validation of APOLLON Cross-Border Networking Methodology - Methodology validation general questions - Connect phase methodology validation - Plan and Engage phase methodology validation - Support and Govern phase methodology evaluation - Manage and track phase evaluation Questions related to Cross-Border Collaboration Practices -

4.

5.

6.

7.

8. Interoperability challenges within the WPx

3.2.6 Experiences summarized from Pilot Validation documents The observations and experiences in terms of development, adoption and use of methods and tools were gathered by the liaison persons and documented in method validation reports for each Pilot. Basic input was taken by deeply reviewing the experiments’ deliverables, quarterly session reports, and the scenario and Research Framework evolvements. Due to the fact that for every pilot there were different objectives and that the pilots had different characteristics, the sources of information discussed in previous sections have been used in quite different ways. For the purpose of presenting the validation results we are not using the structure in terms of information sources (Error!

Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found.). Instead, the validation documents - in which the liaisons have been using the various source of information mentioned – have been structured in such a way that a comparative evaluation of the methodology development, adoption and use across the four pilots is made possible.

Looking at the sources of information available, it can be stated that the deliverables as submitted by the four vertical work packages cannot easily be compared concerning the adoption and validation of methods and tools, due to following factors: • • •

Living Labs environments and research context vary widely.

Pilots operated in four different domains and thus independently from each other.

Focus of the deliverables was more on technical demonstration of the crossborder network than on collaboration issues.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 44 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 •

Applied methods and tools served two different purposes: 1) accomplishing experiments or use cases, and 2) support cross-border collaboration.

Accomplishing the experiments/use cases was the primary focus for the pilots, not methodology validation. For example in the eParticipation pilot the focus of almost all methods is on methods to work with end-users rather than on methods for cross border collaboration. As regards the Energy Efficiency pilot, methods were used that are very unique for the public-private research environment wherein the experiment took place. These methods have been summarized as discovering opportunities, concept and idea generating, and evaluation in the WP3 method validation document (see Annex 6.5.2 WP3: Energy Efficiency).

Especially when problems occurred which led to a delay within the experiments use cases/pilots, the collaboration focus was deferred.

Basic collaboration methods and tools were equally used in all experiments.

Newly adopted methods were also successfully introduced to the other experiments where suitable.

We have found that a lot of methods, especially collaboration methods, which have been adopted within different pilots but that were described in a similar way, could be summarized as one method, even if named differently.

The most substantial methods are mentioned and described within the pilot deliverables. Far more methods or tools are described in the quarterly reports.

For structuring the method validation documents we decided to categorize methods and tools again following the basic characterization: • • •

Proposed Methods: Methods that are explicitly named and or described in the analyzed documents Identifiable Methods: Methods that are not named but may be identified from the course of action described in the document Reasonable Methods: Methods that can be derived from the document either as needed from the description of a problem or especially asked for by the partners

We found out that there were only few proposed methods to be derived from the early deliverables compared to several identifiable methods and a few reasonable methods and tools.

A lot of existing methods that had been validated at the Living Labs in earlier research activities have been adopted. Also new methods have been developed.

Methods and tools have been developed, if problems in pilot/use case implementations occurred.

The experiment-specific interoperability challenges that were set in the DOW for each experiment have led to the development of methods or sets of methods that support these challenges.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 45 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 A further study of methods and tools was included in the final deliverables of the experiments and can be found in D1.4 “Recommended Tool set for cross-border Living Lab networks”.

In the following chapter we list the methods and tools that have been validated within each of the pilots and elaborated in the respective validation document by the liaison persons.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 46 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

4. Methodology Validation Results of the Four Pilots 4.1 WP2: Homecare and Independent Living experiment From the Pilot deliverables 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, the reports from the quarterly template including the research framework and the specific scenario we have found numerous methods that were in use or should have been.

4.1.1 Collaboration & Communication Tools Method

Phase Origin Evolution

Recommendations

Validation

Several tools to support collaboration and communication in WP 2 are in use, these are: - monthly conference calls - IBBT platform for document sharing, minutes etc.

- Skype conferencing - Meeting minutes - Meetings between local stakeholders Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

The method has been in use including a variety of different tools from the beginning of the experiment.

Starting with initial list of tools, new ones have been proposed & applied. Benefit of several tools has been evaluated & priorities have been set. The importance of the use of collaboration & communication tools has been emphasized as a factor of successful Living Labs networking.

A comparison of the tools used in WP 2 with the tools used in the other experiments is deemed useful. Tools used in one of the experiments can be valuable in the other experiments as well.

These tools support managing a LL network during all phases of the networking lifecycle.

4.1.2 User interface translation Method Phase Origin

Evolution

Recommendations

Validation

Translating and contextualisation of the User Interface of a service Plan & Engage

There are standard practices for translating documents. But during the pilot we noticed that for the UI you need to incorporate contextual elements.

We started from a very simple translation approach and evolved to a method in which we incorporated also contextual elements as well as validation To do this process well, it requires time. You have to start well upfront as often it also detects other issues that need to be changed (graphical elementsâ&#x20AC;Ś). Also pre-test your translations with representatives of your target group.

The incorporation of contextual elements is crucial in translating user

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 47 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5 interfaces as it is not just translation text, but also meanings.

4.1.3 Ticketing tool Method Phase Origin Evolution

Recommendations Validation

Use of a ticketing tool to keep track of various issues encountered during pilot, manage & follow up the support.

Manage & Track

The method has been used in two pilots.

In each pilot two different tools were used. In Spain a commercial tool was used to keep track of local issues. In Belgium an in-house developed ticketing service (part of an overall panel management tool) was used to list issues reported by the users This is very useful and it is recommended that every actor has access to this and keep track of the different issues.

This tool helps different actors to keep track (in real time) of different issues, encountered during pilot. Especially for actors abroad it is an easy, accessible way.

4.1.4 Scenario method Method

Phase Origin Evolution

Recommendations

Validation

The scenario is a method that forces the project partners to envision the pilot set-up and to explicitly know how things (organisational, technicalâ&#x20AC;Ś) will be arranged during the pilot.

Connect, Plan & Engage

The scenario was used at the initial phase of the pilot to get an overview of the pilot set-up and to identify the specific requirements.

We initially drafted a high level scenario, tackling the different pilots focussing on the cross-border aspects and the common ecosystem.

Afterwards the scenario method was used in the different pilots to identify on a specific, more detailed level the very specific elements.

Very useful to frame the overall pilot objectives and has to be used as a base for the other methods (e.g. when performing a requirements analysis, eco-system analysisâ&#x20AC;Ś).

Very good tool to keep the objectives clear and as a reference during the pilot to check.

4.1.5 User participation agreement Method

Phase Origin Evolution

To officially engage users, commit them to your project and make good arrangements; a user participation agreement needs to be drafted and signed by both parties (the user & SPOC for the user within the project) Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

The user participation agreement was something that already has been used by one of the LL. This was provided to the other LLs.

The user participation agreement that existed (drafted by IBBT) has

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 48 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

Recommendations

Validation

been provided to the other partners that adjusted the content to the specifics of the pilot.

The user agreement is a way to make specific arrangements between the end-user and the LL (or other actor that interacts with the user).

Important here is to list what is expected, how things will be handled during the pilotâ&#x20AC;Ś This user agreement needs to be transparent and backed-up by the other stakeholders involved in the pilot.

The user participation agreement has been already validated by IBBT in their LL projects. It covers the various aspects of the agreement.

4.1.6 Document sharing platform Method

Phase Origin Evolution

Recommendations

Validation

The document sharing platform is a central repository where different documents related to the project are stored and shared between the partners Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

The document sharing platform has been used right from start of project and was used as a repository for various documents

Next to the document sharing platform also alternative channels (e.g. email) have been used, to share specific information between a limited set of actors The document sharing platform is useful in all phases. It is recommended that it is being used right from the start, to make it a standard practice (and not to use too much additional channels to distribute information)

This tool supports the cross-border networking between all stakeholders in all phases of the pilot as well as during set-up of the network

4.1.7 Panel-Management software Method

Phase Origin

Evolution Recommendations

As the user is an essential part within the Living Lab process it is needed that the activities with and by the users are monitored and managed via a platform.

Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

Within one Living Lab (IBBT) an in-house developed panel management software is in place and has been used in the Belgium pilot The software is an in-house developed software by IBBT and is constantly under development to adjust to the changing needs.

A platform in which all relevant data of the users is captured and stored and that is remotely accessible for various partners enables the stakeholders to keep in close touch with the users and the pilot.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 49 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

Validation

4.1.8 Manual Method

Phase Origin

Evolution Recommendations

Validation

4.1.9 Training Method

Phase Origin

Evolution

Recommendations Validation

This is more than a classical CRM system and has to combine the ticketing, device-managementâ&#x20AC;Ś

The use of such services has been proven to be useful in Living Lab pilots. Have one system and providing access to (certain) components of it to cross-border stakeholders makes it efficient to support the manage and track phase As a service is being transferred, the offering organisation or company cannot facilitate the process locally. Therefor it is needed that good manuals are provided for the different operations and target groups. This concerns more than the traditional user manual.

Plan & Engage

As the remote stakeholders are not familiar with the new technology, that they will provide support and do the initialisation towards endusers, it became obvious, that they have to be able to fall back to a very good documented material that they can use themselves or provide to the users.

Need for manuals was detected during the deployment of the pilots.

In the beginning an overview of the various target groups that will be confronted with the service has to be made. For each of these groups a specific manual (beneficiary very visual â&#x20AC;&#x201C; photos or video) has to be generated in their natural language.

The manuals were drafted based on a specific need that was addressed in all the pilots performed and was required during the engage phase

As local stakeholders will have to take responsibility in operating a service (instead of the SME that is transferring it) it is required that they are instructed on how to do so. The SME has to give a proper local training Plan & Engage

It is not sufficient to just provide a manual on how to operate a system. During the deployment the actor that has to operate the service required a proper training by the SME to get acquainted with the system

During the project this issue was raised. It became clear that this type of training could not be done remotely. Therefor SMEs went to remote LL or stakeholder to provide this.

The training needs to be done at the site of the stakeholder, using the system as installed remotely.

Training has been done in two pilots and is considered as a necessary step in the plan and engage phase

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 50 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 4.1.10 Living Lab research methodology Method

Phase Origin

Evolution

Recommendations

Validation

The LL research methodology is the core of the cross-border pilot and is an iterative research approach to conduct a LL pilot in which user feedback is gathered on a permanent base and is used to steer the development process on a ‘real-time’ basis.

Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

Although this may seem trivial, the iterative process and the need of adjusting the technology ‘on the fly’ is less evident. Especially when additional partners are involved not having this type of research background, you need to provide them with such a framework.

During the set-up of the pilots SMEs initially focussed on a pure evaluation track, less on the iterative process – certainly when additional partners are getting involved. Not only does the service need to be adjusted to the feedback gathered by the end-users, but also to the needs and expectations of those additional actors.

This process has to be reflected in the scenario and has to be made explicit to the stakeholders (so they can foresee required resources during life pilot) The iterative process is not only what counts during the life deployment of the pilot, but also in the preparatory phase with the other actors in the ecosystem During the pilots in Spain and Belgium the system was not only adjusted on the fly – based on user feedback, but also due to the specific context or need of local actors

4.1.11 Access policy Method

Phase Origin Evolution Recommendations

Validation

LLs deal with privacy sensitive data. In the domain of health often medical data is also included. As this data is sensitive a good policy on who can access this info and under which conditions has to be developed upfront (also to be in line with specific rules and regulations) Plan & Engage

This access policy came into play the moment when privacy sensitive data was subject of the transfer itself.

During the pilots this has been elaborated by the LL that organises the data gathering and the contact/contracts with the test-user/s

Based on the scenario it is required to list all sensitive data and to map specific data-flows within the pilot. Make sure it is in line with existing rules and regulation. Do this upfront, don’t wait till deployment of the pilot

This has been done on a pilot level within the cross-border network during the deployment.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 51 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5 4.1.12 Cascade system for helpdesk Method Phase Origin

Evolution Recommendations

Validation

Structuring how support is being organised within the pilot. Starting from the LL as a SPOC and then define good dispatching rules Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

As various actors are involved and since support cannot be provided by traditional channels, it was necessary to set-up a cascading system providing support on all levels during the pilots During the cross-border pilot the high level cascade system was further fine-tuned, based on the specifics of each of the pilots

Identify the types of problems and assign them to dedicated persons within the pilot. Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t just dispatch them to an actor, but you need to identify a specific person within that organisation that will act as a responsible The cascading system was defined and set-up during the plan & engage phase and was further operationalized during the pilot deployment

4.1.13 Requirement analysis Method

Phase Origin Evolvement Recommendations

Validation

This method lists the different requirements in setting up a crossborder pilot. It does not only focus on technical requirements but also emphasis on organisational, research and contextual requirements.

Plan & Engage, Manage & Track

This was one of the first steps within cross-border pilots.

During the pilots the initial framework of the requirements analysis was further fine-tuned and additional dimensions were added.

During this analysis you need to be as explicit and detailed as possible. Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t take anything for granted and be aware that in a cross-border setting different connotations can occur (e.g. broadband in one country can mean something else than in the other country).

The requirements analysis was performed in three pilots as one of the first steps in the plan & engage phase

4.1.14 Ecosystem analysis Method

Phase Origin Evolution

The ecosystem analysis identifies the different actors that are required to set-up and deploy a cross-border platform. This is done by first listing all the various roles and activities required to conduct the pilot.

Connect, Plan & Engage

Within the first two phases we started with a more traditional approach of defining & creating an eco-system

Initially we started by defining an ecosystem based on the health context. But listing the various actors and trying to create a common ecosystem (in place in all LLs) was not feasible. Therefore we

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 52 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

Recommendations

Validation

switched to an approach in which we focused on the roles and responsibilities.

A (cross-border) pilot requires a local ecosystem. The local LL is best placed to identify the appropriate partners. But in order to do so the role and responsibilities need to be very clear. This analysis cannot be done by one party; this has to be a joined, iterative process.

In each of the pilots an ecosystem analysis was done to find and setup the required ecosystem to facilitate the cross-border pilot

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 53 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5 4.1.15 Value-analysis Method

Phase Origin

Evolution

Recommendations

Validation

This method is used to identify the different interests and stakes of all partners involved in the project. By using an explicit method that investigates this, it has to be clear what every actor involved in the pilot wants to gain out of the project at the end. Subsequently this has to be embedded in the final pilot set-up.

Connect, Plan & Engage, Manage & Track

The value analysis has been identified as a necessity during the TLV trial. We noticed that during this pilot it was not sufficiently clear what the interest was for all actors involved. This also lead to some misconception about the focus of the pilot as well as the roles and responsibilities, Especially in a cross-border setting where the remote LL acts as a gateway, as a kind of spokes-person of a subset of the partners, this identification is needed.

Initially the value analysis was done on an ad-hoc basis and not from the start of the project. During the third pilot in Belgium we have done this upfront so that we were able to incorporate this in the setup and to assign the various tasks to the partners involved.

Especially for those partners that are engaged during the pilot it is necessary to have a good overview what their interest is in the participation of the pilot. This has to be made explicit in order to take it into account in the pilot set-up and the roles and responsibilities that each partner can or has to play

The value analysis in the pilots uncovered numerous possible improvements for users: better understanding and easier access for caretakers/medical personnel; improved sense of security for patients/clients.

These values were anticipated for the experiment and proved to have taken place.

4.1.16 Monthly reporting template Method

Phase Origin

Evolution

Have an up-to-date status of the pilot is crucial. All partners in the project need to know what activities have been done, how they evolve, what the next steps are.

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

Having a good overview of the status of the pilot seems trivial, but organising this for various partners (with different interests and stakes), cross-borders is not that easy but necessary

We started with an initial monthly reporting template in Word in which every partner had to fill in predefined fields (which included basic project management questions like effort spent, results achieved,â&#x20AC;Ś). As it turned out that for some partners this was an (administrative) overload, we switched to a monthly reporting via conference call. This also allowed us to immediate go deeper into detail

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 54 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

Recommendations

Validation

of various aspects.

Having a good overview of the status of the pilot at all timers is a necessity within a cross-border pilot. The period of one month is the maximum to get status updates. During these monthly reporting all actors have to be present to (a) receive the required info and (b) to keep them informed of the overall progress.

The monthly reporting was used throughout the whole APOLLON project and helped, next to the specific bilateral contacts between actors, to keep an overview, to discuss issues with all partners and to immediately assess the impact for all actors.

4.2 WP3: Energy Efficiency pilot

From the deliverables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, the three-monthly monitoring reports and results from applying the research framework and the specific scenario we have found numerous methods or tools that were in use or have been considered.

Concluding our findings the methods are presented in the context of the four Phases of the cross border Living Lab networking lifecycle. This presentation is based on overview tables of the methods in the reviewed documents. The categorization of the methods has been done using the original design of the phases and the general scenario.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 55 Living Lab networks 03/05/2012

submitted,

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5 Methodology tracking tables of Energy Efficiency pilot (WP3) Phase of development

Needs finding & identification

Development of M&T (both WP1, WPx)

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment

Adoption and Use of M&T

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the M&T

CONCLUSION REGARDING VALIDATION

Needs were established by the existing networks, partners participating in the tender. Need to prove the whole Apollon concept.

Several interviews clarified the emerging needs.

Specific parties expressed needs:

Companies have tried to create business understanding, technical details were tried to resolve, utilized design science framework (1.2).

Lulea has led knowledge sharing and user behavior transformation.

This is an ongoing experimenting process. Continuous evaluation and adding. Bottom up and top down.

Adoption of the iterative ideas is ongoing. Also in the knowledge sharing sessions which are face to face cross border networking events on regular basis where accumulated knowledge has been shared and augmented.

Benchmarking frame work was supposed to emerge from the cases; in a stepwise process; now reaching maturity.

Learning by doing.

Framework will come from what has been done. Florence is also element in convergence. Not formalized earlier.

Learning by doing process. Also political process: in latest GA we finetuned the emphasis from the cross border aspects. We have a case in WP3 which focuses on the knowledge exchange. Outcome of the workshops is the common methodology about how to do the cross border cases. It is also produced the country reports that will describe the local ecosystem and context (Process vision)

Needs finding &

Development of M&T

Introduction and

Adoption and Use of

Evaluation and

Conclusion regarding

Method / tool Common benchmarking model Phase: Manage & track

Process vision, ISA, face to face meetings, common interest ground found. Discussed also how to compare results from the pilots with each other and implement similar processes in the case.

Phase of development

In the beginning case description framework was set up: how to describe the case (D3.2).

There is a framework which should be formalized and made applicable in other contexts.

Formal definition will be end result more or less.

Classification of case description is also a practical outcome.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 56 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

Two level models: the cross border level (coherence, common approach) and second level is the pilots, this creates interaction and learning. The cross border can be divided in three elements: knowledge, business, technology.

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5 M&T

identification

(both WP1, WPx)

deployment in the pilot environment

User data benchmarking model

In the beginning it was thought to go this way.

Learning from the program, match original ideas and practical circumstances.

On hold in the beginning, but emerged from results achieved in the pilots later on, then it got more attention and now has more priority

Phase: Support & govern Manage & track

We picked successful practices, derived from the momentum of the pilots so it developed differently. Momentum of the research program and pilots Environment has changed, technologies have not been able to transfer as easily as understood. Latency in the Apollon program structure caused delay.

On hold due to practical reasons of piloting and priorities

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 57 Living Lab networks

M&T

learning lessons regarding the M&T

validation

As such still valid, but it needs support on the ground, from stakeholders. Business rationality is crucial success factor.

We need process approach rather than content or top down structuring.

The data benchmark is a box in the value chain, one activity, which makes clear that business interest, is a necessary condition for implementation.

There is interest from different parties, which has emerged in the process.

submitted, 03/05/2012

We also need transition management, change management etc.

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

Phase of development M&T User behavior transformation

Phase: Support & govern Manage & track

Needs finding & identification

Development of M&T (both WP1, WPx)

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment

Adoption and Use of M&T

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the M&T

Conclusion regarding validation

There was a need for sharing knowledge about usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; behavior and how to change user behavior. Therefore it was tried to achieve a commons structure of the cases. We saw that there is a need to change behavior of users. Needs were expressed by SMEs, they wanted to follow the users actions in order to create a new business models, distinguishing from their competitors. Also a need for minimizing energy fluctuations: a tool to manage energy use. T is actually the need of the whole ecosystem, also the users themselves.

Was developed by Botnia LL and Lulea, based on adoption and user behavior concepts.

Included advice from the business players, and together with Lulea energy. Adapted to practice by Lulea Energy. Kyab also supported.

Developed the methodology, then involved the partners and distributed the information. Wanted that all experiments used the methodology.

Did not succeed that well. All pilots succeeded but did not implement the user behavior method. Was mostly for Lulea and Lisbon and Helsinki.

There are adoption cities ongoing, based on weekly interactions with experiment partners.

See other columns

Learning and sharing experiences highly important. What happens in different cases / pilots, how to learn from it, how to implement in other cases.

Methodology is very applicable. It has been applied.

Netherlands did research on user motivations (Bled)

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 58 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

Transition needs fulfillment of req. by partners: use of research methodology, knowledge, resources.. Some of the SMEs are small, so dominated by everyday business. Small microcompanies do not have the many resources. Should be convinced by benefits.

Localization of technology: R&D costs were not considered during project set-up phase, SMEs were not prepared adopting technology, as the project focuses on; cross border setting requires investing in technology for which SMEs might not see biz case.

Quality of planning of cross border pilot & ecosystem circumstances is a factor.

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

Phase of development M&T User test design / Test storylines for user communication

Phase: Plan & engage

Support & govern

Needs finding & identification

Development of M&T (both WP1, WPx)

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment

Adoption and Use of M&T

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the M&T

Conclusion regarding validation

Developed as sub process of user behavior transformation. Was a clear need in the pilots.

Develop a process to ensure that users are inspired to change their behavior. Is context dependent, has been tailored to the specific experiments

Has been discussed and shared in knowledge management sessions.

Presented it at meeting in Lisbon (WP3), then sent to other experiments. Was not adopted in Lisbon but in Lulea. Lisbon focused more on impacts of experiments. Lisbon started later. The tool is used in Lulea, Helsinki, later on Lisbon. Has been contextualized and adapted.

Lulea has been adjusted due to assignments not easy to understand. Also has been contextualized to the ecosystem environment.

The approach should be the same process however not all aspects need to be used.

Contextualization and tailoring.

It is in use, it is in continuous validation.

Botnia CDT has developed. Have worked in other tests, based on the CDT user pool.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 59 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

Test plan, plan for adaptations is part the research framework.

Localization, tailoring implies influencing the actual tool and its use to align it to the setting.

Ecosystem learning is important aspect of the learning process. Plays a role in the value added services offered by the energy companies.

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

Phase of development M&T Knowledge transfer across pilots

Phase: Plan & engage

Support & govern Manage & track

Needs finding & identification

Development of M&T (both WP1, WPx)

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment

Adoption and Use of M&T

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the M&T

Conclusion regarding validation

The need that triggered this methodology was the need to establish an Apollon methodology for user-behavioral changes measurement / inventory of the best practices and lessons learned the first results of the behavior change possibilities with respect to energy savings across different countries.

This method was developed by Botnia LL and it focus on the exchange of bestpractice from local and cross-border pilots on user-behavioral changes mechanisms and measurements.

Partners will document and share their experiences in measuring behavioral changes among endusers when experimenting with new ICT solutions from energy saving.

Method introduced in discussions between partners in WP3 and all partners, involved in knowledge transfer process across pilots as follows:

Two workshops have been carried out. The first one was in LuleĂĽ and the second in Firenze where a discussion about methods and tools as well as experiences of involving users in the energy pilots where discussed. For these workshops, a template to be filled in has been provided to the Living Labs. The results have been documented and it will feed into the benchmark framework.

Management and coaching of cross border pilots is highly important success factor. Someone needs to have the vision and leadership.

Lessons learned is that it is very difficult to get the Living Labs to talk about methods and tools that they have used. It is much easier to talk about their experiences from their cases. Hence, the second workshop was carried out more or less as a focus group where they shared knowledge and based on that a methodology will be developed.

1. Presentation to share experiences in methods for behavioral changes.

Template was provided to ensure all report experiences in same format. (Power point) 2. Local pilots will be used as expert knowledge exchange cases to try and share approach and methods. Cases discussed and analyzed jointly during the process as well as in workshops.

3. Three Workshops during 2011. Four LLs are viewed as users of methodologies; first steps towards creating a shared methodology taken. Other LL will come to the workshop to help create a harmonized model for studying & influencing energy consumption.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 60 Living Lab networks

The third workshop is planned for Helsinki meeting if possible.

submitted, 03/05/2012

The other partners have been actively participating in the workshops and contributed, hence the method has been validate.

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

Phase of development M&T Common research framework

Phase: Plan & engage

Roadshow

Phase: Connect

Plan & engage Face-to-face meetings

Phase:

Needs finding & identification

Development of M&T (both WP1, WPx)

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment

Adoption and Use of M&T

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the M&T

Conclusion regarding validation

WP3 wanted to find out what the research should focus on, hence, this concerns the fundamentals of the research conducted in WP3.

Developed in WP1, and distributed to WP3

The method was described during a GA, and then distributed to all experiment leaders.

Used in each experiment in order to ensure that research is conducted in each experiment and that similar approach in all experiments, in order to be able to compare results.

The frame work was very complex and hard to use. Difficult to understand what each issue in the framework indicated.

The research framework has been used.

The method stems from the need to network, meet other stakeholders etc. within the energy efficiency area.

As a bright idea! That immediately was adopted.

By organizing a Roadshow in each participating country.

This method is very emphasized as important by all partners in WP3.

This method was appreciated by all stakeholders. However, additional stakeholders could have been invited, e.g. more SMEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, and more governmental authorities.

A common vision and view of WP3 was created.

The meetings could have been more structured, more prepared, and more focused.

All

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 61 Living Lab networks

What would have been beneficial is, if a common evaluation of the content of the research framework had been done.

submitted, 03/05/2012

Every meeting resulted in progress for the project.

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

Phase of development M&T Seminars

Phase: Support & govern,

Needs finding & identification

Development of M&T (both WP1, WPx)

To spread and disseminate results, to network and to identify new business opportunities.

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment

Adoption and Use of M&T

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the M&T

Invitations to companies, speakers, other energy projects etc.

In the form of miniconferences in partner countries.

Not necessarily spread to others, since experiments have been local.

Used for identification of users to involve.

This method, just as Roadshows, was appreciated by all stakeholders. However, additional stakeholders could have been invited, e.g. more SME’s, and more governmental authorities.

Manage & track

Customer database

Phase: Plan & engage

Support & govern

Needed for the identification of which users to involve.

(The databases belonged to some of the SME’s)

Not applicable.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 62 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

Conclusion regarding validation

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

Phase of development M&T Questionnaire

Phase: All

Focus group

Phase: Manage & track

Needs finding & identification

Development of M&T (both WP1, WPx)

Needed in order to communicate with endusers, and to be able to get research data.

This is an established method for data collection.

Need for evaluation of users experiences of participating in these kinds of experiments.

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment

This is an established method for data collection.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 63 Living Lab networks

Adoption and Use of M&T

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the M&T

Conclusion regarding validation

Used in experiments to gather data on user behavior change.

Questionnaires are a tricky tool for gathering data on behavioral changes., since it is a quantitative tool, trying to capture qualitative aspects.

Validated in the focus group. Good results, the users experienced the method as positive. The method also resulted in the users actually changing their behavior.

Lessons learned are that it was difficult to engage some users to come to the meeting.

The method has resulted in data that will be used for research papers, conference papers and project reports.

Used for gathering data on user experiences and behavioral changes in energy consumption among users.

submitted, 03/05/2012

The advantagesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; were that it is an easy and cost effective method

Good results, consisting of an engaged group of people, sharing their experiences and thoughts related to energy efficiency.

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

4.3 WP4: eManufacturing pilot From the deliverables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, the reports from the quarterly template including the research framework and the specific scenario we have found numerous methods that were in use or should have been.

Concluding our findings the methods are presented in the context of the four Phases of the cross border Living Lab networking lifecycle. This collection is based on the conclusions table of validation document (see “6.5.3 WP4: eManufacturing”). The categorization of the methods has been done using the original design of the phases and the general scenario.

4.3.1 Communication Tools

There are several tools listed for this method. Since some tools require a more detailed view (e.g. LinkedIn), these tools are viewed as individual methods.

Method

Phase Origin Evolution

Recommendations

Validation

Several tools to support collaboration and communication in WP 4 are in use, these are: -

-

weekly conference calls documentation sharing SAPconnect collaboration tool IBBT platform for document sharing, minutes etc.

Skype conferencing SAPmats for downloads minute template weekly coordination meetings between local stakeholders LinkedIn (see detailed method)

Connect, Set Boundaries & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track The method has been in use including a variety of different tools from the beginning of the experiment.

Starting with an initial list of tools, new ones have been proposed and applied. Benefit of several of the tools has been evaluated & priorities have been set. Importance of use of collaboration & communication tools has been emphasized as a factor of successful LL networking.

A comparison of the tools used in WP 4 with the tools used in the other experiments is deemed useful. Tools used in one of the experiments can be valuable in the other experiments as well.

These tools support managing a Living Lab network during all phases of the networking lifecycle. The toolset has been in use from the beginning, with additions being made during the project.

Partners emphasized the value of a good combination of communication tools throughout the project and in the quarterly reports agreed that they had the sufficient tools for their purpose.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 64 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5 4.3.2 Technical Support Method

Phase Origin

Evolution

A technical support for the implemented software is in place. Support contact persons and availability have been appointed. Updates and bug fixes are scheduled regularly.

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

For the deployment and implementation of the required software that is facilitated by one of the project partners this method has been in use from the beginning of the experiment.

This method has proven to be successful throughout the experiment.

When the original contact person left the project team, a new contact was appointed. This method is time-saving for all involved partners.

Recommendations This method is important for continuous support throughout the project. If not installed so far, it should be applied for all project partners that supply technical applications and utilities.

Validation

With a clear schedule and contact person, all issues involving the software could be resolved continuously.

4.3.3 Joint decision making Method

Phase Origin

Evolution

Recommendations

Validation

By making joint decisions on use cases and scenario as well as implementation of methods and tools the cross border networking is emphasized in the experiment.

Connect, Plan & Engage

This method has been proposed during session 1 for the collaboration between Future Factory Living Lab and FIAPAL Living Lab for the implementation of a second use case.

This method was introduced after the experiment had been working together and had to reapply their knowledge towards a second use case. The method is used to deepen cross border networking.

Since this method supports cross border networking we recommend implementation in the other experiments as well. It has to be checked whether the introduction of this method is more suitable in the beginning of the experiment or after the first cycle of research.

Considering the APOLLON focus, this method supports the different phases of a Living Lab establishment and managing a Living Lab network. The method has been proposed by the stakeholders involved.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 65 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5 4.3.4 Kick Off Workshop Method

Phase Origin

Evolution

This method is used in the beginning of the experiment for partners to get to know each other, to demonstrate the software that will run the use cases and for running an initial training session. A tour through the Living Lab where the use cases have been developed is also part of this workshop.

Plan & Engage

The Kick Off Workshop was proposed by the Future Factory Living Lab to get all the partners together, introduce them to the software technology and the use cases to be implemented.

The Kick Off Workshop was planned by the first session and carried out in the first quarter of 2011. The partners agreed that this method was able to deepen communication and prepare all partners with the same level of information.

Recommendations The specialty in WP 4 is that the use cases had been developed beforehand at one of the Living Labs and therefore a workshop at this location is very suitable. With the content of such a workshop, adapted to the preconditions in another experiment, it is a very suitable tool to adapt.

Validation

The workshop was considered a success. The targets set for this method were reached. When considering the means of managing a Living Lab network this method is suitable for the Plan & Engage phase since it supports project team commitment and supports collaboration as well as definition of technical issues.

4.3.5 Experience Report Template / Feedback Gathering Method Phase Origin

Evolution Recommendations Validation

Template is used to evaluate the experiences made by experiment partners and generate best practices as well as lessons learned.

Manage & Track

Experience report was introduced in reports for session 1 & 2 as to be written by the Hungarian LL about its experiences that led to withdrawing from experiment. Feedback collected continuously.

From the proposed report a template to be used by the other partners can be derived.

This template should be in use for the evaluation of the experiment by all experiments.

Specifically the feedback by the users was used to adjust the deployed software, mainly improving its user interface.

A final template has not been adopted.

4.3.6 Partner Involvement Strategies

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 66 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5 Method

Phase Origin

Evolution

Recommendations

Validation

A method has to be derived as to what obstacles should be considered in the beginning of a project to involve partners and prevent failure.

This is based on the experience made in WP 4.

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

The experience report of a Living Lab that had to drop out of the experiment is to be used to derive this method identifiable from the session 1 and 2 reports.

In the first quarterly report it is suggested to develop a risk assessment template which can be used to describe the expected level of engagement.

If results from the report can be used to derive a method, this would support all experiments as well as Living Lab cross border networking overall.

The strategies to get partners more involved in the project were not defined thoroughly.

4.3.7 Scheduling and monitoring Method Phase Origin Evolution

Besides the overall experiment scheduling there are several different elements of the research that need to be scheduled and monitored. n/a

The first report indicates that some of these elements have been identified.

Elements of this method are indicated in the session 1 and 2 reports.

Risk assessment, which is called for in the session 1 report, has to be developed and become part of this method.

Recommendations For the implementation within the other experiments it is necessary to revise the elements of this method and add further ones.

Presumably elements of this method are in use in the other experiments as well and lessons can be learned from each other.

Validation

The use case implementation was closely monitored by the stakeholders so the system could be adjusted to the userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s need.

There was a clear timing for adjustments.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 67 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5 4.3.8 Strategy Networking Method Phase Origin Evolution

Recommendations

Validation

Strategy Networking is a method in which networking is used to determine common strategies, customer requirements, etc. n/a

In the session 1 report it is stated that such a method could be useful but has not been utilized. It is not stated how to develop this method.

An approach we suggest towards implementing this method is to develop a strategies questionnaire to be answered by the partners at first.

Before a detailed method has been developed it cannot be stated whether it is suitable to be deployed to other experiments.

The Value Analysis Method as used by Experiment 2 should be a suitable solution.

Not implemented.

4.3.9 Early technical feasibility check Method

Phase Origin Evolution

Recommendations Validation

With the help of a checklist the technical feasibility of the experiment with its use cases can be evaluated in the beginning of the project.

This check points out risks and chances for the technical implementation. The checklist includes hardware entities, software requirements as well as human resources.

Connect, Plan & Engage

An Early Technical Feasibility Check is proposed. A Checklist is the most suitable way to adapt this.

This method is proposed in the session 1 report as a check to help improve later realization. It had not been done in the beginning of the experiment. Therefore this is a method derivable from the lessons learned to be used by later experiments or for the implementation of further use cases.

This is a method from lessons learned and should be considered for future Living Lab collaboration.

The checklist method has been adopted to fulfil these needs.

4.3.10 Contractual Template Method Phase Origin

The Contractual Template is a tool to ease possible further contractual agreements.

Plan & Engage

During the on-boarding of customers for the implementation of the use cases it became evident, that since they were not APOLLON consortium partners, a contractual agreement had to be signed.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 68 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5 Evolution

Recommendations

Validation

After developing a contractual agreement for the identified customers of the experiment the experiment partners asked for a more automated process. A software development licensing agreement has been developed and applied.

The developed SDLA can be applied to the other experiments as well.

In the context of future Living Lab networking it should be evaluated if a detailed template is needed and should be derived from this experience.

This template supports the Plan & Engage phase of a Living Lab establishment.

All legal obstacles concerning the collaboration with new partners were solved with this agreement.

4.3.11 Public relations plan Method Phase Origin

Evolution Recommendations Validation

This method supports experiments in their public relations work by listing and scheduling PR activities.

Support & Govern

Possibilities to publish activities within experiment 4 and to reach awareness of the offered services and products are asked for in the first session report.

A plan on how to achieve this, also involving the service trading platform, has to be derived. n/a

No further steps have been taken within APOLLON.

4.3.12 Customer Identification Method Phase Origin Evolution

Recommendations

Validation

This method includes criteria on how to as well as ways to identify customers for the use cases.

Plan & Engage

In the session 1 report it was stated that the experiment needed ideas on how to find additional customers for the use cases.

From experiences made certain criteria have been set by the partners. The WP 1 liaison suggested looking for customers in the WP 3 experiment.

Customer Identification formed throughout the experiment and best practices should be compared to those from other experiments to improve the method.

This method is valuable to support the innovation process of an SME and supports the plan & engage phase of a Living Lab establishment.

In the beginning it was not clear, how to approach this. Mainly the

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 69 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5 existing network of the Living Labs was used to find new customers.

4.3.13 Web Cam Tour Method

Phase Origin

Evolution

Recommendations Validation

A web cam tour of the experimental setup at a Living Lab is used as a way for project partners to understand the Living Labs approach toward the use cases and give an insight into the Living Lab. It is accompanied by a Q&A discussion.

This method is also suitable to review the experiment.

Plan & Engage, Manage & Track

The planning of this method was started in the beginning of the project by the Living Lab that had previously implemented the use cases and has been applied regularly.

- It has proven to be a great way to share insight with many people simultaneously which otherwise might not have joined an onsite tour.

- It has also proven to be a motivational factor in the beginning of the experiment.

- The webcam tour has been used again for attracting further customers during the project.

Where possible the implementation of such a web cam tour should be of equal value as proven in WP 4.

- Used repeatedly in WP4 after project partners agreed on the success of an initial run.

- Different stakeholders evaluated this method as very successful in cross border collaboration.

4.3.14 Use of LinkedIn as a communication tool Method Phase Origin

Evolution

Recommendations

LinkedIn is an online tool for social networking in a business environment. See: http://www.linkedin.com Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

LinkedIn was introduced as a collaboration tool where project partners are collaborating in a closed group within a network during the run of the experiment since better networking means were wanted.

Including LinkedIn as one of the communication and collaboration tools has been contemplated during the first report session. A group was set up but soon the partners realized that the tool did not offer much more than networking and thus partners did not get involved very much. The tool did not prove to be as useful as the partners thought since there are no means for collaboration.

Within a variety of communication and collaboration tools

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 70 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

Validation

LinkedIn might be of value for other experiments. From this experience it should be derived to check tools for usability and consider alternatives.

It was found that it is only suitable to support the connect phase of managing a Living Lab network and therefore did not meet the expectations.

4.3.15 Service Platform (named ‘Collaboration Platform’ in Scenario) Method

Phase Origin

Evolution

Recommendations

Validation

A Service Platform is used by partners to offer their services and find future customers. The goal is to connect suppliers with customers and give easy access to both groups to research information on the other.

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

In the answers of the session 1 quarterly report collaboration support was asked for. A collaboration platform between Living Lab and partners is also mentioned in the scenario as a method that is needed.

A service trading platform was one of the reasonable methods mentioned in session 2 as well as in the Scenario.

In the Scenario SAPs platform that is deployed in the experiment is named as a possible collaboration platform, but due restrictions on the addressable market in its development the use of an alternative platform is required. This method was asked for again in the session 2 report. By then the possibility of using a service trading platform developed by SAP in the context of another research project had been suggested by the WP 1 liaison person. The use of the platform was implemented in the beginning of 2012.

If the use of this platform proves to further cross border business opportunities for SME it should be deployed to the other vertical experiments as well as introduced to the ENoLL environment.

The support of SME in cross border activities is given with this method by helping them connect to future customers and partners. This method therefore supports the innovation process of an SME as well as supporting the Connect, Plan & Engage and Support & Govern phases of the experiment in managing the Living Lab network as well as expanding (establishing) it.

4.3.16 Experiment Review Method

Phase Origin

After the implementation of a use case this is reviewed by another participating Living Lab. The focus of the project as well as the vertical experiment is considered and the outcomes evaluated.

Manage & Track

In the report for session 2 it is stated that Future Factory

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 71 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

Evolution Recommendations

Validation

Living Lab plans to undergo an onsite review of the implementation of the use case at FIAPAL Living Lab. The review cycle is named as an evaluation activity in the context of the Research Framework during session 2.

This method is essential in deciding best practices in the experiment.

This method helps decide best practices and to implement these within further use cases.

If possible such a review should be considered by all participating Living Lab because best practices can be determined with this. Alternatively the web cam tour can be used.

This method is important for the evaluation of the experiments accomplishment and results.

The review was deemed very valuable to better understand the local environment in Portugal, to see the potential and limitations and to acknowledge how well the transfer has been realized and to get feedback from the end users.

4.3.17 Local & Cross Border Expertise Database Method

Phase Origin

Evolution

This database aims at supporting SME to adapt expertise from project partners from other countries to use for their own business opportunities abroad. The included knowledge in this database as required from the demand is: policy regulations, legal issues, electrical standards and certificates.

Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

In the second quarterly session it is stated that an expertise database is needed. Also in deliverable 4.1 a partner is named that is the supplier of a technical asset needed for the implementation of one of the use cases. Its expertise in the past implementation is used by partners at the Living Lab that is adapting this use case now.

Examples for what kind of knowledge is needed are set. The WP 1 liaison is involved in finding an existing database.

Recommendations Such a database is an important factor in reaching the task of enabling SME to further their business cross border. Therefore it should be deployed to all experiments. This will be of benefit for SME already using this database as well as new ones because new expertise will be induced.

Validation

This method supports managing a Living Lab network as well as the

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 72 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

4.3.18 Checklist Method

Phase Origin

Evolution

innovation process during the Plan & Engage and Support & Govern phases of the experiment. No solution has been found to address this.

A checklist for software, hardware assets and use case specific assets is in place to make sure that technical requirements are clearly set for all participating Living Labs.

Connect Phase

The checklist could be derived from the requirements description in deliverable 4.1. Especially the hardware and software requirements are listed within the deliverable. The requirements list had been developed by the experiment before setting up the use cases and finding customers.

This checklist was derived from the requirements and can be used for the implementation of further use cases.

Recommendations n/a Validation

As one of several methods the checklist has been used to identify whether the implementation of another use case can be accomplished at a Living Lab and to identify customers.

It is a suitable method as means to support the connect phase of managing a Living Lab network.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 73 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 4.3.19 Visualisation Method

Phase Origin

Evolution

Recommendations Validation

Visualisation is a method that supports understanding of complex context. There is a variety of different graphs, maps, video and pictures that can be used. In the WP 4 context these are screenshots, (tree) maps and scenario graphs.

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

The deliverables 4.1 and 4.2 describing the requirements and the setup of the experiment include detailed graphics which are screenshots of software GUI and use case scenario.

The method has been in use early on for the development of the specific scenario, the initial description of the use cases, the kick off workshop as well as the webcam tour. As the experiment advances the use of this method changes towards more detailed views. n/a

This method is utilised to support comprehension.

4.3.20 Living Lab Knowledge Center Method

Phase Origin

Evolution Recommendations Validation

The specific tools ‘lab finder’ and ‘Living Lab profiles’ within the comprehensive LLKC are designed for on-boarding of further Living Labs and systematic awareness of similar activities in other globally distributed Living Labs that offer synergies or further business opportunities. Additionally the LLKC adds other useful information in particular for SMEs. Connect Phase

So far there had not been any advanced mechanisms in place to get further Living Labs or partners on board. To enhance awareness of similar activities in other Living Labs the ‘lab finder’ and ‘Living Lab profiles’ were introduced to WP4. n/a n/a

The LLKC has been used. There is no evidence on how effective this usage was.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 74 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5 4.3.21 Web-based Communications Platform Method

Phase Origin Evolution Recommendations Validation

A web-based platform that serves the purpose of continuous tracking, and synchronisation on development cycles, release strategy, addressed customers or target market. Also the tracking of implementation and configuration of software is possible. It administers alerts and notification for the users.

Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

In deliverable 4.3 it is stated that a communications platform on technical deployment and usage is needed.

The platform was introduced and explored by “re-playing” the initiation and set-up of the “energy monitoring” use case

The Ticketing Tool used in experiment 2 in combination with the proposed collaboration platform can be used to fulfil these needs.

During the testing of the platform towards the end of the WP4 experiment, it was proven that it can support finding partners and customers and it can support the negotiation process as well as the sales process

4.3.22 Business Potential Validation Method

Phase Origin

Evolution Recommendations Validation

To validate the business potential of the implemented use cases several tools are used. These tools are: - Interviews - Workshops - Demonstrations to Living Lab partners Manage & Track

In the answers to the research framework questions it is stated that from a SMEs point of view the business potential can be validated by obtaining interviews, workshops and demonstrations to other SME. Although this method has been mentioned earlier it has not been in use. n/a

Common method in project management. Has not been implemented during the project.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 75 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5 4.3.23 Skills & Competency Observation Method

Phase Origin Evolution Recommendations Validation

The required skills for the experiment are monitored. If new skills are required, it is checked whether these can be obtained from a partner of one of the other vertical experiments or needs to be obtained from outside the project.

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

This method was named as an evaluation activity in the research framework.

The method has been in use from the beginning

Explicitly naming drivers, responsible persons or experts supports this method

The method supports the innovation process during all phases of the networking lifecycle.

4.3.24 Final interviews Method Phase Origin Evolution

Final interviews with all stakeholders are scheduled to take place at the end of the project.

Manage & Track

This method was named in the Research Framework section of the second session.

The interviews were included in the onsite review.

Recommendations Should be well prepared and should link to earlier F2F meetings and respective understanding of each otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s environment Validation

Worked well, gave a good understanding of the achievements

4.4 WP5: eParticipation Pilot The Quarterly Reports of the eParticipation experiment have exposed several methods and tools that are in use or should be derived. Here we summarize the methods that have been used in WP5 and are not already presented by other Pilots.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 76 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

Methodology tracking tables of e-Participation pilot (WP4) Phase of development

Needs finding & identification

Development of M&T (both WP1, WPx)

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment

Adoption and Use of M&T

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the M&T

Conclusion regarding validation

WP was looking for an effective method to engage the younger generation in the experiment. The main need was on the way to engage people, and on technological side what were the web tools to be used. The younger people had meeting with association in Issy to join the program and expressed their needs.

Staff went also to Manchester to get training and transfer to younger group (~20).

Existing tools were Wordpress, Facebook. Issy media provided knowledge transfer: how to sue the tools effectively and adapt English guide to French and to situation.

Transfer and adaptation of existing tool.

Training and knowledge transfer were used. The community management was most important. Community of Reporters was creating lot of activity on social media to engage people in the program. Set up Facebook group and animate it. Also create regular events e.g. pilot meetings. Also act as reporter during concerts and cultural activities. All this engagement was done through physical meetings and animation of Facebook community.

People liked it. Some people left as they are more interested in participation but the community is still there.

Generally the lesson learned is the need for a very active participation of the community. LLs have not only to set up the community and provide the tools but setting up a program to animate the community. Need for physical space for meetings.

Need to ask for where people would like to work on. Engagement and involvement in decision making process. On the methods side the trainerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approach was very successful, people were already familiar with some tools and could use these experiences. People were also themselves involved in training and exchange.

Training program was successful and also get local people involved in training.

M&T Community reporting tool This is a method to set up group of community reporters in city and engage them in city life, in particular in innovation projects. It Includes a training program.

Phase: Support and Govern

WP1 did not have a role, but the pilot WP5.

Adaptation was guided within WP5. There has been interaction with Manchester e.g. training and support.

No software development.

The know-how and how to use existing tools, adaptation.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 77 Living Lab networks

Adoption went smoothly and successful.

submitted, 03/05/2012

Main success is that the community is still there.

The main goal was to involve them in the first Issy experiment but they continued their activity with 5 more reportages and are still active today.

The community on Facebook is largely selfanimating.

Transferred to the Issy use association, no more the Living Labs but integrated in the se association in a selforganizing way.

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

Phase of development

Needs finding & identification

Development of M&T (both WP1, WPx)

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment

Adoption and Use of M&T

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the M&T

Conclusion regarding validation

The need was identified in the Issy pilot where people were participating in the pilot. Also the web reporters were filming.

Pictures should be hosted on a blog. In order to use these data it is mandatory to ask for userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s permission (privacy legislation).

An existing template was used and adapted to the context. It was checked with EU data protection rules and generalized for reuse.

The document was used in the pilot asking people to sign.

There were no particular problems.

The document was explained to the people.

Introduction was easy and straightforward. It was accepted by people.

The approach has worked well. Each document should consider national legislation and should be tested with a small testing group before using it in practice.

The sublicense model was prepared by the MDDA, and was adapted to the pilot requirements.

Negotiation between the two companies concerning the time duration and the purpose (pilot).

After it was agreed there were no further modifications.

There were no further modifications

Development of a framework for IPR specifically in a Living Lab context (open environment, piloting, and relatively short duration) is important.

The agreement should be flexible to adapt to circumstances.

Agreement on a sublicense / IPR agreement will be facilitated if it is clear that there is no commercial purpose but an open environment for testing and piloting.

This can be beneficial for both parties. It is necessary to explain the benefits for both (other than commercial agreement).

M&T Data protection template: agreement to be signed by users to allow use of their personal data collected during an experiment.

Phase: Set boundaries and engage, support and govern Sub-license agreement for using software owned by another part.

Phase: Set boundaries and Engage

The 3D modeling software was produced by a UK company named Arup. Navidis wanted to use it, they contacted the company.

The companies are competitors. Therefore a sublicense was proposed.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 78 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

Phase of development

Needs finding & identification

Development of M&T (both WP1, WPx)

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment

Adoption and Use of M&T

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the M&T

Conclusion regarding validation

The need came up very early, during the scenario description and actual implementation of the pilots, March 2011.

Scenario (D5.3) was developed at WP5 level. Based on this it was negotiated the deployment of the scenario with local stakeholders (e.g. museum in Antwerp, with IBBT). Then joint meeting Virdual, IBBT, Antwerp museum.

Then distributed application development, Agile development and outsourcing.

Cross border work is easier for SMEs that have size, culture and approach of agile startups. It was easy for AirGrafitti to propose the approach, but more difficult for Virdual to accept it.

The method was used

by Virdual and IBBT during the implementation of the MKKA application for the Antwerp museum.

The method was particularly effective for partners working remotely.

Agile development could be very effective approach. Start-up culture is very important. They are also benefiting from internationalization.

The method worked well since it allowed Virdual and IBBT Airgraffiti to develop a viable product to be tested in the Antwerp trials.

M&T Cross border application development Two SMEs had to develop a mobile application and needed to coordinate two teams working in Belgium and France.

For this, they needed specific project development processes adapted to cross border development teams.

Since most of the work was work on distance, strict planning is necessary for sharing codes etc. Methods to manage delays etc.

There is a need to set common goals for development on a distance. The two SMEs want to be sure to reuse their development result at a later stage.

Phase: Support and Govern, Manage and Track

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 79 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

Phase of development

Needs finding & identification

Development of M&T (both WP1, WPx)

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment

Adoption and Use of M&T

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the M&T

Conclusion regarding validation

WP5 needed a common methodology to gather feedback from users during the experiment in a consistent way during experiments.

During the first experiment (Issy) we opted for a direct observation method coupled with peer to peer interviews by Issy web reporters.

IBBT provided this method after having tested it in the Antwerp experiment.

This method was then replicated in the Manchester experiment and in the second Issy pilot.

IBBT provided a document that was translated and adapted by local Living Labs.

The protocol was adapted by local Living Labs in order to include contextual factors (e.g. the fact that in Issy iPad and iPods were used as opposed to iPhone and iPod in other experiments.).

It is recommended that Living Labs involved in the iteration of an experiment in different countries agree on a common protocol to gather user feedbacks.

This protocol should be first tested in a Living Lab and then adapted and replicated by other Living Labs.

This procedure showed to be very useful in WP5 and allowed us to save time during the iterations of the experiments. Adapting the protocol to local context took us a couple of days each time.

In deliverable 5.4 we proposed that each SME track their international contacts met through Apollon in order to have a general representation of the SMEs cross-border contacts during the project.

Tool consisted in a shared Google spread sheet in which SMEs should note their contacts & include some info on the kind of contact (company, local administration, business partner) and the nature of the contact (commercial, non-commercial, informal)

The document was created and shared by UP8 but it wasn’t used

by SMEs.

The tool could be useful in other projects in which a bigger number of SMEs should keep track of shared contacts in an easy way.

The tool wasn’t useful in WP5 since it was redundant (SMEs already shared contacts) and wasn’t helpful for small consortium like WP5.

Development of M&T

Introduction and

Tool wasn’t used a lot

by SMEs, mainly because all the main contacts were already shared among the consortium (and are listed in D5.5) and secondly because SMEs weren’t used to this kind of practice.

Evaluation and

Conclusion

M&T User workshops.

Methodology for user workshop.

Phase: manage and track.

In the following experiments taking place in similar settings we decided to follow a similar method in all experiments. This method involved direct observation during the experiment, log analysis & focus group after the experiment.

Cross-border contacts tracking

Phase: manage and track

Phase of

Needs finding &

The local Living Lab was responsible of collecting data from users using the proposed method.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 80 Living Lab networks

Adoption and Use of

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5 development

identification

(both WP1, WPx)

deployment in the pilot environment

M&T

learning lessons regarding the M&T

regarding validation

From the very beginning of the project we felt the need to use simple online collaboration tools to share documents (Dropbox) write texts collaboratively (Google docs), choose meeting times (Doodle) and chat or call (Skype).

The main tools used were free tools like Dropbox, Google docs, Skype and doodle.

Wordpress and Youtube were used in the Issy trial. Vimeo was used in the Antwerp trial.

There was not a common decision about which tools to use at the beginning of the project. Everything was adopted to answer a need and preferred free and easy to use tools that were already used by partners.

It was very easy to introduce these tools to the partners as most of them were already used before the project.

There has been some difficulty in using the above tools with some partners (e.g.

Manchester Galleries) as their corporate IT infrastructure was very locked down and is not flexible enough to allow staff to set up and use useful tools, such as Dropbox, without clearance by senior managers and IT policy officers. This has caused some slowdown in working with those staff during the experiments as they were not able to directly access resources that were freely shared between the LL and the SME.

Future projects should decide which tools to use at the beginning of the project and give priority to tools that are already used by partners and can be easily accessed by everyone.

The use of these user friendly and easy to use tools was very easy for everyone.

However, partners will need to verify that all members have access to these services also through firewalls and VPN.

M&T Collaborative on-line tools

Phase: Support and govern

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 81 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable D.1.5

Phase of development

Needs finding & identification

Development of M&T (both WP1, WPx)

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment

Adoption and Use of M&T

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the M&T

Conclusion regarding validation

Apollon was the first cross-border testing experience for all involved partners. This means that we didn’t have an already validated workflow for setting up and running an experiment but we needed to create one from practice.

For all experiments, main steps for LL & SME were:

Issy les Moulineaux first pilot allowed us to identify the good steps needed to organize a cross-border experiment and acted as a pilot for other experiments in which this workflow was replicated.

The workflow was followed by all experiments without problems. However, a bigger travel budget would have allowed for more meetings between SMEs and Living Labs and a closer collaboration on the operational part of the pilot.

By following this workflow we observed an improvement between the first and the second French experiment. During the first experiment, stakeholders were contacted as the scenario for the experiment and the SMEs goals were defined. During the second French experiment on the contrary, all the stakeholders worked together since the beginning at the definition of the pilot. This allowed speeding up the process of preparing and running the experiment. For the first iteration of the pilot the preparation of the experiment took place in March 2011, 5 months after the first meeting about the scenario (November 2010).

For the second experiment, the first meeting for the second took place in November and the experiment was carried out in January 201 (2 months later).

The application of this workflow was effective as it allowed us to cut by 2 the time for the preparation of an experiment.

M&T Cross-border experiment organization workflow

Phase: connect, Set boundaries and Engage

1. Local LL moderates construction of pilot with local stakeholders

2. Cross-border SMEs express needs & objectives for exp.

3. Local LL organizes codesign sessions with local stakeholders matching scenario to SMEs needs;

4. Cross-border LL monitors process, ensures scenario matches with SME’s goals; otherwise moderates a debate or harmonizes objectives of different parties

5. cross-border SME visits local LL for a co-design session to finalize scenario;

6. Local LL coordinates operational phase;

7. The cross border SME joins the local LL for the kick-off of the experiment; 8.Local LL collects & analyzes data of pilot;

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 82 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable D.1.5

4.5 Conclusion This chapter has presented summarized results regarding the development, adoption and use of methods and tools within the four APOLLON pilots as well as their impact and applicability. By comparing these methods across the plots we are able to bring together the elements of the validated APOLLON Methodology Framework presented in chapter 5.

Several methods and tools have been presented by the pilots that could not be validated. These were excluded from the list in the following Chapter 5 and therefore are presented here, because they nevertheless showed certain usefulness.

Public Relations Plan

-

Use of LinkedIn as a communication tool

-

Visualisation Business Potential Validation User Data Benchmarking Model

-

A PR plan was considered in the manufacturing experiment but has never been implemented; therefore there is no existing method for this in APOLLON. Manufacturing experiment tried to find new ways for easily accessible and apprehensible online collaboration.

LinkedIn was introduced to the project partners.

Lack of motivation, not useful functioning of the service and introduction of the service too late into the project run lead to the failure of this method.

Partners agreed to drop LinkedIn because it was of no additional use to them.

Visualisation was used in the manufacturing experiment for better documentation/manuals.

We were not able to validate the use of this method.

In the manufacturing experiment it was discussed that this method should be applied but it never happened.

Energy efficiency experiment originally tried to adopt this method. Due to practical reasons and priorities it had been on hold. Later it was picked up again. But the method has not been described by the time this deliverable was finished

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 83 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

5. Validated APOLLON Methodology This chapter presents the main conclusions regarding what can be considered as “APOLLON Validated Methodology” as far as based on the results of the four APOLLON Pilots. Section 5.1 summarizes the validation results of single methods and tools that have been experimented in the Pilots. Section 5.2 looks back on the Pilots (mainly Homecare and eManufacturing) to identify how any cross-border Living Labs networking pilot could be created. Section 5.3 considers the harmonization and interoperability challenges and how they are being addressed by the methodology. Finally, section 5.4 summarizes the validated methodology framework.

5.1 Validated Methods and Tools

As explained in previous chapters, methodology validation within the APOLLON project has been set-up in a practical way. This means that methods, tools or guidelines are considered to be “validated” if they have proven to be the right help for an issue or task to be resolved within the pilot, thus confirming that a these methods or tools meet the needs of its users 7.

Based on tracking the development and adoption of methods and tools, and a comparison of the methods and tools developed and/or used within the Pilots, we identify two categories: 1) Methods, tools and guidelines that are more generically applicable and can be applied within multiple research environments, and 2) methods, tools and guidelines that are “specific” for a particular pilot challenge or objective.

In Chapter 4 we have analyzed how methods and tools as described by the different pilots were in use and which of these were used in a similar way or could be abstracted as one method. Based on our observations it becomes obvious that the approach toward methodology within the pilots was different. Some of the pilots described very general methods, complemented by a few methods specific to the pilot; other pilots emphasized very specific thematic methods and a few common methods. This discrepancy is attributed to the differences in the pilot challenges, pilot objectives, innovation environment contexts and targeted user groups and stakeholders.

Despite the fact that the four different pilot environments were representing different challenges as well as different scientific and domain backgrounds, the phased approach to setting up and operating Living Labs networks, as introduced in D1.1 “Catalog of State-of-the-Art concepts, existing tools and lessons learned for cross-border Living Lab networks” and D1.2 “Research Framework and 7

Validation, entry @ Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validation

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 84 Living Lab networks

03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable Investigation Strategy”, can be adopted and generalized towards methods and tools for the APOLLON “cookbook” (see D1.4 “Recommended toolset for cross-border Living Lab networks”).

The phasing approach is a highly generic description of the process of setting up and operating Living Labs networks. Therefore its use is also limited and it therefore is important to elaborate the phasing approach into more concrete and specific methods and tools. The more specific, the more attention must be paid to the contextual adaptation or “customizing” of these methods and tools.

Some of the key lessons learned from the process of development, introduction, adoption, use of methods, tools and guidelines, that form the basis of what can be called “Validated Methodology” and which is also reflected in the Methodology “Handbook” in D1.4, are the following. A more comprehensive evaluation can be found in subsequent tables in this section, and regarding over-all APOLLON methodology in the D1.6 Project Evaluation deliverable.

Phasing approach to creating Living Labs networks

The phasing approach to setting op and operating a Living Labs network (connect – plan and engage – support and govern – manage and track) can be considered as a key guideline which can be used at the beginning of network pilot design. The D1.4 described the detailed structures and elements of this phasing structure. The contextual characteristics of a pilot determine the selection and adaptation of single methods and tools within this framework.

Collaboration and communication tools

Based on pilot’s experience, this category can be considered as a critical to support cross-border collaboration. Light-weight Internet-based tools are very common and have been sued extensively. Although not so prominently experimented in the pilots, probably due to a lack of strict project management procedures in some of the pilots, common workspace environments that support document sharing but also calendaring and presence viewing are important as well, in particular from the point of view of project management.

Research Framework for structuring cross-border pilots

The Research Framework can be considered as an important tool for structuring the pilot design and experimentation process. It has been applied satisfactorily in most of the pilots.

Ecosystem analysis

Although Ecosystems analysis was experimented in an explicit manner only in the Homecare pilot, its usefulness can be considered as important for any pilot situation in order to facilitate the agreement finding among pilot partners. As such it is also a necessary step in order to create partnership agreements and business models.

Contracting templates

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 85 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Nearly all pilots have used contracting templates based on practices that are in use at the project partnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sites. Such contracting templates address different topics such as user participation to experiments (Homecare pilot), software licensing (eManufacturing pilot), data protection (eParticipation pilot).

The next tables provide an overview of validated methods, tools and guidelines. This overview also makes clear that validation is always dependent on context, thus that methods and tools always must be adapted to context. Therefore the lessons that can be learned from introducing and adopting methods and tools in the pilot environments constitute important insights which are of use for next initiatives in cross-border networked Living Labs.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 86 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

Communication Tools

Common method

All pilots

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

-

Several tools to support collaboration and communication are in use, these are slightly different between the different experiments. Examples: email, phone conferencing

-

Monthly Reporting Template Have an up-to-date status of the pilot is crucial. All partners in project need to know what activities have been done, how they evolve, what are next steps

Common method

All pilots

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 87 Living Lab networks

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

-

03/05/2012

These tools support managing a Living Lab network during all phases of the networking lifecycle.

The use of communication tools has been emphasized in the quarterly reports repeatedly by all involved stakeholders.

Communication tools are in use for general communication and collaboration between project partners but also to address specific topics such as technical support.

The quarterly reports state that the collection of tools in use in the different experiments is suitable for their needs.

There is a difference between the communication tools used internally by the involved APOLLON stakeholders and those used approaching multiple users. This is important since the Experiments aim at very different user groups (for instance single SMEs in Pilot 3 (eManufacturing) and multiple individual users in Pilot 1 (Homecare).

Pilot 5 (eParticipation): The use of these user friendly and easy to use tools was very easy for everyone. However, partners will need to verify that all members have access to these services also through firewalls and VPN. The monthly reporting was used throughout the whole APOLLON project and helped, next to the specific bilateral contacts between actors, to keep an overview, to discuss issues with all partners and to immediately assess the impact for all actors.

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Document Sharing

Common method

All pilots

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

Common method

All pilots

Common method

Pilot 4 (eParticipation)

The document sharing platform is a central repository where different documents related to the project are stored and shared between the partners.

This method is also included in the list of communication tools.

Face2Face Meetings

Face2Face meetings of partners, customers and users are being held. Within APOLLON these meetings usually took place on-site at one of the Living Labs.

Skills & Competency Observation

The required skills for the experiment are monitored. If new skills are required, it is checked whether these can be obtained from a partner of one of the other vertical projects or needs to be obtained from outside the project.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 88 Living Lab networks

Connect (see Kick-Off Meeting), Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

Validation -

-

-

This tool supports the cross-border networking between all stakeholders in all phases of the pilot as well as set-up of the network.

The platform has been used extensively by all experiments from the beginning of the project.

This method is very much emphasized as important by all partners in the Energy Efficiency pilot as every meeting resulted in progress for the project.

In Pilot 3 (eManufacturing) a face 2 face meeting was utilized after the implementation of the use cases (pilots) to conduct an onsite review.

The method supports the innovation process during all phases of the networking lifecycle. Its permanent use within the experiment solved and prevented issues during the whole experimentation process.

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

Service Platform

Specific to the common technology platform of Pilot 3 (eManufacturing) .

Pilot 3 (eManufacturing)

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

-

The support of SME in cross border activities is given with this method by helping them connect to future customers and partners. This method therefore supports the innovation process of an SME as well as supporting the Connect, Plan & Engage and Support & Govern phases of the experiment in managing the Living Lab network as well as expanding (establishing) it.

Common method

Pilot 1 (Homecare);

Connect, Plan & Engage, Manage & Track

-

In the beginning of the project in Pilot 1 (Homecare) it was not sufficiently clear what the interest was for all actors involved.

Subsequently a value analysis was introduced and done before the introduction of the third pilot.

In Pilot 3 (eManufacturing) the need for a value analysis was clearly stated by the involved partners but has not been in use.

Connect, Plan & Engage

-

A Service Platform is used by partners to offer their services and find future customers. Goal is to connect suppliers with customers, give easy access to both groups to research information on the other.

Value Analysis

Method is used to identify the different interest & stakes of all partners involved in project. By using an explicit method investigating this, it has to be clear what every actor involved in pilot wants to gain out of project at the end. Subsequently this has to be embedded in the final pilot set-up.

Scenario

Scenario is a method forcing project partners to envision the pilot set-up & to detail how things (organisation, technology â&#x20AC;Ś) will be arranged during pilot.

Common method

Pilot 3 (eManufacturing): Strategy Networking

Pilot 1 (Homecare): Pilotspecific scenario Pilot 3 (eManufacturing): overall scenario

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 89 Living Lab networks

-

-

Very good tool to keep the objectives clear and as a reference during the pilot to check.

Has been developed and used independently in different Experiments.

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

Ecosystem Analysis

Specific to the common ecosystem of Pilot 1 (homecare)

Pilot 1 (Homecare)

Connect, Plan & Engage

-

In each of the pilot an ecosystem analysis was done to find and setup the required ecosystem to facilitate the cross-border pilot

Common method

Pilot 3 (eManufacturing): Checklist / early Technical Feasibility Check

Connect, Plan & Engage

-

As one of several methods the checklist has been used to identify whether the implementation of another use case (pilot) can be accomplished at a Living Lab and to identify customers.

Common method

All pilots, detailed

by Pilot 4 (eParticipation)

Connect, Plan & Engage

-

The application of this workflow was effective as it allowed us to cut by 2 the time for the preparation of an experiment.

Ecosystem analysis identifies different actors, required to set-up & deploys a cross-border platform. This is done by listing all various roles and activities required to conduct the pilot.

Checklist

A checklist for SW, HW assets and use case specific assets is in place to ensure that technical requirements are clearly set for all participating Living Labs.

Cross-border experiment organization workflow

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 90 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

Living Lab Knowledge Center (LLKC)

Common method

All Pilots

Connect Phase

-

Developed and in use before APOLLON.

Specific method for Living Lab environments;

All Pilots;

Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

-

During the Homecare pilot experiments in Spain and Belgium the system was not only adjusted on the fly – based on user feedback, but also due to the specific context or need of local actors.

In Pilot 3 (eManufacturing) context the use case implementation was closely monitored by the stakeholders so the system could be adjusted to the user’s need. There was a clear timing for adjustments.

Specific tool ‘lab finder’ and ‘LL profiles’ in the comprehensive LLKC are designed for onboarding of further LLs & systematic awareness of similar activities in other networks of LLs, offering synergies or further business opportunities.

Additionally LLKC adds other useful information, for SMEs. Living Lab Research Methodology

The Living Lab research methodology is the core of the cross-border pilot and is an iterative research approach to conduct a Living Lab pilot in which user feedback is gathered on a permanent base and is used to steer the development process on a ‘realtime’ basis.

Its use depends on the size of the user group

Pilot 3 eManufacturing: Scheduling & Monitoring Process

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 91 Living Lab networks

-

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

Support / Helpdesk Methods

Common method

Pilot 1 (Homecare): Cascade System for Helpdesk

Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

-

Pilot 2 (Energy Efficiency)

Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

-

Structuring how support is being organised within the pilot.

Knowledge transfer across pilots Exchange of best-practice from local and cross-border pilots on user-behavioral changes mechanisms and measurements. Partners document and share their experiences in measuring behavioral changes among endusers when experimenting with new ICT solutions from energy saving.

Specific to the common research benchmark of experiment 3.

Pilot 3 (eManufacturing): Technical Support

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 92 Living Lab networks

-

The cascade system in Pilot 1 was defined and set-up during the plan and engage phase and was further operationalized during the pilot deployment.

With a clear schedule and contact person, all issues involving the software could be resolved continuously.

Lessons learned is that it is very difficult to get the Living Labs to talk about methods and tools that they have used. It is much easier to talk about their experiences from their cases. Hence, the second workshop was carried out more or less as a focus group where they shared knowledge and based on that a methodology will be developed.

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method Local & Cross Border Expertise Database: This database aims at supporting SME to adapt expertise from project partners from other countries to use for their own business opportunities abroad. The included knowledge in this database as required from the demand is: policy regulations, legal issues, electrical standards and certificates.

Panel management Software

As the user is an essential part within the Living Lab process it is needed that the activities with and by the users are monitored and managed via a platform.

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

Common method

Pilot 3 (eManufacturing): Local & Cross Border Expertise Database

Plan & Engage, Manage & Track, Support & Govern

-

No solution has been found to address this.

The contacts tracking in Pilot 4 did not work out as planned.

Although no solution has been found in APOLLON, this would have been an important tool supporting SMEs and Living Labs in cross border activities.

Pilot 1 (Homecare)

Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

-

The use of such services has been proven to be useful in Living Lab pilots. Have one system and providing access to (certain) components of it to cross-border stakeholders makes it efficient to support the Manage & Track phase.

Pilot 4 (eParticipation): Cross-border contacts tracking

Specific method for the common ecosystem approach in experiment 2.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 93 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

Contractual Templates

Common Method

Pilot 1 (Homecare): User Participation Agreement

Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

-

To officially engage users, commit them to your project and make good arrangements a contractual agreement needs to be drafted and signed by both parties.

Specifically for working with new partners and considering policies in different countries.

Pilot 3 (eManufacturing): SDLA Pilot4 (eParticipation): Data Protection Template

Pilot 4 (eParticipation): Sub-license agreement for using software owned by another party

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 94 Living Lab networks

-

-

The user participation agreement has been already validated by IBBT in their Living Lab projects. It covers the various aspects of the agreement.

All legal obstacles concerning the collaboration with new partners were solved with this agreement.

Pilot 4 on data Protection Template: The approach has worked well. Each document should consider national legislation and should be tested with a small testing group before using it in practice.

Pilot 4: Agreement on a sublicense / IPR agreement will be facilitated if it is clear that there is no commercial purpose but an open environment for testing and piloting. This can be beneficial for both parties. It is necessary to explain the benefits for both (other than commercial agreement).

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Webcam Tour

Specifically supports cross border activities, since it approaches remote audiences.

Pilot 3 (eManufacturing)

Plan & Engage, Manage & Track

Common method

All Pilots (deliverables x.1)

A web cam tour of the experimental setup at a Living Lab is used as a way for project partners to understand the Living Labs approach toward the use cases and give an insight into the Living Lab. It is accompanied by a Q&A discussion.

This method is also suitable to review the experiment.

Requirements Analysis

This method lists the different requirements in setting up a cross-border pilot. It does not only focus on technical requirements but also emphasis on organisational, research and contextual requirements.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 95 Living Lab networks

Plan & Engage

Validation -

-

Used repeatedly in Experiment 4 after project partners agreed on the success of an initial run.

Different stakeholders evaluated this method as very successful in cross border collaboration.

Successfully gives cross border access for multiple users independent of their location.

The requirement analysis was performed as one of the first steps in the plan and engage phase.

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

Manual

Common method that may be used in any content.

Pilot 1 (Homecare)

Plan & Engage

-

The manuals were drafted based on a specific need that was addressed in all the pilots performed and was required during the engage phase.

Common method

Pilot 1 (Homecare): as Training Sessions

Plan & Engage

-

The training has been done in two pilots of the projects in Pilot 1 and is considered as a necessary step in the plan and engage phase.

The workshop in Pilot 3 was considered a success. The targets set for this method were reached. When considering the means of managing a Living Lab network this method is suitable for the Plan & Engage phase since it supports project team commitment and supports collaboration as well as definition of technical issues.

Since being used in different Experiments we consider this method to be applicable to the other Experiments as well.

The Kick-Off Workshop method is commonly used in project management.

The Roadshow was appreciated by all stakeholders in Pilot 2.

However, additional stakeholders could have been invited, e.g. more SMEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, and more governmental authorities.

As a service is being transferred the offering organisation or company cannot facilitate the process locally. Therefor it is needed that good manuals are provided for the different operations and target groups. This concerns more than the traditional user manual.

Kick-Off Workshop

This method is used in the beginning of a project for partners to get to know each other, to demonstrate the product and for running an initial training session. It is held at one of the Living Labs and a tour can be part of it.

Pilot 2 (Energy efficiency): as a Roadshow in each country

Pilot 3 (eManufacturing): as a local kick-off workshop

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 96 Living Lab networks

-

-

-

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

Access Policy

Specific to the common ecosystem of Pilot 1 (Homecare). In other collaborations this can be solved by contractual agreements.

Pilot 1 (Homecare)

Plan & Engage

-

This has been done on a pilot level within the cross-border network during the deployment.

Common method, but the approach for user groups consisting of individuals or customer/SME has to be different.

All Pilots

Plan & Engage

-

Customer Identification in Pilot 3 (eManufacturing) formed throughout the experiment and best practices. In the beginning it was not clear, how to approach this. Mainly the existing network of the Living Labs was used to find new customers.

Pilot 2 (Energy efficiency) used existing customer databases from their partnering SMEs.

Living Labs deal with privacy sensitive data. In the domain of health often medical data is also included. As this data is sensitive a good policy on who can access this info and under which conditions has to be developed upfront (also to be in line with specific rules and regulations).

Customer Identification

This method includes criteria on how to as well as ways to identify customers for the use cases.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 97 Living Lab networks

-

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

User Interface Translation Method

Common method. This may apply more to environments with user groups made up of individuals due to the fact that in many SMEs English is used for various software.

Pilot 1 (Homecare)

Plan & Engage

-

The incorporation of contextual elements is crucial in translating user interfaces as it is not just translation text, but also meanings.

-

The methodology was developed, partners involved and information distributed. Not all pilots implemented the user behavior method.

Methodology is very applicable. It has been applied.

Experiences from the different countries were shared in developing the method.

Translating and contextualisation of the User Interface of a service.

User behavior transformation Method developed to determine and influence user behavior in energy consumption.

Specific to the common research benchmark of experiment 3.

Pilot 2 (Energy Efficiency)

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 98 Living Lab networks

Support & Govern, Manage & Track

-

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

Cross border application development

Cross-border collaboration method

Pilot 4 (eParticipation)

Support & Govern, Manage & Track

The method was particularly effective for partners working remotely.

Specific method for the integration framework of Pilot 4 eParticipation

Pilot 4 (eParticipation)

Support & Govern

Training program was successful and also get local people involved in training.

Two SMEs had to develop a mobile application and needed to coordinate two teams working in Belgium and France.

For this, they needed specific project development processes adapted to cross border development teams. Since most of the work was work on distance, strict planning is necessary for sharing codes etc.

Methods to manage delays etc.

Community reporting tool:

This is a method to set up group of community reporters in city and engage them in city life, in particular in innovation projects. It Includes a training program.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 99 Living Lab networks

Main success is that the community is still there. The main goal was to involve them in the first Issy experiment but they continued their activity with 5 more reportages and are still active today.

The community on Facebook is largely self-animating.

Transferred to the Issy use association, no more the Living Labs but integrated in these association in a self-organizing way.

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

Ticketing Tool

Technical tool

Pilot 1 (Homecare)

Manage & Track

This tool helps different actors to keep track (in real time) of the different issues encountered during the pilot. Especially for those actors abroad it is an easy, accessible way.

Common method

Pilot 3 (eManufacturing): onsite review

Manage & Track

-

Best practices can be determined.

This method is important for the evaluation of the experiments accomplishment and results during the Manage & Track phase.

It supports the innovation process.

Developed for the common research benchmark approach of experiment 3, but this method is valuable for the other experiments as well.

Pilot 2 (Energy Efficiency)

Manage & Track

-

Learning by doing process. Also political process: in latest GA we fine-tuned the emphasis from the cross border aspects. We have a case in WP3 which focuses on the knowledge exchange.

Outcome of the workshops is the common methodology about how to do the cross border cases. It is also produced the country reports that will describe the local ecosystem and context (Process vision).

The benchmarking framework was not developed in the beginning; it was supposed to emerge from the pilots. It was a stepwise process. Has been process which is now reaching maturity.

Use of a ticketing tool to keep record the various issues encountered during the pilot and to manage and follow up the support.

Experiment Review

After the implementation of a pilot this is reviewed by another participating Living Lab. The focus of the project as well as the vertical experiment is considered and the outcomes evaluated.

Common benchmarking model

Process vision, ISA, face to face meetings, common interest ground, how to compare results from the pilots with each other and implement similar processes.

Model with two levels: the cross border level (coherence, common approach) and second level is the pilots, this creates interaction and learning.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 100 Living Lab networks

-

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

User Questionnaire/ Feedback

Common method

All Pilots;

Manage & Track

In Pilot 3 (eManufacturing) specifically the feedback by the users was used to adjust the deployed software, mainly improving its user interface.

Pilot 2 (Energy efficiency)

Manage & Track

Good results, consisting of an engaged group of people, sharing their experiences and thoughts related to energy efficiency.

Pilot 4 (eParticipation)

Manage & Track

This procedure showed to be very useful in the eParticipation pilot and allowed us to save time during the iterations of the experiments. Adapting the protocol to local context took us a couple of days each time.

Needed in order to communicate with end-users, and to be able to get research data.

Focus group

Methodology for user workshop This method involved direct observation during the experiment, log analysis and focus group after the experiment.

Established method for data collection, used for common research benchmark in Pilot 2 (Energy Efficiency) Applies to user groups of individuals.

Specifically designed for integration framework of Pilot 4 eParticipation

Pilot 2 (Energy Efficiency): User Questionnaire

Pilot 3 (eManufacturing): continuous dialogue

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 101 Living Lab networks

Pilot 2 (Energy Efficiency): validated in the focus group. Good results, the users experienced the method as positive. The method also resulted in the users actually changing their behavior.

The method has resulted in data that will be used for research papers, conference papers and project reports.

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Type

Implementation

Phase

Validation

Business Potential Validation

Common method

All Pilots

Manage & Track

Pilot 3 (eManufacturing): Common method in project management.

Has not been mentioned specifically during the project implementation. A process of business potential validation has been in place and successful.

To validate business potential of implemented use cases, several tools are used; e. g.

-

Interviews Workshops Demos to LL partners

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 102 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

5.2 Execution of Cross-Border pilots The pilots’ strategy documents (Dx.4+5) describe and evaluate the execution of the pilot experiments. With the support of these documents, and supplemented by the validated methods and tools as listed in section 5.1, we have obtained the conceptual framework of how any cross-border experiment within a network of Living Labs could be executed. In the following, the steps and objectives of experimentation in a cross border pilot setting are described using the four phases of the cross-border Living Labs networking lifecycle including examples and lessons learned from the eHealth and eManufacturing pilot.

5.2.1 Connect Phase

Main activities in the connect phase Connect:

Plan and Engage:

Support and Govern:

Manage and Track:

•Initial planning and coordinating activities •Identification of requirements •Analysis of ecosystem •Search and approach of potential partners

Methods and tools supporting these activities Connect Phase Activities

Execution in eHealth

Execution in eManufacturing

Initial planning and coordination activities

Choices were made in the setup of the local network for the Living Lab experiment.

Method: Kick off workshop

Method: Kick off workshop

Identification of requirements: - Domain specific issues

Analysis of ecosystem

The first analysis of the local ecosystem for the product/service offering has been done. This Analysis

“The Living Labs set requirements by using the local analysis of the ecosystem to evaluate the conditions for choosing use cases. Detailed requirements for the use cases are analysed during the “Plan & Engage” phase.”

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 103 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Search and approach of potential partners: - LE: included as consortia partners from the early beginning.

- Living Labs: included as consortia partners from the early beginning.

- SME: Especially partnering up with SME who are not consortia partners is a detailed process where lessons learned will improve future collaboration.

Considered issues regarding SME on-boarding: project costs, business value

showed several potential ways to approach the experiment with various partners.

Local Level: IAVANTE identified several key members (SMEs and the main social services agency in the region) who were contacted individually to request their participation. Four contacted SMEs expressed their interest in the experiment.

Unfortunately, in all four cases, the SMEs declined to formally participate as associated partners in the experiment due to financial constraints at the time. Participating SMEs were consecutively found during the Plan & Engage Phase.

While the participating Living Labs and the large Enterprise had been consortium partners from the early beginnings, SME partners had to be found. This was not undertaken in the Connect but rather Plan & Engage Phase of the experiment. The local Living Lab ecosystem in Portugal provided sufficient access to its SMEs. The webcam tour method proved to be successful in on-boarding SME partners.

5.2.2 Plan & Engage Phase Main activities in the Plan & Engage phase Connect:

Plan and Engage:

Support and Govern:

Manage and Track:

•Technology testing/local setup •Transfer and localization of technology •research design, research methods •permissions •identification of local partners •agreements with partners in local network •user selection criteria •project redefinition

Methods and tools supporting these activities

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 104 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Plan & Engage Phase Activities

Execution in eHealth

Execution in eManufacturing

Technology testing / local setup

Belgian-Finnish Pilot: Test set-up at the controlled environment at the premises of Palmia and a test setup at Aalto University CKIR was made.

Hardware implementation and changes were accomplished. A modified structure of piloting was achieved.

Methods: Face2face meeting, feedback document

“Coordinated by FIAPAL and in collaboration with the technical managers of Imeguisa and CENI the partner Ydreams analysed the technical scenarios and conceptualized a technical solution for each use case in articulation with SAP technical liaison.”

Belgian-Finnish Pilot: Data was collected that is needed to make the results of the experiment comparable with the original project in Belgium.

The research design was made on basis of the Belgian documentation that included

Objectives based on the use cases are: - To monitor the progress of work - To be able to immediately react on exceptional situations like system shut downs, software bugs, knowledge gaps that require

Transfer and localization of technology: After the ecosystem analysis adaptions to the technology to be transferred have to be made. These may include: translation, adaptation to different technological environment, addition of new modules.

Research design, research methods

Ethical issues had to be considered, i.e. in Belgium the terms “patients” and “residents” are used, while in Finland the terminology is “client”. This implies a completely different way of thinking that is also reflected in the business model.

The local circumstances and the progressing technology made for changes in the setup of the experiment.

Translations of the user front ends in the different pilots had to be done. Specifics in language, such as Finnish having very long words, lead to difficulties in this process.

Dutch-Belgian Pilot: A contextualization of the technology was approached by extending the application with an SMS module.

Methods & Tools: Translation Tool

“The project processes and requirements were not needed to be translated into country specific schemes but are everywhere the same. That helped a lot to start with the implementation right away.”

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 105 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Permissions: - This activity is specific for research fields where there are governmentally controlled organizations involved, and therefore particular for experiment 2 eHealth.

Identification of local partners: The local Living Lab environment is searched for potential partners.

interviews and focus group discussions, as well as an online questionnaire for the different user groups in the experiment.

Dutch-Spanish Pilot: “The research-set up discussions focused on defining the main research goals (“what do we want to learn from the experiment the most?”); the basic tools for data collection and analysis (questionnaires, interviews, etc.) and identifying the responsible persons for such effort within each of the partners involved in the experiment.”

Dutch-Belgian Pilot: The research set-up was divided into four phases: - Benchmark/baseline measurement - Continuous logging - Preliminary results - End evaluation Methods & Tools: Interviews, Questionnaire, Logging, Online survey

an immediate answer etc.

A set of methods and tools was established to accomplish these objectives: - Weekly phone conferences - Technical support via email/phone - Documentation exchange on the software (installation, usage, configuration etc.)

- Document sharing via mybbt portal - Remote webcam tour - Setup of service level agreements to ensure reliable technical support - Contractual agreement SDLA - LinkedIn group - SAPconnect collaboration tool - SAPmats for “large file” sharing

Dutch-Belgian Pilot: “The local ecosystem for the service was analysed and the most important actors and roles described. Partners capable of performing the needed functions were defined and agreed to partake in the

Local SME for the use case implementation were found by the FIAPAL Living Lab. An additional technical partner from a different APOLLON experiment joined the smart metering use case during the experiment.

Belgian-Finnish Pilot: “In Finland there is a strict control on experimentation within a healthcare of wellbeing setting. As soon as there is any activity that requires the participation or involvement of care receiving clients there must be an ethical permission from the participating healthcare organization.”

Does not apply for this experiment.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 106 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable

Agreements with partners within their local network:

User selection criteria: This activity is specific to experiments where und users are involved.

Project redefinition: This activity is connected to possible obstacles that may occur during the experimental run. For the experiments conducted during APOLLON this activity meant a new iteration of the Connect as well as Plan & Engage Phases of the networking lifecycle.

Considered factors: - withdrawal of project partner - pilot/use case adaption to local conditions

experiment.â&#x20AC;?

First step in user selection: pilot group Dutch-Spanish Pilot: A consulting partner specialized in the area helped identify and engage users. This partner also gave recommendations for engaging these potential candidates.

Belgian-Finnish pilot: In M16 the partner Palmia decided that they would no longer participate in the project. Based on this decision two different experiment streams were started.

Subsequently while the experiment had entered the Plan & Engage Phase, the process of finding an SME partner from the Connect Phase and the activities from the Plan & Engage had to be repeated.

A licensing agreement (SDLA) with partners had to be signed in order to transfer the implemented software.

A service level agreement (SLA) was signed including key performance indicators: - Support personnel availability - Support message priority - Message response time - Fix rate Method: contractual agreements Does not apply.

The interoperability challenge of a common technology platform was conducted during the experimentation. During the experiment the specific needs of SMEs in the manufacturing sector were evaluated and the implementation of a service platform was agreed.

5.2.3 Support & Govern Phase Main activities in the Support & Govern phase

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 107 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Connect:

Plan and Engage:

Support and Govern:

Manage and Track:

•Deployment of technology and service •Installation in real environments with users •Installation of product/service with additional partners •collecting research data •Stakeholder management •Iterative technology adaptation

Methods and Tools supporting these activities Support & Govern Phase Activities

Execution in eHealth

Execution in eManufacturing

Deployment of technology and service

The pilots were not deployed at the same time but rather consecutively. By the time the third pilot was deployed, the activities to be undertaken could be derived from the lessons learned from the previous pilots. Chronologically these were: - identification of service level processes at the local Living Lab - adaptation of the technology/service - live-testing - installation of the technical infrastructure - training of service coordinator - kick-off meeting with caretakers/volunteers - four phases of research setup as defined during the Plan & Engage Phase:

The interoperability challenge in this experiment was solved with a platform previously developed by SAP Research that was selected to be implemented during the run of the experiments after the use cases had been successfully implemented. This platform works as a service trading platform and suits the purpose to support SMEs in finding new customers.

Cross border activities in technology deployment: - technical and business blueprint - technology knowledge transfer - use case implementation - use case execution - support and maintenance - joint requirements

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 108 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Installation in real environment with users: - This activity addresses issues of experiments with end users, where pilot users had been selected beforehand, only.

Installation of product/service with additional partners

Collecting research data

Stakeholder management

Benchmark/baseline measurement; Continuous logging; Preliminary results; End evaluation Methods: F2f/ meeting, kick-off meeting, Communication tools Dutch-Spanish Pilot: The pilot for a total of fifteen elderly users was structured in three sequential waves with five users participating in each of the waves.

Belgian-Finnish Pilot: Preparation: documents, reports and participatory observations of the development and critical incidents were collected.

During the pilot: 20 structured interviews with the involved customers, nurses and supervisors; web-based survey for nurses; quantitative analysis of the monthly computer logs and call reports

gathering on cross-border platform

After the implementation of the first use case at a partnering SME another partner was found for the implementation of the next use case.

“As a core finding from the use case set-up we jointly identified requirements for a collaboration platform that specifically supports cross border businesses for SMEs in the area of the manufacturing industries.”

Methods & Tools: face2Face meeting, communication tools

Dutch-Belgian Pilot: “In order to deploy the pilot as efficient as possible, it is necessary that a central party (in this case IBBT) manage these stakeholders and support them. This is necessary to take ownership, conduct the overall coordination and to assist the stakeholders with efficient communication, collaboration and tracking tools and methods.”

Expectation management process towards the local stakeholders before and throughout the pilot: - Providing support by phone

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 109 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable and email Continuous monitoring and tracking of issues - Frequent communication via phone, Skype, email, F2F contacts Methods: Communication methods, Support -

Iterative technology adaptation

5.2.4 Manage & Track Phase

The deployed software has been updated frequently. This was based on feedback by the local partners and scheduled regularly.

The use cases were implemented consecutively, therefore allowing repeated adaptations of the technology.

Main activities in the Manage & Track phase Connect:

Plan and Engage:

Support and Govern:

Manage and Track: •Analysis of gathered data/ results •Dissemination of lessons learned •Planning of further experiments •Potential new projects

Methods and Tools supporting these activities Manage & Track Phase Activities

Execution in eHealth

Analysis of gathered data/results

Belgian-Finnish Pilot: The analysis of the data was conducted following the case study methodology.

The research design was built on two main research questions: • What are the perceived impacts of the video connection to the various parties involved?

• What are the anticipated system

Execution in eManufacturing

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 110 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable

Dissemination of lessons learned

level changes required for the wider implementation of the service?

Dutch-Spanish Pilot: In the last phase of the experiment the results of the experiment are analysed and distributed to all the relevant stakeholders.

Dutch-Belgian Pilot: Results of the pilot are situated on two levels: - Results from benchmark study - Results from user experience with the application Methods: Feedback Questionnaire for caregivers/volunteers and users

The lessons learned are situated on various levels: â&#x20AC;˘ Tools and methods â&#x20AC;˘ Collaboration and eco-system

Belgian-Finnish Pilot: Challenges: - during the system set up, since motivations and objectives did not fully meet - customer selection and delays in system installations - technology provider needed to be changed due to the different expectations in terms of the technical and functional specifications of the system Technical issues were easily dealt with, the main body of work concentrated on process integration and finding care operations in which the system would yield maximum benefits.

Dutch-Spanish Pilot: Lessons learned via caregiver questionnaire & meetings: suggestions how to improve/advance pilot, discarding errors Lessons learned on pilot level: - Two types of users: the ones waiting for an alarm, the ones checking up regularly - Requirements, common approach:

Implementation of use cases in different contexts is proved to be possible; The Living Lab eco system assures the required conditions for product codevelopment;

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 111 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable Both processes were executed following the process written down in Deliverable 2.1 to the satisfaction of the Living Lab. Running the service locally was straightforward and for the most part free of unexpected problems.

Important objectives for the requirements/ common approach: • Research goals of all parties • Organizational roles foreseen to be required (this applies both at the intra-organization level and the ecosystem of participating entities or partners as well).

• Clear designation of responsibilities and basic workflows among participants.

Best way to refine these definitions early on: iterating and doing dummy testing of the workflows, use of “user stories” for structuring the common approach and requirement definitions.

- Partner engagement at the local level: Engaging relevant members of the innovation ecosystem was a process of continuous improvement.

There was an overriding circumstance: the current financial situation.

SMEs were hesitant to participate since they did not view the specific case at hand as an effort likely to succeed on a commercial basis right after the project.

Methods: F2F meetings - Transfer, testing and set-up The evolutionary-adaptive approach was able to cope with (initial) high levels of uncertainty and broad (but generic) knowledge.

Broad planning is to be favoured over detailed structured planning to remain adaptive to unexpected issues.

Hands-on approach proved useful.

- User engagement A consulting partner specialized in the area helped identify and engage users.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 112 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable Specific aspects for involving elderly patients with technology-intensive projects have been found.

- Deployment, piloting and gathering feedback All systems were preconfigured at the Living Lab before installation in the field.

Explanation of the system to the patients is important during deployment.

A mix of structured and nonstructured feedback gathering tools was found to be sufficient.

Experiences with these tools were that a non-structured approach works much better than specific questionnaires/interviews.

Methods: Feedback Questionnaire, Focus Group meetings - Managing user expectations Initial expectations on what a product or service does, can have a huge impact on the users’ perception once they begin actually using and experiencing it.

“Technology is never as ready to go as we engineers think it is”.

A proper assessment of the actual capabilities of the technology is achieved through the technical and usability testing processes.

Dutch-Belgian Pilot: The pilot has benefited from lessons learned by the two previous pilots.

This further iteration lead to following lessons learned in cross border collaboration: - There is a need for a monitoring tool for all stakeholders to have an overview of the project status.

- Value is added if stakeholders interact more with each other instead of all collaboration going via the Living Lab. - Early contact between the various partners is needed.

Another lesson learned is that a “bottom-up approach and flexibility is APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 113 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Planning of further experiments Potential new projects

also another important element to take into account in setting up crossborder projects”.

The third pilot was adapted to the outcomes of the previous two pilots in order to assess lessons learned from the previous pilots.

-

5.3 Harmonization and interoperability challenges

The service trading platform will provide further cross border activities.

-

The APOLLON project was set up with four different pilots collaborating on addressing different harmonization and interoperability challenges within their domain. From these very different Living Lab networking environments we have gathered methods and tools that were found to be useful as part of the APOLLON methodology framework.

Bringing in focus regarding these harmonization and interoperability challenges has been a work in progress for the different experiments. Focus was developed during the running of the pilots. The actual development turned out to be very different: •

•

•

•

Pilot 1 (Homecare and independent living) aimed to realize a common ecosystem. However, a common eco-system appeared to not be feasible due to the very different settings of healthcare in different countries. What could be assembled is an eco-system of roles and responsibilities.

Pilot 2 (Energy efficiency) aimed to create a common research benchmark.

Actually, methods and tools were developed to mostly address knowledge exchange across energy experiments and in this sense the methods and tools have proven to be satisfactorily.

Pilot 3 (eManufacturing) aimed to establish a common technology platform.

Common technologies have been adapted by partners and a service platform has been introduced.

Pilot 4 (eParticipation) aimed to realize an integration framework. Focus was mainly on collaboration with end users.

From the individual method validation documents (see Appendix “6.5 Method Validation Documents”) we have found that there are very common methods supporting collaboration that have been used throughout the project, but also that there were methods that are designed for the specific challenges of the pilots and cannot or should not be adapted for all of the other pilots.

From summarizing, generalizing where applicable and comparing these methods we have found significant evidence of how the interoperability challenges were approached and whether there are differences between them.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 114 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable The interoperability challenges were developed and adapted along the way of research in all four experiments. We have not found that the application of these interoperability changes proved to be the defining factor for the success of the pilots but rather they emerged as valuable methods for cross border collaboration. The resulting methods have the capability to be used as the basis for future projects.

In terms of the innovation lifecycle (Fig. 5-1) we found that all APOLLON pilots were operating in the early stages of this lifecycle. To be more precise, Pilot 3 (eManufacturing) addressed “early adopters”, and Pilot 1 (Homecare), 2 (Energy efficiency), and 4 (eParticipation) focused on the “early majority”. Further differentiation of the pilots can be based on the nature of innovation. Especially whether end users are involved or the collaboration has a pure B2B focus and the research field has proven to be defining for the APOLLON experiments.

Figure 5-1: Innovation Lifecycle 8

For our conclusion that the field of research and the type of involved groups are more defining for the cross-border collaboration than the presumed interoperability challenges we have found the following evidence presented in next sections.

8

http://www.dealingwithdarwin.com/theBook/chapterExcerpts.php

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 115 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable

5.3.1 End-user/consumer challenge We have found a significant difference in the methodological approach with the different experiments concerning the end user. There are environments where the consumer group is made up of organizations such as SMEs (as in Pilot 3) in contrast to the consumer group being individuals (as in Pilot 4).

The research concerning the first user group (B2B) has been focused on technical solutions, transfer of knowledge and collaboration. Here, methods and tools were used that could be applied to most other research environments, except for some very specific technical solutions.

Research within the second user group (individual end-users) has been focused on technical issues and the mobilization of the user group more than on collaboration and methods. The success of the experiment was dependent on mobilizing end users and therefore methodology described was mostly aimed at this. Clearly collaboration methods had been in use as well, but the focus was set heavily on end users so that collaboration methods were adopted along the way without much emphasis on them.

We conclude that the end-user methodology needs to be up and running before the APOLLON focus can be applied.

5.3.2 Language Barriers

A large part of methodological work within the experiments focused on adapting technologies to other, foreign markets characterized by using different languages.

Language adaptations will be a challenge for future collaboration for each technology to be transferred; the methods in use in APOLLON are crucial for crossborder collaboration between Living Labs, have proven to be successful within the experiments and should become part of an ENoLL methodology.

There was an exception to this challenge in Pilot 3 (eManufacturing): since the technology transferred from one country to another was entirely ICT and the consumer group were SMEs there was no language adaption needed. It is usual for business in this sector to be obtained mainly in English.

5.3.3 Physical presence

All pilots have adopted kick-off- and F2F-meetings, emphasizing the importance of meeting partners in person. These meetings have been used to get to know each other, take tours of participating Living Labs and consequently identify possible challenges in working together. These challenges may not have been identified in time otherwise since having external partners take a look at pre-conditions in an environment where their product should be implemented will give them an inside look that cannot be obtained otherwise.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 116 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable When considering the collaboration focus of the different experiments no distinction can be made for the need of F2F meetings. We conclude that regular F2F meetings have to be part of any cross-border Living Lab collaboration.

5.3.4 Contractual agreements / consortium enhancement

Contractual agreements between participating partners had been arranged in the consortium agreement for APOLLON. Since customers and end users were approached during the run of the experiments there was further need for contractual agreements. These were of a different nature within the different experiments depending on the Living Lab environment: • • •

Privacy regulations and policies in Pilot 1 (Homecare) concerning private data of patients.

IPR in Pilot 2 (Energy efficiency).

Software Licensing Agreement in Pilot 3 (eManufacturing). The agreement was developed between a software provider and consumer SMEs.

With these contractual agreements again, there is a different focus if the user groups are either SMEs or end users. Significantly the “home care & independent living” pilot deals with private data and regulations and policies need to be adapted here.

Therefore these regulations are crucial to the common eco-system that was approached in Pilot 1.

5.3.5 Large enterprises versus start-ups

There proved to be a difference between how large enterprises and SMEs/start-ups work and value research projects. SMEs are very depending on funding for research projects and their focus is mainly directed at products or services that profit their businesses in the short run.

5.4 Validated APOLLON Methodology Framework

From the results of the validation process conducted by WP 1 throughout the course of APOLLON and its four pilots, the initially proposed APOLLON Methodology Framework was confirmed. This methodology consisted of three main pillars: 1. The four phases, 2. The Scenario approach, 3. The Research framework.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 117 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

the 4-phases, that describe a Living Lab managing domain networks from the set-up, over the execution to its vision/purpose …

… the scenario approach, that helps guiding the collaboration for an experiment along a storyboard, embracing all stakeholders and – after having followed it once – acts as a best practice for the next project … … the Research Framework, that enforces deeply thinking about the objectives of your research or your project; by applying it on a regular base either helps you correct the project or adapt/extend your objectives …..

The newly identified challenges, as could be read in section “5.3 Harmonization and interoperability challenges” are the socio-economic challenges (Fig. 5-2).

Figure 5-2: Socio-economic challenges in the pilots

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 118 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable Adding the validated methods and tools, following the structuring from more general to more specific, as is also used in “D1.4 Recommended toolset for crossborder Living Lab networks” we have the following view on the validated methods & tools in APOLLON (Fig. 5-3).

Figure 5-3: Validated methods and tools

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 119 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable Thus the final APOLLON Methodology Framework can be visualized as follows (Fig. 5-4).

Figure 5-4: Visualization of APOLLON Methodology framework

Detailed discussions and explanations on how to use and apply the methods, tools and methodologies, both the validated ones and more of interest can be found in the deliverable D1.4 “Recommended tool set in cross-border Living Lab networks”.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 120 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

6. APPENDIX 6.1 Baseline Questionnaire Following is an extract of the survey – relating to the connect phase:

General

1. What is the name of the organization you represent? (open question) 2. Are you... ?

a) an SME, (go to Question 3)

b) a Living Lab. (go to question 5) c) other, namely…

3. Has your organization worked with a Living Lab before the Apollon project ? a. Yes, several times b. Yes, once c. No

d. I do not know

4. What is mainly the focus of your operations? (You may tick three answers) a. Develop hardware

b. Develop software (e.g. Applications and services) c. Develop and/or drive processes and methods d. Project management e. Sales

f. Public relations g. Research

h. Consulting

i. Other, namely…..

5. Who are the main stakeholders of your organization? (You may tick three answers) a. Public and Regional Authorities b. Industry

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 121 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable c. SME’s

d. Academia e. Investors

f. Other, namely…

6. Who are your customers? (You may tick several answers) a. SMEs

b. Large companies

c. Private consumers d. Public sector

e. Research organizations f. Other, namely…

7. Where are your customers mainly situated? (One alternative) a. Locally

b. In your home country

c. In other European countries d. Outside Europe

Connect

The objective of this section is to get a view of how your organization works together with other organizations in networking activities.

8. What is the most important aim of your networking activities? (You may tick Max. one alternative for each category) Business objectives

a. Increase our sales

b. Improve our profitability

c. Improve our market share

d. Allow our organization to achieve a certain objective faster

e. Enhance our organization’s bargaining power with suppliers or buyers

Collaborative objectives

f. Create a foundation for future alliances with this partner APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 122 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable g. Provide our organization with access to an important asset or resource h. Create a foundation for future alliances with other partners

i. Gain access to complementary knowledge of other participants j. Increase exchange of ideas with network members

k. Avoid wasteful duplication of research by dividing the tasks among participants

l. Share fixed costs among participants and realize economies of scale in R&D

Organizational objectives

m. Reduce the risk and uncertainty our organization faces n. Reduce our organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s costs

o. Allow our organization to retain its independence

Capabilities

p. Enhance our organizations technical capabilities

q. Allow our organization to establish operations in a foreign market

r. Provide our organization with the opportunity to acquire or conform to a technical standard s. Enter a new business area / technology

t. Catch up with advanced technologies already developed by others

9. Has your organization been part of any international collaboration?

a) yes, and it is important for us to collaborate with partners in other countries

b) yes, but it is not important for our organization to collaborate with partners in other countries c) no, but we would like to (go to question 22) d) no, it is irrelevant for us (go to question 22) e) I do not know (go to question 22)

f) if yes, please explain why you have been part of an international collaboration? (Open Question)

g) if no, please explain why you have not been part of any international collaboration? (Open Question)

10. How many organizations do you collaborate (or network) with?

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 123 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable a. Locally

1. 0 (go to b)

2. 1-2 3. 3-4 4. 5-6 5. 7-8 6. >8

1. What are these organizations? (you may tick several alternatives) a. Other SMEs b. Consumers

c. Universities or research institutes d. Large companies e. Public sector, b. Nationally

f. Other, namely..

1. 0 (go to )

2. 1-2 3. 3-4 4. 5-6 5. 7-8 6. >8

1. What are these organizations? (you may tick several alternatives) a. Other SMEs b. Consumers

c. Universities or research institutes d. Large companies e. Public sector,

f. Other, namelyâ&#x20AC;Ś

c. Internationally?

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 124 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable 1. 0 (Go to question 11) 2. 1-2 3. 3-4 4. 5-6 5. 7-8 6. >8

1. What are these organizations? (You may tick several alternatives) a. Other SMEs b. Consumers

c. Universities or research institutes d. Large companies e. Public sector,

f. Other, namely..

Roles and responsibilities

The objective of this section is to determine how roles and responsibilities are distributed between your organization and your partner (networking) organizations

11. Which organization is the dominant initiator, and the driving force, of your collaboration or networking activities? a. We mostly invite others to collaborate

b. We are mostly invited to collaborate by other SMEs c. We are mostly invited by a Living Lab

d. We are mostly invited by other large companies e. We are mostly invited by a research institution

f. We are mostly invited by governmental or other public organizations g. Other initiator, namelyâ&#x20AC;Ś

12. In what way do you usually divide responsibilities among the network participants?

a. Structured and following a defined method such as for example RUP or SCRUM b. Structured, but without following a defined method

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 125 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable c. Unstructured, but your organization usually take the lead

d. Unstructured, but you let other partners determine who should take the lead e. Other, namely…

13. What role best describes your organizations networking activities? a. Leads the process

b. Active and support the process, but do not lead it

c. Follow the process from a distance, waiting for instructions d. Other, namely…

14. What do you think is the most important contribution of your organization in your networking activities (Open Question)

15. Which competencies of the networking team do you think are most important to make the networking process successful? (Open Question) Sub-networks and supporting parties:

The objective of this section is to focus on methodologies and tools that support your organization’s networking activities and relationships that allow operational collaboration.

16. Which methodologies do you use to support your networking activities? (Open question) 17. What do you think is most important to get support with in networking activities?

For example, communication strategy within the group and/or processes to reach common goals etc (Open question) 18. What kind of support do you expect from a methodology aiming to support networking activities? (Open Question)

19. To what extent do you agree that the technical tools listed below are very important to support your networking activities? (1 – Strongly disagree, 5- Strongly Agree) a. E-mail

b. Group Ware (e.g. Lotus Notes) c. Chat programs (e.g. MSN)

d. Project Portals (e.g. mybbt)

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 126 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable e. Video conferencing (e.g. Adobe Connect) f. Telephone Conferencing

g. Social networking media (e.g. Facebook) h. Mobile phone (SMS, MMS etc) i. Wikis j. Blog

k. Other, namely…

20. Do you usually miss any kind of technical tools to support your networking activities? a. Yes b. No

c. I don’t know

d. If yes, what kind of tool is that?

Policy framework and compliance:

The objective of this section is to focus on the influence of policies and regulations on cross border collaborations.

21. To what extent do you agree on the following statement? Indicate on a grade from 1 to 5 where 1 represent strongly disagree and 5 represent strongly agree a. Local policies and regulations affect my business

b. Foreign policies and regulations affect my business

22. Are policies and regulations limiting the cross-border collaborations in your network? (Open Question)

Set boundaries and engage The objective of this section is to focus on the business model

23. What sources of funding come into question for your organization to establish collaborative partnerships with local Living Labs? a. Public-Private Partnership

b. National project funding organizations c. University

d. Income from selling services or products

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 127 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable e. Sponsors

f. Other, namely…

24. To which extent do you agree with that there is a significant difference in the business relations between your local business partners and partners placed in other geographical regions? (1 – Strongly disagree, 5 – Strongly agree)

25. What would help you to accelerate, and/or improve quality, of the development of your solution in cross-border collaboration with Living Labs and/or SMEs? (Open question)

Support and Govern Innovation/ideas

26. How would you describe your organization's innovation processes?

• • •

closed - - - open

Static - - - dynamic

unstructured - - - structured

27. Which are the 3 most common sources of innovations in your organization?

(Select max three sources) • • • • • • • • • • •

In-house discussions with colleagues within my own organization Input from customers/users

Input from established partners Collaboration with researchers Looking at trends

Looking at competitors

Comes up with the ideas myself Through friends Through family I do not know

Other, namely…

SME Support - IPR

This category focus on intellectual property right aspects relevant in networking activities APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 128 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable 28. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? Indicate on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 – Strongly disagree, 5 – Strongly agree) a. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is an often discussed topic among the partners in networking activities? b. In networking activities, the partners involved usually have differing interests in the network’s activities success

c. You usually determine in advance how intellectual property developed in cooperation will be owned by the parties d. You usually have made IPR agreements before the project starts e. You usually make IPR agreements during the project

f. You usually make IPR agreements at the end of your project

29. Which of the following issues are mostly discussed in contractual agreements with your networking partners? (You may tick several answers) a. Governance between parties b. Ownership rights c. Exclusivity

d. Resource commitments e. Intellectual property

f. Termination conditions and right

g. Other contractual conditions such as…. h. None of the above User involvement This category focuses on user involvement in innovation processes to examine how users are involved in the innovation and development processes.

Do you usually involve users in your development/innovation processes? o Yes,

o No (go to question 38) o Do not know

30. What do you expect users to contribute with in your innovation processes?

(Select the 3 most common expectations) APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 129 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable a. Ideas to new products or services

b. Feedback on existing products or services c. Develop parts of products or services d. Feedback from test of prototypes

e. Discussions on suggested concepts f. Feedback on business models

g. Information without being actively involved in the innovation process h. Feedback on payment models

i. Marketing to other presumptive users j. Other, namely

31. In which contexts do you usually involve users? (You may tick one answer) a) in their professional context b) in their private context

c) in your professional context (at your office)

d) in the real-life context of the service or product, i.e. field-experiments e) in laboratory settings where you can observe them, e.g. usability labs Cross LL user interaction The objective of this section is to get a view of the cross-border user interactions in your organization.

32. In the past, have you involved any Living Labs to support your interaction with end users? a. Yes, b. No

c. I do not know

d. If yes, what was the main reason for involving a Living Lab

33. In the past, did you ever need to get access to Living Labs or end-user communities outside your local region? a. Yes, b. No

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 130 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable c. I do not know

d. If yes, why do you need that access?

34. What kind of methodological support do you think you need when interacting with Living Labs or end-user communities in other cultural settings? (Open Question)

35. What kind of technical tools do you use (or want to use) when interacting with end-user communities in other cultural settings? (Open Question) 36. Do you foresee any constraints that you think could affect the cross-border collaboration? a. Yes, b. No

c. I do not know

d. If yes, which are these constraints?

Manage and track In this category the focus is on measurement and assessment of Living Lab projects.

37. Do you use a framework for measuring and evaluating collaboration activities in your organization? a. Yes, b. No

c. I do not know

d. If yes, what framework do you use for measuring and evaluation of collaboration activities? (Open question)

38. What results do you expect from cross-border collaboration in the Apollon project? (Open question) Impact

This category is focused on defining the measures by which the cross border collaboration activities can be defined

39. What do you expect to gain from cross-border networking? Choose the most important factor within each sub-category Management â&#x20AC;˘

improving management skills

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 131 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable • • • • •

identifying and/or expanding target markets

identifying and discontinuing non-profitable activities identifying market trends

identifying development opportunities in our organizational activities introducing new products and/or services

Work practices • • • • •

improving work practices or productivity

exchanging experiences (e.g. on product, production and market) carrying out innovative development processes

carrying out technology push activities to position the organizations products carrying out technology push activities to position the organizations services

Organizational • • • • • • •

developing new business concepts (strategies) for our future business activities decreasing risks in product/service development establishing in new markets

approaching new types of customers/users carrying out high risk projects

further developing our current products and or services

strengthening our competitive position on current market

Technology • • • • • •

improving access to technology

contribute to service or product development decreasing development cost

developing new products (e.g. hardware)

developing new services (e.g. software/ application) developing new processes

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 132 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable Operational • • • • • • •

improving quality of offered products or services

using new methods for solving problems in our organizational activities involving users with different cultural backgrounds in the development process carrying out extensive changes in our products/services working with R&D

working with cutting edge technology working with innovation

Commercialization

40. Have you ever reached the stage of commercialization of new products and services? a. Yes b. No

c. If yes, in which market did you commercialize you product or service?

1. Local

2. National

3. International

41. Which factors do you think could facilitate commercialization of new products and services in networks? (Open question) 42. Which factors do you think could hinder commercialization of new products and services in networks? (Open question) 43. Do you expect that cross border collaboration within the Apollon project can support your process of commercialization? a. Yes b. No

c. I do not know

d. If yes, with what do you expect the project to support you with?

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 133 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

6.2 Research Frameworks The application of the research framework was inquired within the quarterly monitoring reports. It has also been described in the experiments’ deliverables.

WP #

Liaison teams responsible persons

Quarterly Sessions

Deliverables

Method Validation Document

WP3

Anna + Mari

Included in Session 1

D3.4

Not included

WP2 WP4 WP5

Hendrik, Bram + Mirjana Petra

Claudio + Andreja

Included in Session 3 Included in Session 1

D2.3

included included included

An example how it was used and evolved during the project is provided below from the manufacturing experiment WP4.

6.2.1 WP4. eManufacturing 1. Constructs 1.1. Build: what are the variables you watch throughout the experiment?

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Version1: use case SAP: completeness of SW platform, does it work; SAP: how can LL networks be utilized for / worked with SAP (research, testing, .... business) YDreams: are there new biz opportunities out YDreams: could it become a new biz to dev apps in such a platform (agents); YDreams: could it become a new service, to run the platform; SMEs: where is the best position in the value chain; LL: how to get from facilitator to coordinator?

LL: how to find new opportunities for the LL environment?

YDreams: could manufacturing become a new biz segment?

Imeguisa (ind SME, user): how could we make use of such an energy monitoring system?

Imeguisa: can we improve the efficiency of our production with this?

CENI (dep. Of Uni, ind. facility @ Uni, user, 2nd use case on asset mgmt.): learn about platform environments and building applications on top of it

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 134 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

•

CENI: explore the knowledge transfer possibility into the local and other industries (like consulting)

1.2. Evaluate: what are the elements that you measure?

• • • • • • • • • •

Version1: use of middleware and services in use cases SAP: Weekly bug reporting (minutes) YDreams: continuous observation throughout the project; KPI would be if money can be made out of it; YDreams: skills and competency observation throughout project; indicator: fulfillment of the time plan; track of effort; LL: if I find sth useful in the toolbox / support LL: skill observation; new skills required; LL: if I get new project ideas (record them) Imeguisa: ease of use (-> sap) Imeguisa: evaluation of benefit, e.g. ideas for energy savings; Imeguisa: evaluation of benefit, e.g. ideas for energy savings;

1.3. Justify: How do you decide best practices across the experiments?

• • • • •

Version1: adaptation of common platform SAP: if the implementation problems have been solved (code fragments) Systematic process how to do things (update of the installation guideline!)

Did we improve when Hungary started? Based on the samples / lessons learned from PTG ..

1.4. Theorize: How do you filter pilot specific elements out?

• •

Version1: benefits of harmonization …

2. Model

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 135 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable 2.1. Build: What are the basic assumptions, causalities and outcomes that you perceive?

• • • • •

Version1: implement use cases in various context SAP: a stable working pilot platform; SAP & ubigrate: new business possibilities abroad; YDreams: new global business possibilities; LL: evaluation on the LL environment capabilities for being a test environment for LE and other technology companies;

2.2. Evaluate: What measures do you use to evaluate the validity of the assumptions?

• •

Version1: working prototypes …

2.3. Justify: What are the success criteria that you use?

• •

Version1: user-in-loop development …

2.4. Theorize: How do you assess the wider applicability of the model?

• •

Version1: benefits of user involvement …

3. Method 3.1. Build: What is the process for validating the assumptions?

• Version1: Piloting • SAP: weekly calls; • YDreams: the biz potential could be validated through interviews / workshops / demonstrations (to Imeguisa and the local environment through the help of LL) • LL: through executing the implementation of more than 1 use case (and the involvement of additional partners; theoretical, through presentation of this idea to the local environment in meetings) • ..

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 136 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

3.2. Evaluate: How do you evaluate and adjust the validation process?

• Version1: performance evaluation • SAP & LL and SME: reviewing the process after each use case; • Interviews: only once at the end; • ..

3.3. Justify: How do you justify the use of selected methods?

• Version1: Harmonization • SAP: standard cyclic research process; • LL: experience from the past; from working with start-ups; • ..

3.4. Theorize: How do you ensure the scalability and wider applicability of the methods?

• Version1: model for SME engagement • ..

4. Instantiation 4.1. Build: Who are the stakeholders at your experiment?

• Version1: collaborative environment • Technology provider: SAP & Agilion; ISA; • Application development: YDreams & ubigrate; • Hosting: YDreams; • User: Imeguisa and CENI; • LL & Ecosystem: FiaPAL economic association (municipality, 5 companies in mgmt board, ~60 private companies of the region).

• ..

4.2. Evaluate: How do you evaluate added value for each stakeholder?

• Version1: platform adaptation and service deployment • Technology & application & hosting providers: technology validation; testing after the set-up; • Users: APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 137 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable .1. awareness of the energy consumption providing a base for change mgmt; .2. asset viewing: transparency on asset, equipment usage etc. – e.g. loss of value • •

LL & eco: intangible; participation in such a co-innovation project; ..

4.3. Justify: How do you justify the selected collaboration model?

• Version1: proof of concept • ..

4.4. Theorize: How do you compile recommendations for sustainability • Version1: cross border collaboration • ..

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 138 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

6.3 The WPx scenarios As an example the scenario for experiment 4 is given here. The evolvement of the scenario is highlighted by changing text color. The initial version is printed black; adaptations have been highlighted in blue and green color.

6.3.1 SME Scenario Manufacturing (WP4)

SME MANU is a small size company with 11 employees founded in 2007 that specializes in the development of e-services supporting production and logistical processes in the manufacturing industry. Sample products include software solutions to track status and actions of assets and goods, e.g. managing and tracking the lifecycle of bins or temperature tracking of sensitive goods during transportation and storage.

Currently the addressed market comprises German speaking countries only (due to pragmatic reasons like limited resources, geographical proximity and limited exposure to international environments so far). The product portfolio targets small and midsize companies (50 to 1000 employees) from the chemical, pharmaceutical and food industry.

The company’s midterm strategy foresees to ramp up a sustainable business (e.g. to gain a few customers and reference implementations) and to mature its products that are partly still in prototypical status. In the longer term an expansion to western European markets will be tackled, e.g. addressing UK, France or Italy.

The company’s only international exposure so far is via a partnership with a multinational that is considered of high value, e.g. to get access to established sales channels and markets.

SME MANU participates in the Future Factory Living Lab in Dresden for various reasons.

The following KPI’s are listed in the order of prioritization: 1.

Acquisition of new customers

2. Supplier relationship management 3. Public visibility and marketing 4. Sensing and identification of market demands and customer requirements 5. Co-innovation with partners 6. Tracking of technical improvements

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 139 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable

Connect From SME MANU point of view the Living Lab partnership starts with an idea and brings potential customers on board. Subsequently additional partners with related skills and competencies are acquired that also may include further SMEs. The company strongly believes that the connect phase is most important to get a foot into the market. Further collaboration will then evolve more or less by itself.

For the 3rd phase of the project it was decided to explore another platform to analyze how it could better support the collaboration with potential partners and to find new customers or early adopters and how the engagement between the partners in a cross-border environment could be advanced.

SME MANUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current engagement in the Future Factory Living Lab misses any advanced mechanism to get further Living Labs or partners on board. About 25 partners form part of the Living Lab and the synchronization between them is mainly based on personal communication between individuals. There is no awareness at SME MANU of similar activities in other globally distributed Living Labs that offer synergies or further business opportunities.

Within the APOLLON project the first contact was through the Future Factory Living Lab in Dresden, who established the contact between the SME MANU and the Fiapal Living Lab in Portugal, Palmela region. Introduction was made easy through the standard Future Factory remote webcam tour, which set a special introduction before and a special focus during the tour on the capabilities of the SME MANU and how they have been utilized within the Future Factory local environment & collaboration. Further online conferences, phone calls and document exchange gave Fiapal, the local Living Lab in Portugal, the

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 140 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable necessary basic information to promote the “energy monitoring service” of SME MANU in the region, find local partners and potential customers and thus care for the match making.

Engagements that don’t offer any short term Return-On-Investment for an SME require external funding. One either gets a customer on board who pays for new product and service development or the investment will not be considered. There are neither capacities nor resources at SME MANU to stem internal funding (e.g. to run a research department).

Public funding opportunities are considered and applied for in particular for mid and long term developments.

Within the APOLLON project the SME MANU had to shift their focus to direct revenue generating activities, because the application for funding by the Saxon Ministry to support the SME MANU in their participation in the APOLLON project was not successful. Thus the decision within APOLLON was, to get a local SME MANUloc to take over the role and find local partners & customers for setting up an energy monitoring service, based on the platform technology offered by the (remote) Future Factory Living Lab. Thus the match making happened with the help of the two Living Labs.

Plan and engage The participation of SME MANU in a network of Living Labs as a partner in future manufacturing is strongly driven by the opportunity to deploy potential products as part of an ecosystem between public and private partners (including multinationals) with access to customers and co-innovators. Official registration, e.g. as an official SAP partner, plays a minor role and is not considered at the moment.

For SME MANUloc the following options made them get engaged in the cross-border project •

to get certified by a multinational company

•

to get to know a new technology

•

to explore new service offerings and new markets

•

to find new customers

•

the support by the local Living Lab Fiapal to find those new customers

SMEs desperately need a clear and open communication on the strategic direction of the Living Labs they are participating in. In particular short and midterm commercialization opportunities and plans are of utmost importance. Due to limited resources a short term Return-On-Investment is absolutely key for the sustainable participation of SMEs. A systematic information management (e.g. on news) that is not only built on personal relationships is highly desirable. Up to date information should be pushed e.g. via a newsletter. Also the sharing of practices on how partners are involved, what they plan to do etc. is beneficial. Regular meetings (e.g. half yearly summits) that bring together all participating stakeholders improve the situation on information exchange.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 141 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable The clear direction of use for the platform as a basis technology to build up an energy monitoring service and the training, as well as the demonstration of live examples from the Future Factory Living Lab in Germany gave the SME MANUloc confidence in the manageability of the project.

On top, a structured communication plan combined with basic communication means (email, teleconferences etc.) are considered as sufficient to stay in sync.

Regular weekly phone conferences, the direct coupling between business people of all parties as well as between the technology people and an 8hx5d phone & online availability promised to be a safe environment.

Neither advanced online communities nor dedicated social networking tools are mandatory.

Once the community is growing in a network of Living Labs this situation could change and community tools would be of added value. Then available tools like semantically enriched Wikis or broadcasting channels like Twitter come into question. Generally useful tools often don’t need to be IT based or even have to be developed dedicatedly. Instead any methodologies and supporting mechanisms that leverage dedication and commitment of partners have a strong impact and ensure the success of Living Lab networking.

In the APOLLON case the (remote) Living Lab Fiapal moderates the local community, organizes local forums, to introduce new products or services from either local or foreign companies, and accompanies the stakeholders until co-innovation projects are up and running on their own.

The scoping of the project started with the requirements of the potential users/customers, which was done with the checklists and according to the earlier example cases from (remote) Future Factory Living Lab. Then the identification of gaps, the identification of the stakeholders in each participating organization and further required players, like the local smart meter providers, followed and completed the engagement phase.

After having set-up the trading services platform (TSP) for APOLLON manufacturing by the WP4 partners, the matchmaking and scoping of the project works quite different. Using the case of “energy monitoring” as a sample case to explore the possibilities of the platform, the service and product offerings of Living Labs and SMEs have been described and launched onto the TSP for APOLLON; e.g. the checklists to scope the project of energy monitoring, have been translated into a “questionnaire” someone has to fill-in before asking for a concrete offer for an “energy monitoring” service.

The local Living Lab Fiapal in Portugal offers now a matchmaking service via the TSP, helping any company to get in touch with stakeholders they need for their business, either locally or abroad. The SMEs are offering energy monitoring services, bundled with a UI service, that presents the preferred reporting of the energy consumption of the respective engines or they offer a smart metering service which can be used to measure the energy consumption.

Thus the first contact may now happen via the TSP platform, offered by the Living Lab Fiapal in Portugal; any SME can access the matchmaking service of the Living Lab who then set ups their local forums, a “platform” in the sense of a stage, for the SME, who wants to

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 142 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable do business in the region, to present themselves. In the future, the scoping procedure could be translated into a questionnaire as well, which functions as a kind of pre-screening when registering for the matchmaking service which would better support the matchmaking with remote stakeholders.

Scoping could to a certain extend already been supported by the platform through its negotiation possibilities, which supports back and forth interaction through submission of notes and the possibilities to attach documents, or pictures.

Support and govern Having access to real life test environments and user communities are seen as key added values of participating in Living Labs and networks. Such testing environments are simply not available within a small company and need to be ramped up with partners. So far SME MANU hasn’t had access to user communities nor tested their prototypical solutions in real life.

Instead the main focus has been on enhancing the company’s visibility and on marketing of the product portfolio (i.e. showroom of what is possible, events and workshop hosting with interested stakeholders participating). In addition a promising partnership with a multinational company has been agreed upon that gives access to established sales channels and world class research and development practices. As a result a connector has been developed serving data exchange between automation technologies and ERP back-end functionality. This connector is not based on the Real World Integration Platform as of today.

The SME MANUloc traded in the testing and evaluation of the platform for the multinational company against the exploration of new technology, the development of new services, like an adapter between the platform and the engines of the new customers and a UI for checking the energy consumption of the customer’s engines.

The SME MANUloc set-up the platform, analyzed the environment at the customer side and the engines, interviewed the customer on their needs for energy consumption reporting and built the UI. The customers that could be engaged through the Living Lab eco-system of Fiapal function as the test bed for the SME MANUloc for new service and product offerings, on one side based on the platform of the LE (connectors), on the other on the interfaces of the local engines and smart meters (UI).

In many cases short term considerations favor the product development using basic web service encapsulation in order to ensure compliancy and technical integration with customer software, e.g. integration of weighing station with ERP backend. In future a more standardized and generic approach, e.g. via DMI is considered. Dedicated DMI add on services will be developed in future. DMI could help to also address a commonly used platform that forms part of a global ecosystem of contributing Independent Software Vendors, partners etc. Nevertheless restricting product development on DMI limits the addressable market as of today and requires that alternative implementations are scheduled.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 143 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable The SME MANUloc envisions that standardized platforms, like the one MDI will evolve to, will play a more important role in the collaboration efforts between SME and LE, which means between the services and products offered of SME to LE in the manufacturing industry. Thus the offering of a testing environment to the LE was considered as a testing by the SME MANUloc itself.

In terms of contractual agreements a Non-Disclosure-Agreement and a cooperation agreement have been signed. The negotiations took lots of efforts and a more automated procedure is necessary. Certain limitations on IPR, public communication, logo usage etc. impedes on the success of new product and service development. Public dissemination, e.g. via Blogs, websites etc. could achieve higher impact if legal restrictions are low.

The SME MANUloc within APOLLON was under easier conditions, since the already existing Consortium Agreement gave already a good basis, thus an additional Software Development License Agreement for Research Software was serving the usage & testing of the platform software and the development of the respective adapters.

The Future Factory Living Lab has in the meantime, after negotiations with several partners, generated a standardized approach for partners to join the Living Lab ecosystem, by introducing &describing categories for “contribution”, “activities” and “service usage” of the Living Lab which can be assigned according to the planned involvement of a new partner, adding a Statement of Work document for the yearly project plan. This may be applied to other Living Lab eco-systems as well.

Project coordination was done in direct interaction between the stakeholders, closely monitored and moderated by the local Living Labs on both sides. Regular weekly phone conferences, the direct coupling between business people of all parties as well as between the technology people and an 8hx5d phone & online availability proved to be a safe environment.

Through joining several remote web cam tours with potential customers around the globe, a clear understanding of how joining/leveraging the sales channels, already established by the Future Factory Living Lab eco-system, may add to the pipeline, and thus an early estimation of the business potential for further development of adapters and UIs could be made.

The remaining open question wrt business potential was “how to find potential customers, if a technology like web cam tours is not available and how to open up further sales & collaboration channels”?

With the TSP the Living Lab can offer any SME a platform they can use to promote their products or services they have explored within the local Living Lab environment to a broader audience, either locally or global. If another trial would be required, due to new localization requirements of another country, the Living Lab can support not only by promoting the service or product offering and connecting to a Living Lab in the thematic domain of the European Living Lab network, but translating the services that were required to localize the business of the SME in their region into a new service offering, thus enabling the remote Living Lab to help the SME enter their market.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 144 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable Manage and track The technical deployment of e-services on top of MDI requires continuous tracking and synchronization on development cycles, release strategy, addressed customers or target market. On the other hand SAP providing MDI needs to be able to track implementation and configuration of MDI installation in particular at customers and e-service developers. For this purpose a communication platform on technical deployment and usage is needed (e.g. alerting, notification, status tracking on platform configuration, service development etc.).

The platform has to be web based and scales with the number of participating partners that built services on top of DMI. The SME MANUloc was accompanied by regular phone conferences and on demand email and phone availability of the technical experts to share experiences and to clarify/resolve questions. The lessons learned were fed back to the LE through the Future Factory Living Lab, thus demonstrating the value of a Living Lab – based test bed for the LE. In order to verify the potential of the platform as a future tool for connecting devices and monitoring their proper functioning and their manageability by someone else than the LE, it was agreed to set-up another use case, on “asset tracking”, to apply the processes and to verify the learning. The learning curve was much faster than with the 1st case, for all players, from Living Lab who helped to find a new customer, to walking through the set-up process, develop the UI and monitor the assets in the end.

An onsite visit gave insights in the cultural environment and set the lessons learned in the right context for both sides.

The success story will be further used by all parties to invite the cross-border network of Living Labs to request such services.

Thus within the first phase, where the MDI platform was used locally to set-up the technical part of the use cases, the scenario approach was slightly different to the initial scenario, as introduced by WP 1:

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 145 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable

Thus within the second phase, when a platform was used to support the partners in their cross-border collaboration, the scenario approach was again adapted as compared to the already adapted scenario from the first phase, which changed the initial scenario:

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 146 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable And this is how the scenario processes looked like for the “translation” of the energy use case from phase 1 in the project to the energy use case supported by the Service Trading Platform in the second phase.

6.3.2 SME Scenario Home Care & Independent Living (WP2) A Dutch SME has developed a mobile application that automatically operates a house thermostat based on the behaviours of the inhabitants of the house, also making them conscious of their energy consumption. His 9 clients are both energy corporations who offer the SMEs products as an additional service to their clients, and individual customers. In the Dutch situation, the application has proved its effectiveness, and has led to reduction of energy consumption for its users.

9

For convenience, the SME is referred to as a person

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 147 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable As ‘green’ has received more and more attention over the last years and the energy market has become a European market, the SME is thinking about how they can sell their products on a larger scale in different European countries. However, the SME is a bit anxious to do so as they don’t have any experience with foreign markets and cooperating with foreign parties. Additionally, the SME would like to research whether the application will be effective in other (warmer or colder) climates.

Not really knowing where to start, the SME turns to the regional Chamber of Commerce for help. Here he speaks to a consultant for international trade.

Especially because of the research question of the SME, the consultant advices the SME to contact the local Living Lab. On the website of the Chamber of Commerce, all contact information about this Living Lab can be found on the page with “organisations that can assist you” for international trade.

Of the website of the local Living Lab, the SME finds a lot of information about setting up a Living Lab project. According to the site, information on how to do so in an international context can be found on Apollon portal. One important step to take is to get in contact with foreign Living Labs who are potentially willing to cooperate.

For this, the portal offers the possibility to place an “ad”. Using an easy-to-use form to draw up the ad, the SME explains his problem and wishes, and submits this information on the Apollon portal.

Soon after filling out the form the SME receives a list of contact persons, spread over the different Living Labs in Europe. The SME decides he would like to start with a study on how the application will work in a warm and a cold climate, and selects Living Labs from Portugal and Finland. The SME asks the local Living Lab to organise a face-to-face meeting near a central airport with contact persons of the Portuguese and Finnish Living Labs.

At the meeting, a first overall approach is being discussed. Using one of the checklists from the Apollon platform, he begins to make a first design of a Living Lab project, identifying the stakeholders involved, the roles that need to be played, etc.

At the meeting, the following important issues are identified:

1. Will the application be effective in countries with other climates (Portugal, Finland)?

2. How can the application be tested in other countries before introducing them to the market?

3. Are households in other countries willing to pay for the application?

4. Are energy corporations in other countries willing to pay for the application?

5. Is it necessary to adapt the application to other countries, and if so, in what way?

It is decided that as a first step, a survey is conducted in Portugal and Finland to find out whether people are willing to pay for an application that will reduce their energy consumption. For this, the Dutch Living Lab is consulted to design a survey, APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 148 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable which is then translated to Portuguese and Finnish. Both Portuguese and Finnish Living Labs make use of a large user panel with 1000+ persons. From these panels, they make a selection of people to send the survey to.

At the same time, a technical evaluation of the application is performed in both countries. The main goal is to see whether the application works in the local situation. For this, the Dutch SME is brought in contact by the local Living Lab with a local party. Together they perform the evaluation. The results lead to minor adjustments of the application.

During the tests, all parties regularly keep in touch using e-mail and Skype conferences. For project management, communication between partners involved, document sharing, and so on, they use the Basecamp collaboration tool.

As the first tests produce positive results, the SME asks the Finnish and Portuguese Living Labs to contact the local energy corporations. The application is presented as a way to offer service to the clients of the corporations and to present themselves as “green” organisations. Based on the tests, they can state that there are no technical limitations to use the application, and that the application will get positive reception.

The energy corporations respond positively, but state that they first need more assurance before they will offer the application to all their clients. For this, in both countries a field test is planned. A number of end-users will use the application for a certain time to see if it really works. In order to set up a methodologically sound test with reliable and valid results, the SME turns to the Apollon portal for methodological advice. With the aid of a consultant of the local Living Lab, a field test is designed, which is later executed by the Living Labs at the Portuguese and Finnish sites. Again, they use the local user panel to involve end-users.

While the results in Finland are very positive, in Portugal they are negative. The people have problems with using the application, and it does not lead to any reduction of energy consumption. For this market, some serious adjustments of the application are needed. The application seems to be ready for the Finnish market.

6.3.3 SME Scenario/s Energy Efficiency (WP3)

Amsterdam Living Lab The Amsterdam Smart City pilot area covers two city parts of Amsterdam and involves about 1250 households. Selected households from this area will be included into Apollon demonstrations.

For the Amsterdam Smart City Sustainable Living pilot a setup of 728 households will be used in Geuzenveld. Within Apollon the focus is activities on sustainable living in social and supported housing. It aims to reduce the energy consumption in APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 149 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable (households via using innovative products, services and techniques, including smart meters, energy control mechanisms, direct feedback and information provisioning etc. It deals both gaining is insights in usage behavior as well as raising awareness and achieving behavioral change.

It order to achieve this, experiments are conducted with different forms of: – Energy feedback, – Smart metering, – Energy control, – Local energy provisioning connecting to the grid, i.e. Solar panels.

Validation is done via Living Lab experiments, stimulating and evaluating behavioral change creates a demand pull for more sustainable technology application of innovative technology results in a technology push towards sustainable behavior.

In addition we want to identify potential CO2 reduction (expectations are at least 9% reduction) as well as potential energy savings (expectations are at least 7% electricity and 10% gas reduction).

Via the pilot we hope to get more insight in consumer behavior transformation, especially we want to obtain – – – – – – –

insight in energy usage and awareness of energy consumption insight in behavior and motivations for behavior change insight in participation insight in different citizens/households insight in individual energy control & management yield best practices for full scale roll out create a grid suited for future developments

–

Pieter Post Singel and surroundings (red box): 284 single households, build in 1955, renovated 1995 and Aalbersestraat: (blue box): 444 flats, build in 1956, renovated 1996 and in 2009 (isolated roof, 1000 m2 solar panels) social rentals.

For the experiment a setup of 728 households will be used in Geuzenveld and belong to the social housing agency Farwest: –

The users are the citizens and are motivated by financial savings & energy reduction.

We have different services that we want to experiment and validate in the Amsterdam pilot. Via the use of smart meters, the energy companies as well as third parties will provide personalized advise to the customer, e.g. via home displays but also via the Internet Portals and GSM terminals. Home Automation Europe is validating their new displays in the pilot.

In addition to advice, the management & control of in-house energy usage will be APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 150 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable possible (e.g. via active switching of appliances based on the real time dynamic price of the energy). It still needs to be decided if it is feasible to also include this in the Apollon cross border testing.

In a later stage we will start providing these services to the customers with feedback via different means (including displays and Internet 2.0 solutions). Both Logica and Liander are interested in these experiments. However, the focus now is on the proof of concept from a user perspective as well as from the energy producer and supplier’s perspective.

Besides the technical component there is much attention on the human aspect, i.e. to obtain insight in behavior and motivations for behavior change w.r.t. energy reduction. In particular Liander is very interested to gain knowledge and insights on this aspect not only in Amsterdam but also from other Apollon Living Lab experiments. It is good to realize that smart grids & smart meters are seen as a key enabler to address climate issues, since they use two way communications to maximize energy efficiency. But now the utility can also send information to the end user in order to influence the usage pattern (saving tips or lower rates at night).

Home Automation Europe

Home Automation Europe has develop the Quby, a next generation advanced interactive touch screen device, aimed at stimulating consumers to understand their energy consumption patterns, and act upon it, as it regulates the energy usage (i.e. central heating) as well. It is the successor of the Powerplayer. See below for illustration of the Quby. (See also www.quby.eu for more information).

The innovation is two-folded: –

–

in the presentation of the information (what, when and how), the incentives to save energy, as well as in the software to deploy the solution (device, measurement & communication infrastructure) in real homes and easily connect them to the Internet.

And the combination with controlling the central heating systems in the household.

A marketable solution requires the most appropriate hardware, i.e. it needs to be state of the art in order to use minimal amounts of energy and as well as a low cost price. For the designs, Home Automation Europe has co-operated with the Dutch Ministry of Economic affairs and for hardware they have various partners. The software is in house developed by Home Automation. Experience of consumers has been gained in several pilot projects in close co-operation with local energy companies.

For Home Automation Europe consumer test are essential in the development of their products. Home Automation Europe have done formal pilots with academic APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 151 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable research coupled to them. In addition, less formal investigation of consumer behavior have conducted and resulted in much faster feedback loops which enhances the evolvement of interface design.

For the Quby product “test” users need to be involved from within their private context, preferably by testing the product in their own home, or alternatively in a residential setting which they are familiar to.

Home Automation Europe is primarily looking for user-feedback, both on the interface and on the physical installation and actual (daily) usage of the product. Up to now Home Automation Europe has mainly involved users in pilot-situations.

However, currently, for hardware designs, Home Automation Europe is involving real users in an earlier stage and discuss the visual concepts of the intended device.

Means to promote and leverage the local Living Lab and pilots (workshops, showcases, showrooms, etc.)

The Amsterdam Living Lab has its promotion strategy including their website (www.amsterdamlivinglab.nl ), newsletter and workshops and other meetings. In addition the Amsterdam Smart City program promotes the activities via many events, newsletters and website (http://amsterdamsmartcity.com )

Home Automation Europe has its own demonstrator environment visited by local and International guests. Liander has it’s promotion activities and communication channels in the Netherlands.

Aalto Living Lab Case

The Finland experiment will tackle the potential and hurdles of apartment level real-time measuring. It will set up systems that allow monitoring of real time energy consumption in building and apartment level, communicating this information through web and mobile services. Users can see their real life energy consumption and a set of suggestions on how to reduce their energy bill. The objective of this experiment is to promote innovative ICT solutions for energy management and communication defining public incentives and to study sustainable user behavior change and mechanisms related to it.

The objective is to create new services and to understand the energy controls from the user perspective. The plan is to divide users into four groups.

–

Passive users. They are not expected to start designing the solution. We only collect feedback from their use. Even the passive users may be divided into two groups. One group without any instructions which we compare with a reference group who get instructions on how to operate the new devices.

(Still not decided on how to handle instructions.)

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 152 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable –

Active users in three groups. All in the same space and same treatment in the trials. But different types of responsibilities. o Co-design users. Would be more superficially involved. They would have only limited responsibility, and specific areas will be assigned. o Co-create users. Next level. This group will start creating related services. Process Vision provides a platform for this. So they will suggest new ideas to the platform. o Co-produce users. A few people would take this role. This will be max five guys. They see business value of the actual service. What are we producing? How are we producing the service? How are we making money of the service?

The plan is to also select subsidizers who work a lot on the road. It would be possible to wire their homes and get mobile hand held devices for them. They will use the system, evaluate it and suggest new ideas on functionality.

In this experiment we will measure electricity consumption as well as other variables such as temperature and CO₂ concentration in the different compartments and large consumption points such as elevators, HVAC and server room.

Consumption and conditions will be measured for a certain period of time and based on that a baseline will be created. Real time measurements are then compared to the baseline and the refined consumption data is reported to the users through a portal based interface. Some competitions will be held between the employees of different compartments and energy savings are measured. Also with condition measurements the energy efficiency can be analyzed and saving targets found.

Different technological set ups will be used in Helsinki pilot. Commercial and business aspects of the project need to be emphasized and there has to be high level of flexibility on the technology choices. Helsinki pilot consists of equipment from several SMEs. All the information is gathered to Generis -> consumption data to consumers (employees working in PV building). DIY KYOTO’s Wattson, KYAB’s Saber (possibly), There’s Gate are used in the collecting of sub-measurements in different compartments (2/floor).

Furthermore, the idea is to measure temperature and moisture (maybe also wind speed) from outside of the building. Also the district heating and water is measured so the pilot is looking into efficiency in heating.

Besides looking into Varma building, the pilot consists of measuring several mobile workers’ residential apartments’ energy usage. Plans for residential measurements will be finalized in the following months.

Process Vision’s Generis platform can be provided as a licensed business with a commitment to local support and maintenance service. It also can be provided as a web based service over IP network on a SaaS delivery where the application resides APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 153 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable in a PV server in Finland. The value adding services close to end consumer have to be created together with other commercial players in the project and with Apollon supporting partners.

Organizational set up is well expressed in the WP of Apollon where each site first works relatively independently to get the user centric measurements working and in second phase start the search for best benchmarks and common solutions together with the other 3 sites.

Structure of Apollon team is on two levels; Project structure and Energy domain pilot structure. We need to be successful on the domain structure/deliverables first before the whole structure can become valuable. We need to emphasize commercial and business aspects of the project and be very flexible on the technology choices.

Process for user involvement is based on Living Lab methodology. The users are engaged in the co-creation of the energy saving solutions in order to share ideas, influence solutions and to measure and show behavior changes.

As presented before, the users have different ambition and involvement levels.

Furthermore, the passive users are divided in different intervention groups so that behavior change and energy savings can be measured properly. As mentioned earlier, pilot setup planning is still underway and will be put together in the following months. The key objectives at the Helsinki pilot can be communicated in two levels: 1) To increase awareness of the energy consumption, carbon footprint and costs, and thus reduce consumption through behavior change.

2) To identify potential and bottlenecks for next generation dynamic pricing, real-time measuring and increased share of renewable energy sources in Finland and other pilot countries in order to create a model for new type of distributed energy supply services and lead markets.

Means to promote and leverage the local Living Lab and pilots

(workshops, showcases, showrooms, etc.)

As all Apollon energy pilots have their own promoting strategies, Helsinki pilot has already started to work with Finnish smart grid cluster in order to get traction and visibility for the pilot.

So far two main promoting activities have been done in regards to Helsinki Apollon LL. 1) Innovative Services around Smart Metering & Smart Grids â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Brainstorming Seminar 2) Finnish Smart Grid study. Done by Gaia consulting and Finpro / Cleantech

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 154 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable The brainstorming seminar was organized by PV and the list of invitees ranged from university doctorate students and professors to industry representatives and Tekes and Sitra. The seminar will be organized twice a year. Lasse Sariola presented Apollon in the event with Veli-Pekka Niitamo. The seminar was very fruitful and the topic creates positive buzz in every occasion.

The second activity, Finnish Smart Grid study, is being done by Gaia consulting and Finpro / Cleantech Finland, and it is looking into emerging smart grid industry in Finland. the study is funded by BaseN, Empower, Nokia Siemens Networks and Sitra (Finnish Innovation Fund). In the first part of the study that was done 1H/10, some 30 Finnish cleantech companies were interviewed to draw a picture of different players in the field. In the possible second and third phases, the volunteering participants will do a Finnish smart grid pilot based on the results and company mapping of the first part. Furthermore, mapping the possibilities for international business opportunities will be done in the third phase. Apollon project will act as a good example for cross border collaboration.

In the first phase of the study, Process Vision was one of the interviewed companies and Veli-Pekka Niitamo and Lasse Sariola acted in a consulting role when the study was being planned.

Lisbon Living Lab

Lisbon’s experiment is located at Lisbon’s Uptown Area. Jardins de São Bartolomeu Condominium is a high level residential block with different dwellers (356 dwellings and 18 spaces reserved for commercial activity).

In the condominium’s initial years of occupation a common problem arises: • • •

Building lack of compliance with the expected energy behavior; Low energy efficiency materials chosen in the construction phase; High-energy costs, in common areas and in private dwellings.

The high commitment of all the inhabitants related with the resolution of this problem was unusually high, considering the number of dwellings. The positive implementation of energy efficiency measures motivated the dwellers to apply for installation of a micro generation system, within the Micro-generation Framework for Renewables Energy Technologies adoption. 16 photovoltaic systems were installed, 3.68kWp each (288 panels), with an investment of 315.000 Euros from the dwellers (the biggest private and residential area for micro generation by PV panels in Portugal).

Lisboa E-Nova will coordinate the Lisbon’s pilot, and a possible methodology is

already designed: •

Database construction and consumption survey on the electricity

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 155 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

• • •

consumption, based on discrete values; Electric equipment survey (of all dwellings or of a dwellings’ sample); Selection of the dwellings to monitor, 366, based on the assessed database (online inscription, minimum consumption, equipment survey); Creation of 4 different intervention groups from the selection performed in 3.

The 4 groups created in the last point are:

I – Possible behavioral change measures information, with discrete monitoring on a monthly basis (no smart metering equipment would be installed);

II – Pricing system changing and study of the impact through discrete monitoring on a monthly basis (no smart metering equipment would be installed); III – Smart metering equipment installation and feedback to the dwellers on their consumptions and information on how to reduce consumption; IV - Smart metering equipment installed without feedback or information.

A strong effort is being done, by Lisboa E-Nova and Alfamicro, to involve Portuguese and international SMEs to join the Lisbon’s experiment.

Therefore, the results with another and ongoing Living Lab in Lisbon, created for the SAVE ENERGY project, will be used and a comparison will be made to improve the communication and the involvement of Portuguese and foreign SMEs. This last pilot takes place in the Lisbon Municipality main office building, with approximately 1800 employees and approximately 200 daily visits.

SME’s will be given the opportunity to: -

Be directly involved in a Living Lab experiment; Test technology with real and potential future users; Receive user’s feedback to improve the technology; Participate in a cross-border experiment and receive know how from other SMEs; Internationalize their activity; Strongly promote innovation and create European level synergies to these companies in scaling their market reach.

The expected outcomes for the Lisbon experiment are: -

To promote and evidence the feasibility of investing in residential housing and achieving viable and profitable solutions for energy management and communication; Active dissemination through similar buildings and wide spread communication of social and economic benefits at the energy level; Define incentives for conscientious and efficient energy users; Define policies to promote and engage users on behavior change on

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 156 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable energy consumption, user engagement and active contribution to define energy.

Means to promote and leverage the local Living Lab and pilots

At the moment, all the dwellers are analyzing the project and an explanation is being given from the Condominium Administration. In September, Lisboa E-Nova made a presentation to the interested dwellers, which are willing to participate in APOLLON. At the same time, the SMEs involved, will have the chance to present their solutions for the energy efficiency experiment. Slides will be developed and it will be given the chance to the dwellers to make questions and to give new ideas.

A survey will be given to the participant dwellers in order to understand and to know the different energy consumption patterns in the building (in the dwellings and in the common areas). This will be important to implement the methodology described.

Lisboa E-Nova organizes often several communication actions, such as: Ponto de Encontro (Small Conference that happen every Thursday), Workshops, Conferences and participates in technical fairs and exhibitions. The agency has already communicated the project to the public as an action for improve energy efficiency.

One of the main roles of Lisboa E-Nova is, without any doubt, to communicate with the citizen. The Agency’s Communication Projects aim to provide access to information, thus helping citizens to actively participate in the city’s sustainable development process. They also aim to maximize the impact of all intervention projects in the society at large.

Communication projects include: • •

• • •

Information actions targeting both citizens and decision makers, aimed at mainstreaming good practices in the area of sustainability (exhibitions, competitions, website, etc) Differentiated communication actions targeting citizens, the Agency’s associates, decision makers and others aimed at publicizing the result of the evaluation of the Intervention Projects of the Agency as well as good practices, from other parts of the world (guides, conferences, web site, etc...)

Awareness raising actions targeting the relevant actors to mainstream good practices, always aimed at introducing environmentally friendly processes and methods (seminars; etc...)

Training actions for professional groups that have a major role in the Energy and Environmental performance of the city, aimed to mainstream good practices leading to Sustainable Urban Development Participation in international conferences in order to increase the visibility of the Agency’s activities and to establish a continuous contact with European policy makers and strategies.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 157 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable

Botnia Living Lab Apollon Partners involved: Botnia LL, Amsterdam LL, Lisboa LL, Helsinki LL and relevant SMEs, Liander Time frame: December 2010 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; March 2011

Overall purpose: To establish an Apollon methodology for user-behavioral changes measurement / inventory of the best practices and lessons learned the first results of the behavior change possibilities with respect to energy savings across different countries.

The experiment in short: This experiment will exchange best-practice from local pilots on user-behavioral changes mechanisms and measurements. Partners will document and share their experiences in measuring behavioral changes among endusers when experimenting with new ICT solutions from energy saving.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 158 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable A short summary of the suggested process:

1. Wiki for sharing knowledge on experiences of methods for behavioural changes.

A template will be provided to make sure all report experiences in the same format.

2. Local pilot experiment will be used as an expert knowledge exchange case to jointly try different approaches and methods. This case will also be discussed and analysed jointly in the Wiki as well as in a workshop.

3. Workshop 2011-03-16 in Luleå on the CDT Energy Day in the House of Culture.

In this workshop the four Living Labs are viewed as users of the methodology created from the results of knowledge sharing in the wiki. Other LLs will also come to the workshop in which a harmonized model of energy consumption changes is created. The workshop ends with the creation of a unified model agreement to be used in future cases and experiments for studying user changes of energy consumption across time and between Living Labs.

User involvement: None directly with end-users but indirectly within the local assessments. Living Labs are the users involved when it comes to the methodology.

Technology involved: For exchanging methodology from local experiments for measuring and follow up on behavioural changes a wiki will be used. In the local experiment relevant technologies will be used depending on which experiment is used.

Expectations /specification of success: an enhanced methodology for measuring behavioural changes that is assessed in some of the other cross-border cases.

The cross-border dimension: – knowledge sharing and – unified methodology by exchanging local experiences Apollon assessment indicators (KPI): a signed agreement on using the new improved method.

1. Lliander contacted Amsterdam Living Lab. 2. Amsterdam Living Lab contacts Botnia Living Lab. 3. Amsterdam and Botnia make plans and invites all four Living labs to shared discussions and knowledge sharing, test of methods in local experiments, workshop and presentations, discussions and knowledge sharing and transfer.

4. Botnia Living Lab acts as host and make final plan and invitations.

5. knowledge sharing takes place in a wiki and Workshop takes place in Luleå at CDT Energi Day on March 16 2011.

6. Plan for evaluation in progress (Task 3.4) 7. The shared method is used in future experiments.

8. Plan for evaluation still in progress. (Task 3.4) APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 159 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Cross border collaboration Framework (Common Benchmark) For each cross boarder activity we want to use similar process, i.e. to prepare the deployment, research approach and data collection, sharing and analysis. In this manner we are able to compare and aggregate the results.

Although different cross boarder activities might have specific dependencies, but the approach should be comparable at an overarching way, e.g. all Cross Border Activities should be evaluated using the same template. This makes it possible to compare them on the meta-level which our two cross-border Pilots (knowledge and technology transfer pilots) can be summarized and analyzed on the meta level.

Thus the following Common approach was taken:

Deployment plan

In order to run the experiments, the deployment of the set-up of the boarder activities (i.e. technology transfer experiments) will be structured using a standard sequenced, viz.: •

• • • • •

•

Technical training session: a technical representative from <SME/organisation> will impart a one-day training session at <receiving organization> premises so that the technology team at <receiving organization> can learn how to maintain, deploy, troubleshoot and manage the remote installation of the system in <receiving Living Lab> [date] Functional testing and validation of the latest version of the service. Takes place at the local (i.e. transferring) Living Lab, but will include participation and input from the remote (i.e. receiving) Living Lab. [date] Localization work: staged in two phases: Translations to be performed by the local and remote Living Lab respectively. All screen texts, system messages and information will be translated. [date] Technical validation: the <receiving organization> team will first test the system in its own premises but under a realistic environment (e.g. simulated environment) [date] Selection of participants in the remote experiment according to local regulations and the profiles that <SME> has expressed interest in [date] Field-trial: <receiving Living Lab> will perform an initial deployment of the system to test the whole framework in the field but under controlled conditions (small group of people to whom the <receiving Living Lab> team has more direct access) [date] Final deployment for piloting. This is the actual deployment with the selected users that will be participating in the experiment during the piloting phase (T3.3). This involves the physical deployment of the devices and sensors in the

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 160 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable users homes, set-up of the communications lines, systems configuration and user training. [dates]

Research, data collection & analysis

For each cross border activity the main research goal is to explore one or more of the following:

• • • • •

•

The contextual difference between the local and remote Living Lab User experience The remote ecosystem and business opportunities: upfront and afterwards with the evaluation for the more practical insights.

Gain knowledge of the energy efficiency market in other countries; culture, finance, competition. Mainly upfront information, only the cultural questions are able to ask in the evaluation. The other things are not end user related.

The way cultural differences can modify the use of the same base technology.

Does the “export” affect the evolution of the system in ways not detected in the originating pilot? Via the evaluation we’ll see a difference in results. Mainly by asking what function they like, don’t like and what would they like to change.

What is the added research value provided by the operation in a network of Living Labs from different places with a common Living Lab methodology?

That’s to be seen in the end result of this project?

Ideally the transferring Living Labs will be appointed as the main supervisors to monitor the overall research work. They coordinate both the local and remote activities. Single points of contact are defined for each Living Lab, thus forming the user research taskforce.

Each cross border activity should describe the research questions and approach to de deployed during the piloting stage (Task 3.3) as well as the data to be collected and analysed.

Example: Luleå’s user behaviour changes methodology

As part of this Cross-border Activity each Living Lab will use local cases. Here we will describe the case designed for Luleå.

Test of three (or four) technologies for measurement and visualization of energy consumption in private homes. Luleå Energy will in collaboration with Botnia Living Lab set up a test of three different technologies. The three technologies are both local, national and international, hence the test is viewed as a cross-border test. The three technologies planned to be tested are: from KYAB, the Saber which measures electricity, heating and hot water; from Home Automation Europe, the Quby which measures electricity and heating and finally from Exibea, the ELIQ which measures electricity will be installed in 30-40 private homes in Luleå. The homes will have APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 161 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable both direct electricity or district heating as sources for heating. The test is planned to run for approximately 12 months. Luleå Energy is in charge of setting up the test and installing technology in homes. The register of Luleå Energy customers will be used to find families to perform the test. Botnia Living lab will assist with methods for recruiting, evaluating and interpreting users and results. The idea is to affect half the group with stimulus and the other half should not be affected. At the end of the test, results will be summarized and shared among Apollon partners. During the test partners will participate in the three workshops as a way to create and evaluate the methodology.

• Technical training session: a technical representative from the different SMEs will impart training session at Luleå Energy premises so that the technology team at Luleå Energy can learn how to maintain, deploy, troubleshoot and manage the remote installation of the system in Botnia Living Lab. [Jan-Feb 2011] • Functional testing and validation of the latest version of the service. Takes place at the local (i.e. transferring) Living Lab, but will include participation and input from the remote (i.e. receiving) Living Lab. [running during the test] • Localization work: staged in two phases: Translations to be performed by the local and remote Living Lab respectively. All screen texts, system messages and information will be translated. [Q1] • Technical validation: the Luleå Energy team will first test the system in its own premises but under a realistic environment (e.g. simulated environment) [Q1] • Selection of participants in the remote experiment according to local regulations and the profiles that Luleå Energy has expressed interest in. [Q1] • Field-trial: Botnia Living Lab will perform an initial deployment of the system to test the whole framework in the field but under controlled conditions (small group of people to whom the Botnia Living Lab team has more direct access). [running the whole year] • Final deployment for piloting. This is the actual deployment with the selected users that will be participating in the experiment during the piloting phase (T3.3). This involves the physical deployment of the devices and sensors in the users homes, set-up of the communications lines, systems configuration and user training. [Q2-Q1]

Research, Data collection & Sharing

Specifically, for the User behaviour changes methodology case the main research goal is: to establish an Apollon methodology for user-behavioural changes measurement / inventory of the best practices and lessons learned the first results of the behaviour change possibilities with respect to energy savings across different countries.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 162 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable This experiment will exchange best-practice from local and cross-border pilots on user-behavioural changes mechanisms and measurements. Partners will document and share their experiences in measuring behavioural changes among end-users when experimenting with new ICT solutions from energy saving.

W.r.t. the research questions and approach to de deployed during the piloting stage (Task 3.3), we intend to use the method that each Living Lab will collect data in their local pilots. The lessons learned in all cases will be shared and discussed in the three workshops during the year. Templates should be provided for this.

6.3.4 SME Scenario eParticipation (WP5)

Test case location M HKA (Museum of contemporary Arts Antwerp), as a part of the Ten oosten van 4°24’ exposition.

Use case goal

To stimulate test case participants to create individual associations and analyses of the presented art works, by means of an interactive game in which they need to match art works to keywords and thereby creating their own, personal virtual digital exposition.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 163 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Actors There are 2 roles:

1. Test case participants: users of the interactive game 2. Content providers: Content administrators, providing and maintaining the content, which will be presented to the participants.

See fig. 1 (a third role is defined in the figure, irrelevant to this document)

Participant use case brief

Fig. 1: use cases

Participants will receive a mobile device (in all probability an iPod Touch) on which they’ll be presented with an abstract 3D representation of an exposition space, with a limited number of object placeholders or frames 10. In each frame a combination of 3 keywords is shown, which participants need to match to an art object from the physical exposition. Participants will be convinced there’s only a limited amount of art objects that serve as a correct answer to each keyword combination, but actually any artwork will do.

10

Cf. a picture frame

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 164 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Participant use case description On the mobile device an application will be pre-installed which presents the participant with an abstract 3D representation of an empty exposition space.

Fig. 2: the 3D exposition space

Participants can navigate this exposition space and are able to control the viewport/camera in order to zoom in/out and rotate around the place holders/frames.

Upon loading the application, it will load all data (keywords and art object representing images) from a back-end.

When a participant taps an unanswered frame (ie. one showing 3 keywords) the application will respond by either:

A. Presenting a list of artwork object names. The user will be able to select one of these names, after which the frame will show the corresponding artwork representing image. (see “Participant use case A. technical detail”)

- OR -

B. Opening a separate QR-code reader application. The participant scans the QR-code of the artwork they wish to use as an answer, upon which the 3D application reopens and receives the URI of the artwork representing image, which will be shown in the frame. (see “Participant use case B. technical detail”)

This frame will now be considered as “answered”.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 165 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable The selection of options A. or B. will be dependent on technological feasibility.

Whenever the participant taps on an already answered frame, she will first see the corresponding combination of keywords and the possibility of changing her answer.

If she chooses so, she will be presented again with one of the two above options, allowing her to modify her answer.

A Twitter feed should be somehow visualized in this 3D space and consumed from the Air Graffiti twitter account. Certain actions will trigger an automatic post to the twitter feed (to be defined). The feed visualization should be refreshed on a regular interval.

Participant use case A. technical detail

The list of artwork names will be loaded by the 3D application from the back-end and will be presented to the participant by (for example) a commonly used graphical user interface widget such as a list box. Or, if this is not possible or not desirable for any technical or user experience-centered reasons, any other userfriendly selection method can be used.

Participant use case B. technical detail

The QR-code reader application presents the participant with the standard camera interface, allowing her to scan a QR-code, which is sent to the back-end. The 3D application automatically reopens and receives the artwork representing image URI, which it will show in the frame/place holder.

Content provider use case brief

Content providers can login on a web-based admin interface to the back-end. They can add and modify content: 1. Keywords: they can define the list of keywords to be used in the frames 2. Artworks: they can upload images and define the names of the artworks

On the mobile devices a full-reset system should be foreseen, which clears the selections made by the participants and resets the 3D application to it’s initial state.

(Maybe a simple login/logout sequence is enough?)

3. QR codes: they can generate and export/print out QR codes, linked to specific content.

Possible extensions

The exposition, created by the player, is saved in some way and can be viewed again afterwards. This can be done either online, or in the museum itself. The former option entails some potentially insurmountable copyright issues.

Feedback on the degree of overlap of the user’s choices with the choices of other players. How “original” is the player’s choice? In any case, some kind of feedback to APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 166 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable the players, issued after matching an exhibit or a set of exhibits seems necessary (according to Bram).

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 167 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

6.4 Quarterly Session reports WP #

WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5

Liaison teams responsible persons

Cycle 1

Cycle 2

Cycle 3

Cycle 4

Cycle 5

Cycle 6

Reports:

Reports:

Reports:

Reports:

Reports:

Reports:

Hendrik, Bram + Mirjana

Completed

Period:

Oct-Dec 2010 Dec 2010

Period:

Jan-Mar 2011 April 2011

Completed

Period:

Apr-Jun 2011 Jul 2011

Completed

Period:

Jul-Sep 2011 Oct 2011

Anna + Mari

Completed

Completed

Completed

Completed

Claudio + Andreja

Completed

Completed

Completed

Completed

Petra

Completed

Completed

Completed

Period:

Oct-Dec 2011 Dec 2011

Completed Completed

Period:

Jan-Mar 2011 Apr 2012

Integrated in final WP4 deliverable

Table 6-1: Overview of uploaded quarterly monitoring reports

An example of a filled-in template from the first phase of APOLLON with the initial session template is taken from the “eParticipation” experiment WP5. (table of content had to be deleted to nicely integrate it in this deliverable table of content structure); highlights, questions, comments or open questions have been left in as is, to prove and see the work as it has been done: 6.4.1 1st quarterly session report from WP5: “eParticipation”

Subject Author

Template for 3-monthly sessions between WP1 and experiments WPx

Version

N°

•

Template Author: Petra Hochstein

V1+V2

Changes

Petra Hochstein

Purpose of this Document APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 168 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable This document is meant to learn and understand the application of the APOLLON methodology (and it’s pieces) within the experiment • • • • • •

through a cyclic approach in 3-monthly sessions it will monitor the experiment,

to plan and document the interaction between WP1 and the respective experiment “WPx”

to collect problems and topics that require a methodology re/action from it’s usage of the means of the methodology to propose to and guide the experiment “WPx” wrt. the APOLLON methodology, which is methods, tools, templates, … to gather feedback on the proposed methods, tools, templates, … to ….

The 6Es

This framework is based on Peter Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM).

Adding a monitor and control of a process ensure that the methodology will be able to survive in a changing environment. Since the APOLLON methodology strive to transform one process from one stage to another by supporting cross-border networking activities, this needs to be monitored to contribute to learning through iterative evaluations. In this context, the 6 E:s we suggest to use as a measurement of the methodology are:

• Experience: what is the collected experience from working in cross-border networking experiments; pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses • Efficacy: does the means work; are these activities supported by the methodology accomplishing cross-border networking?

• Efficiency: are minimum resources used; could the cross-border networking be accomplished better with other different facilities?

• Effectiveness; is this the right thing to do; are we accomplishing our longerterm goals? Does we support cross-border networking, and is that what we should do?

• Ethics: is the methodology considering all relevant stakeholders?

• Elegance: is the methodology aesthetically pleasing? Is it understandable and structured in a good way?

These measures of performance are defined as "indicator[s]", which signal progress or regress in pursuing purposes or trying to achieve objectives. These questions should be asked to the experiment leader within each work-package during our APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 169 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable meetings with them where we discuss the usage of the methodological resources WP1 have suggested. The aim of these questions is to discuss the methodology and to identify areas that need to further developed, included or excluded from the methodology. This work will be an iterative process where learning experiences from each phase of the experiments are considered and the methodology is adapted accordingly

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 170 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

Status Tracking Subject Author

3-monthly sessions between WP1 and experiment –WPx• •

Summary

Date

Author: <WP1 Claudio Vandi

Author: <WP5 Sébastien Levy Objective

2010/10/22 Finalize WP1 view on WPx Proposal 1

Status & description …..

Proposal 2

best practice

(BP?) …

2nd date

Results P1

…

…

Results P2 …

….

Collection Challenge of best practices overview

Tool/method/.. Usage/utilization/comments

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 171 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Session 1 Describe the actual situation of the experiment >problems, advancements, fit to plan …< Proposed questions •

What is the current situation in the experiment

The experiment fits the schedule we defined in D5.4 • •

What did you want to achieve within the last 3 months What did you do in the last 3 months? o User o LE

•

o SME o LL

Which of the activities have been local activities?

Each Local Living lab was responsible of finding the right partners for implementing the update version of the Pilot Scenario as described in D5.4 and provides the best conditions for testing cross-border technologies. At the same time the local Living Lab was responsible of checking the status of the Cross-border Living Labs to ensure that local SMEs would find the right conditions when going cross-border.

•

Which of your activities were cross-border activities? In which sense do you think it is cross-border?

In our Pilot we have three national Pilot, each one involving at least one crossborder technology.

We transfer both technologies (Navidis, 3D2+) Applications (Airgraffiti) and Know How (People Voice Media). In each Pilot the SMEs products are integrated in different ways.

In France we work with the two French SMEs Navidis and 3d2+ and integrate AirGraffigit and People Voice Media.

In UK we work with the English NGO People Voice Media and with the french Navidis

In Belgium we work with the Belgian Air Graffiti, the English People Voice Media and with the French 3D2+

The main cross-border activity as of today has been the training course that People Voice Media organized for Issy Media Staff in Manchester December the 15th. This training was a part of the French Pilot.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 172 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable The three Living Labs from WP5 are involved in a new cross-border project of the same thematic domain. The EPIC project – European Platform for Intelligent Cities will ensure the development of a European 'innovation ecosystem' providing an extensive range of opportunities for sustainable, user-driven web-based services for citizens and businesses.

EPIC will combine tried and tested ICT infrastructure and software services of the IBM cloud with existing City/LL applications to create a first-of-its kind industrial strength EPIC platform for the delivery and sharing of innovative, user co-designed public services across Europe. Within the project, Issy will enhance its existing Issy 3D application - which facilitates real-time networking between citizens and businesses via 3D geo-localization, RFID & alert messages - , Manchester will adapt its city test smart environment service using IOT, and Brussels will adapt its relocation prototype service.

•

Which means (methods, tools, templates …) did you use, to support your activities (map methods, .. to activity)

Up to now we have just used e-mail communication and shared documents to collaborate since each LL was mainly focused on setting up its national Pilot. o Method 1: o Method 2: o Method 3: o ..

o Tool 1 o Tool 2 o ..

o Template 1 •

o Template 2 o …

How well did the means (method, tool, template …) serve your activity (you should fill it in for all the means used in the last 3 months)

o Experience: what is the collected experience from working with this means in your cross-border networking experiment; pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses  Cross border testing in the eMedia domain needs extra development costs. This is not the case for services (like PVM)  APIs are crucial for testing the interoperability of platforms and technologies

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 173 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable  o Efficacy: does the means work; did you achieve what you wanted to achieve with the help of this means, or better without… or would it been better to do it differently?

Our Main Achievements were  ISSY: The city wants to transform the Urban Game used for the pilot into a permanent service  MANCHESTER: The Living Lab is working hard to obtain an existing 3d model of the city to be used in the pilot thus reducing the cost of development for SMEs  BRUSSELS: The Living Lab succeeded setting up a new Pilot with the Antwerp museum to promptly remediate the failure of the first Pilot o Efficiency: are minimum resources used; was it very time consuming…?  … o Effectiveness; is this the right thing to do; do the results, achieved with this means last longer? does the means help you to accomplish your longer-term goals? Does the means support cross-border networking?  Something we should improve is the way the local and the crossborder LL interact. The local Living Lab should be more responsible of negotiating the SME intervention in the cross border Living Lab.  The templates provided by WP1 are maybe good for long term objectives (how many new business opportunities) but are not very helpful for reporting short term progress.

•

o Ethics: is the methodology considering all relevant stakeholders?  … o Elegance: is the methodology aesthetically pleasing? Is it understandable and structured in a good way? Would you recommend to use it?  …

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 174 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable …

Describe the planning for the next 3 months in experiment >problems, advancements, fit to plan …< Proposed questions: •

What do you want to achieve within the next 3 months?

Pilot activities with users are due to begin in March. This is the main goal for the next 3 months.

•

What do you want to do in the next 3 months? o User o LE

o SME: test how data will be exchanged across technologies during the piloting activity •

•

o LL: Engage with users and finalize the details of the piloting activity (local activities) . Exchange more information on the status of the cross-border Pilots (Cross-border).

Which of the planned activities will be local activities?

The actions taken within each pilot at the local level, in order to engage with users and other local stakeholders that can play a role in the pilot deployment.

Which of the planned activities will be cross-border activities? In which sense do you think it is cross-border?

The collaboration of Issy Media with People Voice Media for the follow up of their training in Manchester. PVM will provide support and assistance for the future training of community reporters in Issy.

Manchester is currently working through the administration processes and will hand over 3D data to Navidis for input into Urbadeus.

•

•

3D2+ and IBBT will work together in developing the ‘Museum Quest’ concept. They will guide both the Living Lab and museum in the actual set-up and deployment of the Brussels pilot. Next to the integration of their technologies, they will provide the necessary monitoring instruments to allow the logging, needed for the pilot evaluation.

Which methods, tools, templates, .. do you plan to use, to support your activities (map methods, …. to activity); o ..

For which kind of activity do you need support wrt. methods, tools, templates, …?

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 175 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable •

o ..

Which are the methods, tools, templates, .. WP1 liaison person proposes to use? (map methods, … to activity) o This report

o Monthly reports (calls or written reports) on the status of each pilot o An online template (Google spreadsheet) for keeping track of SMEs activities, including new contacts and business opportunities.

Analysis of Experiment according to Research Framework

>this will only be done in the first session, to learn and describe the respective experiment< 1. Constructs

1.1. Build: what are the variables you watch throughout the experiment?

User, Citizens participation. Multimedia content produced. User generated contents produced 1.2. Evaluate: what are the elements that you measure?

Success of user engagement. Use and functionality of the technologies. Value for stakeholders 1.3. Justify: How do you decide best practices across the experiments?

Discussion and evaluation between partners, knowledge transfer 1.4. Theorize: How do you filter pilot specific elements out?

Trying to assess the replicability of our Experiment in different settings.

2. Model

2.1. Build: What are the basic assumptions, causalities and outcomes that you perceive?

1. Living Labs can help testing the integration of cross-border technologies

2. Living Labs can help stakeholders (SMEs, Public bodies) in engaging with final users

3. Living Lab can build a bridge between the SME technology, the stakeholder goals and the user’s needs

2.2. Evaluate: What measures do you use to evaluate the validity of the assumptions?

Success of the pilot: are the SMEs satisfied? Did they receive recommendations to improve their products? Did we succeed in engaging with final users? Did we succeeded in letting stakeholders understand the ROI of working with LL and SMEs? Did the SMEs developed new contacts and business opportunities abroad? Did we manage to create a sustainable product or just a one-shot pilot ?

2.3. Justify: What are the success criteria that you use?

Sustainability of the technology being tested (after the pilot), Interest for stakeholders (mainly public bodies), stable user base, amount of content being produced, acceptability of technologies.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 176 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable 2.4. Theorize: How do you assess the wider applicability of the model?

3. Method

3.1. Build: What is the process for validating the assumptions?

Living Labs will track two kinds of user data: qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative evaluation will be done through the analysis of users feedbacks during the piloting activities. Since each pilot foresees different levels of user engagement, each Living Lab will have to define its methodology for collecting these feedbacks. Living Labs will exchange best practices to achieve the best coherence in the evaluation method in order to obtain comparable data. Common templates for collecting user feedback will be defined by the end of January 2011.

In terms of quantitative evaluation, each SME will record its technology logs during the piloting activities in order to monitor how many users use the applications and how much content they produce. The local Living Labs will make sure these logs are active and up-to- date. Each Living Lab is responsible for analyzing the logs for its pilot along with qualitative data.

3.2. Evaluate: How do you evaluate and adjust the validation process?

The reusability of the approach (would we be able to do something similar with different technologies / partners / stakeholders?) is the key factor. We adjust the validation process along the deployment of the Pilot. We are experimenting, so we will discover how things work as we actually â&#x20AC;&#x153;doâ&#x20AC;? the pilot.

3.3. Justify: How do you justify the use of selected methods?

3.4. Theorize: How do you ensure the scalability and wider applicability of the methods?

4. Installation

4.1. Build: Who are the stakeholders at your experiment?

Public Bodies, Cities, Local Communities, Artists, Museums, Citizens

4.2. Evaluate: How do you evaluate added value for each stakeholder?

Interviews and before/after comparison (baseline)

4.3. Justify: How do you justify the selected collaboration model?

The integration approach we use was the best solution we found in order to ensure we have a cross-border activity involving final users but without requesting too much work or development from SMEs. 4.4. Theorize: How do you compile recommendations for sustainability

Evaluating the APOLLON Cross-Border Networking Methodology

This section provides the templates for data collection within each experiment in the thematic domains. For each vertical experiment, the evaluation framework will be applied by the liaison person in accordance to the experiments ongoing activities.

Hence, the activities will be matched to the phases of the methodology which are: Connect, Set Boundaries & Engage, Support & Govern, and Manage & Track.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 177 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable This template should be viewed as a self-assessment framework, where the question areas posed below are implemented as an evaluation carried out by the liaison person in the thematic experiments in the different work-packages. The aim with this template is to facilitate knowledge sharing across the vertical domains and to support the development of the methodology from a “bottom-up” approach.

In this framework, people involved in the thematic experiments should contribute with their experiences from their experiments in relation to the question areas suggested below. For example, if the experiment is focused on supporting and governing the cross-border process, the template for these activities should be filled in collaboratively by the experiment leader and the liaison person. The more specific questions within the parenthesis should be considered as guidance to what kind of answer that is sought for in the question. These do not have to be answered specifically. The answers to the questions are filled in continuously. The first part is more overarching and should be filled out in all the evaluation activities to describe the context in which the evaluation is performed. >this section should be used in a sense of capturing the lessons learned; please first decide per session, in which phase is the experiment this time, before filling in and then only choose the section for the respective phase! And delete the other phases!<

Methodology Evaluation Work-package number Experiment (scope)

name General section

Introduction

The Experiment adopted an Integration framework: aggregate Media Technologies using 3D, crossmedia, Describe the objective with community reporting and context aware mobile the experiments; applications and transfer them in LL network.

• who was involved Key elements: • what kind of technology/knowledge/ Test different ways of aggregating eMedia technologies for eParticipation in cross-border settings. etc was transferred in Share content across different technologies to test the the cross-border interoperability between different partner’s networking process technologies.

We transfer both technologies (Navidis, 3D2+) Applications (Airgraffiti) and Know How (People Voice Media). In each Pilot the SMEs products are integrated in different ways.

We set up 3 Pilots, one for each country.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 178 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable In France we work with the two french SMEs Navidis and 3d2+ and integrates AirGraffigit and People Voice Media.

In UK we work with the english NGO People Voice Media and with the french Navidis

In Belgium we work with the belgian Air Graffiti, the English People Voice Media and with the french 3D2+

Overarching activities We communicated mainly by mail, Skype and face to face and experiences meetings.

Describe the process of the collaboration in the experiment, what has been done, how did you communicated, who was in charge of the technology/knowledge transfer etc:

UP8 provides templates and methodology for collecting user feedbacks during the piloting activity.

What experiences are gained from involving partners from different countries and organisations? (Describe possible lessons learned from sharing knowledge and technology across borders. What kind of similarities, differences, problems, opportunities, strengths, weaknesses etc

What we learned up to now:

• partners

ISS is responsible for the communication on the project and the overall coherence of the Pilots.

IBB and all SMEs are responsible for technical issues concerning the integration of technologies.

MCC provides a framework for stakeholder management.

Each LL is responsible of defining its pilot and of checking how local SMEs are integrated in cross -border • responsibilities in pilots. regards to project scoping, technical issues, IPR, stakeholder management, business model planning and deployment, communications • roles

Cross border testing in the eMedia domain needs extra development costs (ex: for Navidis and 3D2+). This is not the case for services (like PVM).

APIs are crucial for testing the interoperability of platforms and technologies (Airgraffiti).

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 179 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable has been during the

experienced

Assessing the Connect Phase In this section, the focus is on the connect phase

Question Area

Lessons Learned

How did the partners involved in the cross- e-mail, monthly skype calls, face-toborder experiment get in contact with each face meetings (one in each pilot city) other?

Have any parts of the APOLLON methodology to support the process of connecting between different stakeholders been used? (If not, why?)

(If so, describe which parts of the methodology has been used and how they have been implemented) How do the suggested tools and templates support the process of cross-border collaboration connecting between different stakeholders?

What kind of support is needed when different stakeholders want to get in contact with each other and collaboration cross-border?

Do the resources available to support the connect phase to be as efficient as possible?

(Consider to what extent the use of resources has been used efficient in the process. Are there anything that could have been carried out differently and more resource efficient? What is that? How could it be performed instead?)

Assessing the Plan (changed from set boundaries) and Engage Phase Question Area

Lessons Learned

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 180 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable How were the set boundaries and engage phase carried out? Which activities are common when determining the scope of the project as well as processes for creating commitment among partners?

Have any parts of the APOLLON methodology to support the process of set boundaries and engage between different stakeholders been used?

If not, why?

If so, describe which parts of the methodology has been used and how they have been implemented How do the suggested tools and templates in the APOLLON methodology support the process of setting boundaries and create engagement between different stakeholders in cross-border networking?

What support for this phase is needed?

Are the resources available to support the set boundaries and engage phase efficient as possible?

(Consider to what extent the use of resources has been used efficient in the process. Are there anything that could have been carried out differently and more resource efficient?

What is that? How could it be performed instead?)

Assessing the Support and Govern Phase Question Area

Lessons Learned

How was the support and govern phase carried out? Which activities are common to support and govern the cross-border collaboration process among partners?

Have any parts of the APOLLON methodology to support the process of supporting and govern the cross-border APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 181 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable collaboration between different stakeholders been used?

If not, why?

If so, describe which parts of the methodology has been used and how they have been implemented How do the suggested tools and templates in the APOLLON methodology support the process of support and govern cross-border collaboration between different stakeholders in the thematic domains?

What kind of support is needed for this phase?

Are the resources available to support the support and govern phase as efficient as possible?

(Consider to what extent the use of resources has been used efficient in the process. Are there anything that could have been carried out differently and more resource efficient?

What is that? How could it be performed instead?)

Assessing the Manage and Track Phase Question Area

Lessons Learned

How was the Manage and Track phase carried out?

Which activities are common when managing the cross-border collaboration process among partners?

Which activities are common when tracking the results of a cross-border collaboration process among partners?

Have any parts of the APOLLON methodology to support the process of Manage and Track the cross-border collaboration between different APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 182 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable stakeholders been used?

If not, why?

If so, describe which parts of the methodology that has been used and how they have been implemented How do the suggested tools and templates in the APOLLON methodology support the process of Managing and Tracking crossborder collaboration between different stakeholders in the thematic domains?

What kind of support is needed for this phase?

Are the resources available to support the Managing and Track phase as efficient as possible?

(Consider to what extent the use of resources has been used efficient in the process. Are there anything that could have been carried out differently and more resource efficient?

What is that? How could it be performed instead?)

An example of a filled-in template from the second phase of APOLLON with the revised session template is taken from the “eManufacturing” experiment WP4; highlights, comments, different colors have been kept to proof and see how the collaboration between WP1 and WP4 around the document/template worked out:

6.4.2 3rd quarterly session report from WP4: eManufacturing Subject

Template for 3-monthly monitoring of methodology development and validation in WPx experiments

Author

Template Author: Petra Hochstein

Version

N°

Changes

V1+V2

Petra Hochstein

V5 final

Petra Hochstein (simplified Template; to be used for each Review again)

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 183 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable V5b

Anna Ståhlbröst & Mari Runardotter

V5.e

Comments during call

V5.d 7.09.2011 22.09.2011

V5.e_revHS

V5.e_revASandMR Final-V2

Comments & questions from CDT & Hans Hans Schaffers (revision of the over-all template)

Anna Ståhlbröst & Mari Runardotter (added interview guide Section 2.1.2 ) Hans Schaffers (final editing)

Guideline for Using this Document This guideline is meant for liaisons and provides information on how to use the template.

1. Purpose of this Document

This document presents the information collection framework to be applied by WP1 to monitor and understand 1. Methodology development and 2. Cross-border collaboration in Apollon pilot experiments. The framework will be used in threemonthly monitoring cycles. The framework covers the deployment cycle of selected and recommended methods, tools, templates and guidelines within the pilots. It also covers the collaboration processes, bottlenecks, collaboration support tools and collaboration guidelines worked on in the pilots. The framework is used as follows: •

•

•

•

•

Through a cyclic approach in 3-monthly reporting sessions and adding observations throughout the three-monthly period, the framework will aid monitoring the experiment and consulting the stakeholders of the experiment.

The interactions between WP1 methodology developers and the respective experiment “WPx” stakeholders who are developing, adopting and using guidelines, methods and tools are monitored and documented.

Within the WPx pilots, information concerning needs, problems, experiences and topics is collected that requires further methodology development (methods, tools, guidelines etc) and / or methodology modification, and needs action and support from WP1.

The framework allows us to gather feedback from WPx concerning the proposed and/or deployed and adopted methods, tools, templates, in order to enable WP1 to evaluate and validate the methodology, take new methodology initiatives and learn lessons.

The validation activity also provides the basis for interaction of WP1 and WPx concerning methodology. Advice and recommendations will be given concerning methods, tools, guidelines etc.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 184 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable •

The framework is an instrument and not a goal in itself. Liaisons may observe and describe events, developments etc that are of relevance for methodology development and evaluation and not explicitly covered in the template.

2. Instructions and role of liaisons

Liaisons are responsible for maintaining close relationships between WP1 and WPx. These liaisons therefore will fulfill an important role in implementing the framework and gathering the requested information. Liaisons will gather information not only during regular calls with WPx representatives but will also actively monitor the WPx as it proceeds, as regards the information needs explained in this framework.

Therefore it will be necessary that the liaison person, who usually participates in all the weekly or bi-weekly experiment calls, takes notes during / after those calls on WP1-related observations (collaboration, methods, tools, problems, successes etc) and enters them in the respective (new) rows of the 2.4 paragraph in the “general section” area. This will help to improve the quality of the questions to the stakeholders during the quarterly consulting session and will help remember what actually happened which is relevant for WP1.

It is also helpful to send the final version of each quarterly report to all the stakeholder of the respective experiment to add and comment and correct where necessary and then only to upload the very final versions to myBBT.

It is recommended to soon after that, create the template for the next three-monthly cycle, using the finalized monitoring and validation report as a basis and keep things that are still relevant, overwrite the observations section during the quarter with the new observations by the liaison and then at the end of the quarter, delete, change and enter the new information.

The 3-monthly reporting framework is primarily meant as a monitoring tool. The results of the monitoring will be reported in the WPx Methodology Report (discussed in Helsinki), which will be important input to the D1.4, D1.5 and D1.6.

3. Background on soft systems methodology

Note: this section is preliminary and incomplete, and only meant to present some background thinking. Some of the elements are visible in the template, others not.

The monitoring and validation framework is based on Peter Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). Adding elements of monitoring, control and learning into a methodology development and adoption process for cross-border Living Labs networking (WPx) ensures that the methodology will be able to survive in a changing environment. Since the APOLLON methodology strives to transform one process from one stage to another by supporting cross-border networking activities, this needs to be monitored to contribute to learning through iterative evaluations. In this context, the 6 E’s we suggest as guidance for methodology evaluation are: APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 185 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable • Experience: what is the collected experience from working in cross-border networking experiments; pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses

• Efficacy: Do the means work; are these activities supported by the methodology accomplishing cross-border networking?

• Efficiency: are minimum resources used; could the cross-border networking be accomplished better with other different facilities?

• Effectiveness; is this the right thing to do; are we accomplishing our longer-term goals? Do we support cross-border networking, and is that what we should do?

• Ethics: is the methodology considering all relevant stakeholders?

• Elegance: is the methodology aesthetically pleasing? Is it understandable and structured in a good way?

These performance measures need operationalization into concrete "indicator[s]", which signal progress or regress in pursuing purposes or trying to achieve objectives. The 6E questions will be asked to the WPx experiment leader during our WP1-WPx meetings , where we discuss the usage of the methodological resources that were suggested by WP1 and/or developed within the WPx.

The aim of these 6E questions is to discuss the methodology needs and actual methodology deployment (introduction, adoption and use, modifications), and to identify areas for further development. This work will be an iterative process where learning experiences from each phase of the experiments are considered and the methodology is adapted accordingly. The same applies to cross-border collaboration aspects.

4. General definitions, glossary

Note: this section is preliminary and needs further elaboration.

• Living Lab domain network: a thematic community of Living Labs, single companies among which SMEs, agencies and other organisations or experts which is loosely connected to exchange, meet and communicate around a certain area of innovation; e.g. eEnergy, eManufacturing, eHealth, Media. The Living Lab domain network has the character of a breeding ground and knowledge network to push innovations and generate ideas and project initiatives.

• Living Lab Cross border network: a subset of a Living Lab domain/thematic network consisting of a group of Living Labs and other partners in different countries that agreed to collaborate to set-up a cross-border Living Lab network.

• Pilot: A pilot is an environment, preceeding the user rollout phase, where new technologies, products or services are developed and tested (experimented).

Within Apollon, the four work packages are setting up a pilot environment. Within the pilot environment, different experiments can be conducted.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 186 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable • Experiment: Within Apollon an experiment is a dedicated setting within a pilot environment to test and validate a particular technology, product or service.

• Methodology: the general naming of the package of methods, tools, guidelines, templates, practices that support cross-border networks of Living Labs. Within Apollon, the methodology is to support 1) the setting up, planning, organisation and management of cross border Living Labs, 2) the operations i.e. RDI and market creation, 3) resolving the specific interoperability challenges.

• Methods and tools: when we use this wording (MT) we also mean guidelines, templates, practices.

Note: within Apollon, the words Pilot and Experiment are not always distinguished in a consistent manner.

5. Planning, responsibilities and roadmap

WP2 WP3 WP4 WP5

Liaison teams responsible persons

Cycle 1 Period:

Cycle 2 Period:

Cycle 3 Period:

Cycle 4 Period:

Cycle 5 Period:

Cycle 6 Period:

Hendrik, Bram + Mirjana

Dec 2010

Completed

Apr 2011

Jul 2011

Oct 2011

Jan 2012

Apr 2012

Oct-Dec 2010

Reports:

Jan-Mar 2011

Reports:

Completed

Anna +Mari

Completed

Completed

Claudio + Andreja

Completed

Completed

Petra

Completed

Completed

Apr-Jun 2011

Reports:

Jul-Sep 2011

Reports:

Oct-Dec 2011

Reports:

Oct-Dec 2011

Reports:

This one 

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 187 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable Responsibilities

• Petra Hochstein (SAP): coordinating the information collection and maintenance of the framework. Coordinating methodology validation activity (T1.2) and the reporting into D1.5. Contributing to D1.6.

• Applying the framework to collect information and report on methodology validation aspects: current liaisons

o WP2: Hendrik Hielkema (AAL), Bram Lievens (ABBT), Mirjana Kljajic (UOM) o WP3: Anna Ståhlbröst (CDT), Mari Runardotter (CDT) o WP4: Petra Hochstein (SAP)

o WP5: Claudio Vandi (UP8), Andreja Pucihar (UOM) o Coordinated by Petra Hochstein (SAP)

• Collaboration aspects: coordinated by Mirjana Kljajic, Andreja Pucihar, Mari Runardotter (from T1.4), who are also acting as co-liaisons.

• WPx Methodology Reports: written by the liaison teams. First version of WPx methodology report by January 2012.

6. Structure of the template in summary

The template should be a tool, not a goal in itself. In developing the template, many aspects have been added over time. This might hinder to recognize the over-all structure and key priorities. Here is a summary of the structure and key topics.

1. Current status summary • • • •

What is the current state as regards using which methods and tools in the pilot?

Which collaboration practices have emerged and are being applied?

What are the lessons learned regarding the methods and tools, and collaboration practices ?

How effective has interaction between WP1 and WPx been?

2. Monitoring and Validation Results 2.1 Actual situation of the experiment • • •

What are the main achievements regarding the Living Labs network?

How have methods, tools and guidelines been used and what are the needs?

How is collaboration supported and what are the needs?

2.2 Planning for next cycle • •

What are the targets for next period and how will collaboration been supported?

What are the methods, tools and guidelines to be developed and adopted?

2.3 Application of Research Framework

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 188 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable • •

Was the RF useful to structure the experimentation?

What are the main outcomes of its application?

2.4 Validation of the Methodology • • •

Which methodology elements were developed, adopted, used (or not used) and why?

What was the value added of used methods and tools?

What are the remaining needs and priorities?

2.5 Cross-Border Collaboration • • •

What forms of collaboration support have been developed and used?

What was the value added?

What are the guidelines and tools to support collaboration that can be recommended?

2.6 Specific Interoperability challenges •

What were the approaches to resolve the interoperability challenge for this pilot?

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 189 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Current Status Summary Status topics This section of status tracking is meant to be filled in by the liaison person after the liaison person has completed the three-monthly consulting session with all the stakeholders in the respective experiment. The status tracking keeps track of: • Methodologies and Tools deployment (MT). We keep track of these in the various stages of development: needs finding, development, deployment, use and adoption (or non-use), evaluation and learning.

• Collaboration Practices evolution (CP). Also here we keep track in the various stages mentioned. Starting point is the proposed or emerging collaboration practices (or whatever related collaboration models, frameworks, arrangements).

• Lessons Learned (LL). These lessons learned must be tracked in relation to the specific methodologies and tools, collaboration practices, and the over-all development process including the WP1-WPx interactions.

Methods and Tools tracking

Regarding the Methods, Tools and Guidelines (MT), because this is so central for monitoring and validation, we recommend to systematically keep track of the deployment process and results by using the following summary table.

MT1

Needs finding

Development in WP1

Development in WPx

Introduction, adoption, use

Evaluation, lessons learned

MT2 MT3 …

The monitoring activity should identify also the key actors and their roles and influence who are driving the developments and changes of the status (WP1, WPx).

The Status Tracking Overview table (next page) can be adapted according to the specific context and situation in WPx (it is recommended to use Landscape format).

You could limit the number of topics to be described to those of high relevance, e.g.

5 MT’s, 5 CP’s, 5 LL’s.

The tables and questions might address not all information that is of importance.

Also the tables may not be suitable for presenting the information. Feel free to add a written report where appropriate.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 190 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Status Tracking Overview Table Subject

Author

3-monthly sessions between WP1 and experiment – WP4 Period: M7-M9 (3rd quarterly report) Report date: 2011/07 • •

Summary of Methods and Tools (MT)

MT

Author: Petra Hochstein

Author: o WP4 lead: Carsten Puschke o T4.1, T4.2, T4.5 lead: Carsten Puschke (SAP) o T4.3, T4.4 lead: João Robalo Lopes (FIA)

MT1

Focus of MT

Status & description of MT

• What is supported by

• Which phase of development:

MT1

needs identification, idea development, deployment, use and adoption, evaluation and learning

• What happened during the cycle: how and by whom was MT developed, introduced, modified etc

MT2 Summary of Collaboration Practices (CP)

MT3

Collaboration Practice

Focus of CP

Status & description of CP

CP1

• What is collaborated

• Which level of development has

on?

this CP1

• What happened during the cycle : how was this CP initiated, developed, introduced, used etc

CP2

…

…

CP4

Lesson Learned

Topic

What has been learned

LL1

• What topic is covered

• Describe what has been learned in

CP3 Summary of Lessons Learned (LL)

by the lesson learned

relation to methods, tools, collaboration and other relevant topics

LL2 LL3

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 191 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Monitoring and Validation Results Current situation of the WPx experiment (Apr-Jun 2011) The actual situation of the WP4 manufacturing experiment (pilot) includes the following topics, which relate to the general status of the pilot, as well as methodology development and adoption (methods and tools), and collaboration practices and guidelines:

1. Current situation, problems, advancements and achievements in implementing the cross border Living Lab network within WP4 2. Key events, decisions and developments that have influenced the situation 3. Situation regarding the development, adoption and use of methodologies (methods and tools) and collaboration practices.

Interview guide and checklist of questions:

Note: section 2.4 contains related questions, specific for the adoption and use of methodologies. Section 2.5 contains questions related to collaboration.

1. Characterize the current situation in the experiment.

•

•

•

At which stage is the experiment currently in terms of establishing the cross border network o Pilots up and running in Portugal o 2nd use case with 2nd customer successfully set-up o Hand-over of responsibilities for task and deliverable leads to Fiapal and SAP, due to withdrawal of HVE from Hungary completed o WP1 has been asked to follow-up on their proposal to get clarification of a possible use of a trading services platform from another SAP research project to support future collaboration, initial presentation was given at the F2F meeting in Palmela/Portugal o Dissemination activities to communicate into the broader European LL community about the “cross-border LL networks in operation” What is the core service offered by the cross-border Living Lab network (e.g. technology transfer, knowledge exchange, business collaboration). Explain. o Technology support between Germany and Portugal via regular phone conferences; which means, the partner works with the platform, sets up the new use case, similar as during the first phase with the first use case, and tries to do it as much as possible on their own, in order to realize the learning between the first and the second use case and to identify the gaps; in case there are any questions, they will be raised via email and answered by email or addressed in the regular calls o no. in this use case data signals have been collected directly from the existing control systems. Transmission via Bluetooth created by Ydreams for the three stations At which stage is the experiment in terms of methods and tools in use?

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 192 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

• •

•

o Technology Platform as a tool works fine o Web cam service used another time, to attract companies abroad  SAP Research Future Factory LL webcam tours are used to refer to Apollon project mentioning the LL interoperability and technical setup of use cases o Q: did LL Fiapal & YDreams explore the technical possibilities of using such a technology to visualize their use case to potential customers asking for an “energy monitoring”?  it is technically possible but has not been tested o LinkedIn was tested, but is rather an address book and for quick checks with s. o. than a tool for real business collaboration Which achievements or milestones have been reached? o Both use cases up and running o n/a What were key issues, bottlenecks, problems, opportunities, events? o Minor questions during the set-up of the 2nd use case, no real issues o SAP Research MDI prototype could sometimes not provide updates for bug fixes right away but has its own release cycles that the Apollon partners had to follow  due to just minor issues that wasn't a big deal Which solutions have been found for the problems identified? (Note: WP1 is especially interested in issues wrt cross border networking of Living Labs). o n/a o pick up the phone whenever a problem occurs

2. Describe the key activities that have been carried out last 3 months.

•

What were you aiming to achieve within the last 3 months? o SME  Ceni (user/consumer) run the pilot and evaluate results prepare future development options in the existing learning factory installation  Imeguisa (user/consumer) run the pilot, collect data and evaluate results. Establish improvement plans based on collected data.  YDreams (technology & service provider) improve UI based on user feedback. Technical assistance for SMEs. Participate in the evaluation of a collaboration/business platform for future use o LL



Fiapal participate in the evaluation and establishment of a platform for SME collaboration and service procurement and trading.

Support local SMEs as a business facilitator

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 193 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

o LE •

•

•

•



Future Factory continuous technical support for the MDI prototype. Feedback collection of use case implementation



n./a. as we did not appear as a LE stakeholder but just as a LL

Is there a difference between planning and actual achievements, if so why didn’t it happen as planned? o No difference, experiment proceeds as planned o 3rd use case implementation cancelled due to withdrawal of HVE

Which of the activities have been local activities? Which of your activities were cross-border activities? In which sense? o The set-up of the second use case was done locally; technical set-up of the system at the premises of the 2nd customer, connection with the smart meters and those with the machines, development of the UI/cockpit for the reporting  summarize the activities you did for the 2nd use case o The technical support was a cross-border activity through emails and phone calls, 24x7 technical support (if required) Continuous technical support for the MDI prototype. Feedback collection of use case implementation as a cross border activity via regular phone calls.

What have been the problems and bottlenecks in cross-border activities? o No specific problems How were they resolved? o n/a

3. What was the role of the various stakeholders / participants in the last 3 months and how did they collaborate?

•

Describe actor roles: SMEs, Living Labs, technology provider, operator, user communities, public organization or agencies, any other. (describe your activities in some more details) o SME  Ceni (user/consumer) User : run the use case asset management. Various tests with the three working stations. Feedback to Ydreams for minor problems and improvement proposals. 

Imeguisa (user/consumer) User : run the use case energy monitoring. Collection and evaluation of data. Establishment of corrective / improvement programs in the plant e.g.:

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 194 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable  



o LL

   o LE

•

•

•

Data network modification for interference avoidance in the monitoring system.

Energy consumption evaluation. Revision of frame contract with energy provider. Evaluation of investment for power factor correction

YDreams (technology & service provider) provided assistance to SMEs in the conduction of their tests and operations with the implemented use cases. Implemented some minor changes according to the feedback provided by the users, mainly in terms of UI and metrics, and finalized user’s manual

Fiapal dissemination of use cases in the local ecosystem. Evaluation of replication of energy use case in several industrial units.

Evaluation of local interest for a collaboration/business platform.

Future Factory Overall WP4 project management. Dissemination of use cases cross border (webcam tours). several conference presentations e.g. ICE conf. in Aachen; Germany SAP internal discussions (project and legal) if and how to use a collaboration platform

SAP n/a. as we did not appear as a LE stakeholder but just as a LL Which actors have been most influential in establishing and shaping the cross-border Living Lab network and its activities? o SME – technology provider: YDreams, in setting-up the system o LL Fiapal: in finding & accompanying the 2nd customer/user o LL SAP: technical support What were the issues that required collaboration among actors, and what forms of collaboration can be identified? o Software/system-set-up questions, could be resolved via emails and phone calls o YDreams accompanied the SMEs in site throughout the implementation and operation, easing the operationally of the software and hardware installed.

Which needs for collaboration have been identified? How are they related to the cross-border Living Labs setting? Which issues were driving the needs? 

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 195 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable • •

o See question before How did you deal with formal issues e.g. making joint plans, business agreements, contracts and negotiations? o Was not necessary any more at this point of time, all in place already What are the collaboration practices that have been developed or emerged (formal collaboration arrangements, collaboration processes, using collaboration tools etc), and how useful have they been? o Onsite visit: planned for next quarter

4. What methods, tools, guidelines, templates were considered or adopted, in order to create, manage and run the cross-border Living Labs network within the WP4 pilot?

• • •

• •

Collaboration agreements, e.g. partnerships, business models, contracts etc o n/a Planning and process support methods or tools or guidelines o n/a Technical communication and collaboration tools, platforms etc o Tested LinkedIn.  WP4 stakeholders logged on to LinkedIn but found out that the exchange of content (documents, messages is not supported).

Due to the fact that can just get in contact with somebody who's a member of your network it is not suitable for business oriented collaboration. It's just a communication but not a collaboration platform.

Please list the key methods and tools or guidelines (MT) as MT1. MT2 etc o n/a Which needs for methods, tools or guidelines have been identified o n/a (collaboration platform has been described as a need already in the last quarterly report)

5. How well did the Methods and Tools as far as adopted and in use serve your activity (you should fill it in for all the MTs used in the last 3 months, use the following Table).

Remark: This should be prepared by the liaison person and observed and described during the current three-monthly period. If not sure, discuss it in the monitoring session.

The other MTs should be identified and described by liaison person and sent for review.

Do not every quarter replicate the same MT descriptions but track the changes and further developments.

Experience: what is the collected

• •

MT1 = LinkedIN Easy to be set-up, basic or premium membership Good for finding and connecting people

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 196 Living Lab networks

MT2

…

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable experience from working with this MT in your cross-border networking experiment; pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses Efficacy: does the MT work; did you achieve what you wanted to achieve with the help of this MT? Is there something that would have been better to do differently?

• •

Difficult to identify the best “keyword” to be found No means for collaboration

•

Efficiency: are minimum resources used; was it very time consuming…?

• • • •

It worked, was easy to set-up, to register and to connect / invite people No, we did not get, what we wanted; it currently has limited possibilities to interact, in the sense of starting a business, negotiating, …

At least for the document storage or exchange, products like cFolders from SAP: http://leverx.com/media/documents/Ten_QuestionscFolders_SEP07.pdf

• •

Effectiveness; is this the right thing to do; do the means help you to accomplish your longer-term goals? Do the MT support crossborder networking?

•

Ethics: is the MT considering all relevant stakeholders?

•

Elegance: is the MT aesthetically pleasing?

Is it understandable and structured in a good way? Would you recommend using it?

•

• •

• • •

•

Not much resources needed Not time consuming at all Very easy to use and set-up Tricky point is to find the right key words

This is not the right thing to monitor or manage a business collaboration It is a good tool to find/attract people to get on board your cross-border network It is a good tool, if you would need some specific experience, you have yet not in your network, but maintaining and growing your network would be required, to become a trusted “player”

Since every stakeholder describes their own profile, it is not limited and open for all; maybe that your definition of stakeholder/target group is different than other, then you have to find out about it

Two-three columns, depending on the selected navigation, good overview Easy to understand Sometimes too much overload You can see they are experimenting with new features and function, trying to move it into new / various directions, this gives the feeling they are trying to meet (future) customer needs We would recommend to use it to find special experts you require within your network or new partners/customers, so it may be good for the “connect phase”

Planning the next 3 months in the experiment

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 197 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable This section may address the same topics as described in the former section.

Interview guide and checklist of questions:

1. What are planned activities for the next 3 months? What do you want to achieve within the next 3 months?

•

•

•

•

The WP4 wants to try-out the next collaboration platform (after LinkedIn), in this case, to learn about the trading services platform from the other SAP Research project, to get to know about it and try to set-up/replay the 1st (and maybe also the 2nd ) use case based on that platform, to identify “what could have been done better through this platform” SME o Ceni (user/consumer) collect experiences from starting phase to implementation of the second use case o Imeguisa (user/consumer) collect experiences from starting phase to implementation of the first use case o YDreams (technology & service provider) collect experiences from starting phase to implementation of the both use cases LL o Fiapal coordination of activities among partners. preparation of F2F meeting / workshop in Q3 at Portuguese premises

LE •

o Future Factory continuous remote maintenance of MDI at Portuguese premises SAP internal agreement about the usage of collaboration platform coming form SAP Research identification and solving of legal issues (background IP treatment) for this platform identification and preparation of knowledge transfer actions for the collaboration platform coordination of deliverable writing (D.4.3)

n/a

2. Which of the planned activities will be local activities, which will be cross-border activities? In which sense do you think they are cross-border activities?

•

cross border

i. introduction (knowledge transfer) of the new collaboration platform

ii. installation support for the new collaboration platform

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 198 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable •

iii. use case implementation into collaboration platform

local

i. admin of new collaboration platform

ii. use case implementation into collaboration platform

3. Which methods and tools do you plan to use, to support your activities (map methods, …. to activity, if applicable); •

Collaboration platform

4. Which collaboration practices, guidelines, models will be used or need to be developed.

5. For which kind of activity do you need support with respect to methods, tools, templates, guidelines, collaboration models?

•

i. installation support for the new collaboration platform

ii. use case implementation into collaboration platform

no support needed

6. Which are the methods, tools, templates, .. WP1 liaison person proposes to use?

•

The marketplace prototype of SAP Research’s TEXO project

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 199 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Application of the Research Framework The Research Framework (RF) has been proposed by WP1 as a guideline to WPx pilot organizers to structure the pilot development and experimentation. As such it belongs to the collection of recommended Methods and Tools.

• •

•

We monitor the actual adoption, implementation and use of this RF, or the reasons for not using it or using a different approach.

During the first session (cycle) we aim to receive answers to the questions of the RF, in order to learn and describe the respective experiment and learn about the actual adoption of the framework.

During next cycles we review the actual adoption, use and implementation of the RF, the benefits of using the framework, and how the questions of the RF have been answered within the WPx.

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 1.

2.

3.

4.

Constructs 1.1. Build: what are the variables you watch throughout the experiment?

1.2. Evaluate: what are the elements that you measure?

1.3. Justify: How do you decide best practices across the experiments?

1.4. Theorize: How do you filter pilot specific elements out?

Model 2.1. Build: What are the basic assumptions, causalities and outcomes that you perceive?

2.2. Evaluate: What measures do you use to evaluate the validity of the assumptions?

2.3. Justify: What are the success criteria that you use?

2.4. Theorize: How do you assess the wider applicability of the model?

Method 3.1. Build: What is the process for validating the assumptions?

3.2. Evaluate: How do you evaluate and adjust the validation process?

3.3. Justify: How do you justify the use of selected methods?

3.4. Theorize: How do you ensure the scalability and wider applicability of the methods?

Instantiation 4.1. Build: Who are the stakeholders at your experiment?

4.2. Evaluate: How do you evaluate added value for each stakeholder?

4.3. Justify: How do you justify the selected collaboration model?

4.4. Theorize: How do you compile recommendations for sustainability

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 200 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable 1.

Constructs 1.1. Build: what are the variables you watch throughout the experiment?

• • • •

•

•

• • • •

•

Version1: use case SAP: completeness of SW platform, does it work; SAP: how can LL networks be utilized for / worked with SAP (research, testing, .... business) YDreams: are there new biz opportunities out .1. Although these areas are not YDreams core business the experience and the network established in this project can present new business opportunities.

YDreams: could it become a new biz to dev apps in such a platform (agents); .1. Since the technical requirements to such developments are competencies mastered

by YDreams it could become a new business area.

YDreams: could it become a new service, to run the platform; .1. Looking at the strategic positioning of YDreams in terms of IT, it´s not foreseeable as a new service for YDreams.

SMEs: where is the best position in the value chain; LL: how to get from facilitator to coordinator?

LL: how to find new opportunities for the LL environment?

YDreams: could manufacturing become a new biz segment? .1. Yes. Although it should strength more the core competencies of YDreams, namely user interfaces, in terms of design, ergonomics and interaction strategies.

Imeguisa (ind. SME, user): how could we make use of such an energy monitoring system?

• Imeguisa: can we improve the efficiency of our production with this?

• CENI (dep. Of Uni, ind. facility @ Uni, user, 2nd use case on asset mgmt.): learn about platform environments and building applications on top of it • CENI: explore the knowledge transfer possibility into the local and other industries (like consulting) 1.2. Evaluate: what are the elements that you measure?

• • •

Version1: use of middleware and services in use cases SAP: Weekly bug reporting (minutes) YDreams: continuous observation throughout the project; Kpi would be if money can be made out of it; • YDreams: skills and competency observation throughout project; indicator: fulfillment of the time plan; track of effort; • LL: if I find sth useful in the toolbox / support • LL: skill observation; new skills required; • LL: if I get new project ideas (record them) • Imeguisa: ease of use (-> sap) • Imeguisa: evaluation of benefit, e.g. ideas for energy savings; • Imeguisa: evaluation of benefit, e.g. ideas for energy savings; 1.3. Justify: How do you decide best practices across the experiments?

• • • • •

Version1: adaptation of common platform SAP: if the implementation problems have been solved (code fragments) Systematic process how to do things (update of the installation guideline!)

Did we improve when Hungary started? Based on the samples / lessons learned from PTG ..

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 201 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable 1.4. Theorize: How do you filter pilot specific elements out?

2.

• Version1: benefits of harmonization • …

Model 2.1. Build: What are the basic assumptions, causalities and outcomes that you perceive?

• • • • •

Version1: implement use cases in various context SAP: a stable working pilot platform; SAP & ubigrate: new business possibilities abroad; YDreams: new global business possibilities; LL: evaluation on the LL environment capabilities for being a test environment for LE and other technology companies; 2.2. Evaluate: What measures do you use to evaluate the validity of the assumptions?

• Version1: working prototypes • …

2.3. Justify: What are the success criteria that you use?

• Version1: user-in-loop development • …

2.4. Theorize: How do you assess the wider applicability of the model?

3.

4.

• Version1: benefits of user involvement • …

Method 3.1. Build: What is the process for validating the assumptions?

• Version1: Piloting • SAP: weekly calls; • Ydreams: the biz potential could be validated through interviews / workshops / demonstrations (to Imeguisa and the local environment through the help of LL) • LL: through executing the implementation of more than 1 use case (and the involvement of additional partners; theoretical, through presentation of this idea to the local environment in meetings) • ..

3.2. Evaluate: How do you evaluate and adjust the validation process?

• Version1: performance evaluation • SAP & LL and SME: reviewing the process after each use case; • Interviews: only once at the end; • ..

3.3. Justify: How do you justify the use of selected methods?

• Version1: Harmonization • SAP: standard cyclic research process; • LL: experience from the past; from working with start-ups; • ..

• ..

3.4. Theorize: How do you ensure the scalability and wider applicability of the methods?

• Version1: model for SME engagement • ..

• ..

Installation 4.1. Build: Who are the stakeholders at your experiment?

• Version1: collaborative environment

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 202 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable • • • • •

Technology provider: SAP & Agilion; ISA; Application development: Ydreams & ubigrate; Hosting: Ydreams; User: Imeguisa and CENI; LL & Ecosystem: Fiapal economic association (municipality, 5 companies in mgmt board, ~60 private companies of the region).

• ..

4.2. Evaluate: How do you evaluate added value for each stakeholder?

• Version1: platform adaptation and service deployment • Technology & application & hosting providers: technology validation; testing after the setup; • Users: .1. awareness of the energy consumption providing a base for change mgmt; .2. asset viewing: transparency on asset, equipment usage etc. – e.g. loss of value • LL & eco: intangible; participation in such a co-innovation project; • ..

4.3. Justify: How do you justify the selected collaboration model?

• Version1: proof of concept • ..

4.4. Theorize: How do you compile recommendations for sustainability • Version1: cross border collaboration • ..

• …

Questions regarding the Research Framework: 1.

2.

3.

4.

How useful did you find the Research Framework?

Was it applicable to the WPx? Have you modified or adapted the Research Framework to your WPx context?

How has the RF been applied (what answers have been given to the questions) and what has been the impact of using it?

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 203 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Validation of APOLLON Cross-Border Networking Methodology This section provides the templates for information collection within each experiment in the thematic domains for the purpose of methodology validation.

Methodology includes: the package of methods, tools, guidelines, templates, and also collaboration guidelines. Collaboration practices will also be covered, elsewhere in this template (as this template fulfils a wider information collection role).

Methodology evaluation addresses the cyclic, learning-based process of identifying, developing, introducing, adopting (or rejecting) using the methods and tools, and joint learning. Evaluation answers the following questions:

• How was the methodology adopted and used (or not used). Of key importance is the use (or not use) of the methods and tools.

• Which factors affect the adoption and use. Besides contextual factors, this includes also the effective WP1-WPx interaction and recommendation role of WP1.

• Which benefits, impact and value added did the use of methodology create, for whom. To what extent have the methods and tools proven to be value adding?

For each vertical experiment, the evaluation framework will be applied by the liaison person in accordance to the experiments ongoing activities. Hence, the activities will be matched to the phases of the methodology which are: Connect, Set Boundaries & Engage, Support & Govern, and Manage & Track.

This template should be viewed as a self-assessment framework, where the question areas posed below are implemented as an evaluation carried out by the liaison person in the thematic experiments in the different work-packages. The aim with this template is to facilitate knowledge sharing across the vertical domains and to support the development of the methodology from a “bottom-up” approach.

In this framework, people involved in the thematic experiments should contribute with their experiences from their experiments in relation to the question areas suggested below. For example, if the experiment is focused on supporting and governing the cross-border process, the template for these activities should be filled in collaboratively by the experiment leader and the liaison person. The more specific questions within the parenthesis should be considered as guidance to what kind of answer that is sought for in the question. These do not have to be answered specifically. The answers to the questions are filled in continuously. The first part is more overarching and should be filled out in all the evaluation activities to describe the context in which the evaluation is performed.

This section should be used in a sense of capturing the lessons learned; please first decide per session, in which phase is the experiment this time, before filling in and then only choose the section for the respective phase! And delete the other phases!

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 204 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Methodology validation general questions Methodology Evaluation – introductory questions Work-package 4 Manufacturing Experiment (scope) General section Introduction • The same technology and system was used as in the 1st use Describe the experiment during the last three case, but applied to the 2nd use case and a 2nd customer months; • Technical support was provided by mail or phone • What kind of technology, system, knowledge was innovated or transferred through cross• Validation of the processes being set-up and the generic border LL networking use of the technology platform • What was the objective of the experiment / • Ydreams has carried out project activities in direct liaison pilot. with the SME

• •

Cross-border collaboration in the experiment Describe the role of cross-border collaboration in the experiment, and how collaboration was organized and supported.

• •

Who were involved, which roles

What particular issues were covered for which collaboration is critical, e.g. project scoping, technical issues, IPR, stakeholder management, business model planning and deployment, communications

• • • • • • • •

Minor adjustments to the visualization pages in the web clients were made, following suggestions by Portuguese partners.

Use Case 1: Bluetooth smart meters have proved to be more relevant for private household environments and therefore focus has shifted to industrial smart meters.

LL was providing technical support over phone or by mail Local SME (technology provider) was asking for support

Issues were software, system or interface / integration related (simple technology questions) Direct cooperation between technicians of SME Ydreams and SAP Technology knowledge transfer via phone calls and email exchange Use case execution, in the sense of setting up and running the pilots in the SME environment Support & maintenance via phone calls and email exchange Joint requirements gathering collaboration platform

for

a

cross-border

Cross-border business partnerships were established by matching all the different partners’ objectives and contributions directly (see fig. 3, D4.4). For example with the Energy Monitoring use case as well as with the Asset Viewing use case there was already a business partnership created between a Living Lab (Future Factory) in Germany and an SME (Ydreams) in Portugal where the SME took advantage from the provisioning of a software technology - the SAP Research MDI platform prototype. The Portuguese SME combined that with his knowledge and expertise to solutions that helped other SMEs such as Imeguisa with their demand for energy monitoring and CENI with their demand for an asset viewing solution to get the right and best product and created two new business partnerships

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 205 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable The use of Methods, Tools, Guidelines

• • • •

Which methods, tools, guidelines have been developed, adopted, used (or rejected, fond useful (or less useful)

How useful have been these methods and tools been to support cross-border networking of Living Labs What was the value added created by using the methods and tools For whom (Living Labs, SMEs, other)

• •

•

•

•

•

Importance of cross-border collaboration

• •

What experiences are gained from involving partners from different countries and organisations

How has cross-border collaboration benefited from methods and tools, which ones have been the most useful and which ones less useful

LinkedIn was tested and rejected as tool for collaboration but seems to be a good tool for the connect phase

Planning of an onsite visit, to verify the functioning of the use cases and the use/usability of the platform; this mainly should help in a better understanding of the remote side in Portugal, the possibilities and the limitations, the expertise and the skill set and the experience; is useful for building further trust, for all parties A Service Level Agreement (SLA) including key performance indicators was developed. KPIs are: support personnel availability, support message priority, message response time, fix rate

Portugal: The implementation of the use cases is based on technical scenarios and technical solutions that were developed by the involved SME (Ydreams) coordinated by FIAPAL. A webcam tour at the Future Factory LL that had been introduced before is used. It has proven to be valuable for attracting new collaboration partners. The Tour has been extended towards an interaction with WP6 colleagues.

Collaboration tools in use by all partners: Skype conferencing, (bi-)weekly conference calls, SAPconnect for online conferencing, myBBT platform for document sharing, SAPmats for downloads, minute template, weekly coordination meetings between local stakeholders

Experiences: Describe possible lessons learned from sharing knowledge and technology across borders. What kind of similarities, differences, problems, opportunities, strengths, weaknesses etc has been experienced during the cycle

• •

Onsite visit, planned for next quarter

•

In order match partners’ objectives and contributions SAP and YDreams established close communication between both company’s technicians for the implementation of the use cases.

•

The fact that the second use case went live faster due to experiences already built up at Ydreams, we conclude, that collaboration can accelerate the process of innovation and dissemination of new products / services and the exchange of knowledge.

A widespread adoption of best practices has been achieved: Implementation of use cases in different contexts was proved to be possible

• •

LL eco system assures the required conditions for product co-development

The Living Lab eco system must assure the required conditions for product co-development : o o o

•

Technical expertise,

deep knowledge of the industrial partners and proximity for prompt reaction;

Fiapal assured technical support to the SMEs when needed due to their restrictions in resources. Also

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 206 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

•

Liaison observations during the cycle

• • •

Decisions regarding methods development and adoption Interactions WP1 – WPx

and

Recommendations from WP1 to WPx

tools

• • •

managed the project locally creating a sense of urgency; this has been paramount to make it happen (assure progress and meet the deadlines).

-

Feedback to Future Factory LL from SMEs, FIAPAL and YDreams enabled SAP’s researchers to improve the MDI platform prototype in an expedite way, since several SMEs in parallel were testing it Decision, to get into negotiations with the other SAP Research project, about an exploration of their platform LinkedIn rejected

Site visit for trust building & verification

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 207 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Connect phase methodology validation Connect Phase Methodology Validation Connect - relates to activities and considerations in the startup phase of the collaboration. In this stage we are defining the primary intent of the community, as well as the domain and engaging issues: issues important to the organization, aspects that are important and motivating for people and can bring in new members.

Question Area Connect Phase processes and needs • How did the partners involved in the crossborder experiment get in contact with each other?

• What were the needs and requirements with respect to “connecting”?

• Which processes within the connect phase could benefit most from methods, tools, collaboration frameworks etc?

• What kind of support is needed when different stakeholders want to get in contact with each other and collaborate crossborder?

Adoption and use of methods and tools • Which elements of the APOLLON methodology been adopted and used to support the process of connecting between different stakeholders? (If not, why?)

• If so, describe which parts of the methodology has been used, how they have been implemented Value added of used methods and tools • What has been the benefits, value added and impact of using these methods and tools? For whom?

• How do the suggested tools and templates support the process of cross-border collaboration connecting between different stakeholders?

Factors affecting adoption, use, usefulness and value added of methods and tools • Which factors, circumstances etc have hindered or stimulated the successful adoption of use of methods and tools in the connect phase?

• How efficient and effective has been WP1 support for WPx methods and tools as well as WP1-WPx interaction?

Answers and lessons Learned Beyond the connect phase

Beyond the connect phase

Beyond the connect phase

Beyond the connect phase

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 208 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Plan and Engage phase methodology validation Plan and Engage Phase Methodology Validation Plan and Engage - needs to define the organizations’ roles more clearly, as well as negotiate partners’ responsibilities and addressing the power issues. A part of this process is measuring and making visible networks’ value for the organization and for individual members. Also the role and relationship of the network within the existing national and European networks need to be defined

Question Area Plan & engage phase processes and needs • How were the set boundaries and engage phase carried out? Which activities are common when determining the scope of the project as well as processes for creating commitment among partners?

• What support for this phase is needed?

Adoption and use of methods and tools • Have any parts of the APOLLON methodology to support the process of set boundaries and engage between different stakeholders been used?

• If not, why? If so, describe which parts of the methodology has been used and how they have been implemented Added value of methods and tools • What has been the benefits, value added and impact of using these methods and tools? For whom?

• How do the suggested tools and templates in the APOLLON methodology support the process of setting boundaries and create engagement between different stakeholders in cross-border networking?

Factors affecting adoption, use, usefulness and value added of methods and tools • Which factors, circumstances etc have hindered or stimulated the successful adoption of use of methods and tools in the plan phase?

• How efficient and effective has been WP1 support for WPx methods and tools as well as WP1-WPx interaction?

Answers and lessons Learned Beyond the plan & engage phase, in the process of “repeating – with another example”

Beyond the plan & engage phase, in the process of “repeating – with another example”

Beyond the plan & engage phase, in the process of “repeating – with another example”

Beyond the plan & engage phase, in the process of “repeating – with another example”

•

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 209 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Support and Govern phase methodology evaluation Support and Govern Phase methodology Validation Support and Govern - includes issues and tasks related to supporting operational work within the network, including co-innovation, solution development, user interaction and field experimentation. This involves processes, methodologies and tools that the network will provide for its’ members’ disposal, and systematically follow in its’ operations.

Question Area Support/Govern phase processes and needs

•

•

How was the support and govern phase carried out? Which activities are common to support and govern the cross-border collaboration process among partners?

What kind of support is needed for this phase?

Adoption and use of methods and tools

•

•

Have any parts of the APOLLON methodology to support the process of supporting and govern the cross-border collaboration between different stakeholders been used?

If not, why? If so, describe which parts of the methodology has been used and how they have been implemented

Answers and Lessons Learned We are beyond the support & govern phase

We are beyond the support & govern phase

Added value of methods and tools • What have been the benefits, value added and impact of using these methods and tools? For whom?

We are beyond the support & govern phase

Factors affecting adoption, use, usefulness and value added of methods and tools • Which factors, circumstances etc have hindered or stimulated the successful adoption of use of methods and tools in the support and govern phase?

• How efficient and effective has been WP1 support for WPx methods and tools as well as WP1-WPx interaction?

We are beyond the support & govern phase

•

How do the suggested tools and templates in the APOLLON methodology support the process of support and govern cross-border collaboration between different stakeholders in the thematic domains?

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 210 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Manage and track phase evaluation Manage and Track phase methodology validation Manage and Track - refers to assessment of the potential and achieved benefits and impact that the network is creating. Evaluation is an ongoing process throughout the network engagement, and the results will be communicated in multiple levels, including customer, society & people and performance related results.

Performance evaluation is closely related to the network objectives and key performance indicators, since Living Labs can have very different objectives ranging from purely economic objectives to policy implications.

Question Area Manage/track phase processes and needs • How was the Manage and Track phase carried out?

• Which activities are common when managing the cross-border collaboration process among partners?

• Which activities are common when tracking the results of a cross-border collaboration process among partners?

• What kind of support is needed for this phase?

Adoption and use of methods and tools • Have any parts of the APOLLON methodology to support the process of Manage and Track the cross-border collaboration between different stakeholders been used?

• If not, why? If so, describe which parts of the methodology that has been used and how they have been implemented Added value of methods and tools • What have been the benefits, value added and impact of using these methods and tools? For whom?

• How do the suggested tools and templates in the APOLLON methodology support the process of Managing and Tracking crossborder collaboration between different stakeholders in the thematic domains?

Factors affecting adoption, use, usefulness and value added of methods and tools • Which factors, circumstances etc have hindered or stimulated the successful adoption of use of methods and tools in the manage and track phase?

• How efficient and effective has been WP1 support for WPx methods and tools as well as WP1-WPx interaction?

Answers and Lessons Learned Basically doing the 2nd use case is sort of an evaluation of the process and learning as such • We agreed on the 2nd use case, as described in the D4.3 • We followed the steps given in the technical MDI documentation to set-up the system and reviewed them as we moved forward

•

•

the measurement of results of our cross-border collaboration is quite easy as it is a running use case and the time spent to get it done No new tools have been introduced or been necessary, for the work we were undergoing in this quarter, the regular phone calls and email exchange have been satisfying

n/a

n/a.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 211 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Questions related to Cross-Border Collaboration Practices Next set of questions focuses on cross-border collaboration recommendations. To some extent the main questions are already covered in the previous sections. The topic, however, deserves separate attention during the 3-monthly monitoring calls and/or in specific interviews. This part is supported by the T1.4 team.

Comment Petra: my impression is, that this section is more generic and does not relate to any special quarter, much of the stuff asked might be in the D4.3+D4.4 already, so I will check those two and preanswer this section until the call next week.

Cross-border collaboration guidelines validation Question Area How did you get in contact with the LL?

• •

What knowledge did you have about Living Labs before your collaboration in APOLLON started?

Why did you choose to collaborate with a LL? (added value)

What issues did require collaboration

• • •

• • • •

What was driving the need for collaboration?

Give examples

What were formal issues that have required collaboration e.g. need to agree with partners, making joint plans, business agreements etc What were the collaboration needs that emerged, for setting up, planning, using, managing the cross border Living Labs network. Give examples.

What collaboration needs emerged especially from the cross-border viewpoint Did you participate in the building of the network of stakeholders? What was your role/responsibility?

How did you select stakeholders to be part of the cross-border network for the specific experiment?

Were you participating in design and execution of the experiment? (Role/responsibility, was this clear) What were the forms or types of collaboration have emerged (how did you collaborate, how have different ways of collaboration become visible)

•

What were structured, formalized forms of collaboration (business models, partner agreements, procedures, organizational arrangements etc

Answers and Lessons Learned most of the partners rather choose to work within the APOLLON project than to collaborate with a LL The knowledge about LL & reasons to work with a LL:

• • • • •

Ydreams: Ceni: Imeguisa: ISA: Alfamicro:

software, hardware, technology knowledge, business needs that are coming from different stakeholders were formed to a concrete use case (business case) and therefore required the cross border collaboration as it happened. regular meetings were needed and setup onsite visits were needed and setup for the next quarter trigger was the certain business need of an SME (e.g. energy monitoring need at Imeguisa) based on that the other stakeholders brought their knowledge, technologies into the project. Starting with the conceptual design as a cross-border activity (call, SAPconnect, webcam, email,...) the stakeholders developed a solution for/with the SME. This energy monitoring solution was then implemented by a local IT provider (Ydreams).

Deciding on best practices ():

calls --> regular (weekly) SAPconnect --> regular (weekly) email --> on demand (daily / weekly) onsite visits --> yearly issue solving happened on demand --> business partners agreed to react immediately to issues raised. Mainly SAP Research Future Factory was in charge of solving issues as

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 212 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable •

•

Processes of collaboration: communication, coordination, problem solving, collaboration in planning and decision making related to the Living Labs network

Collaboration based on using tools such as communication tools, workspaces, collaboration platforms What forms of collaboration support have been developed and used [methods, tools, process support, procedures, guidelines, mechanisms etc]

• • •

For structured, formal collaboration support (business models, partner agreements etc

For collaboration process support: support of communication, coordination, decision making, planning, learning (etc) For collaboration tools support: such as communication tools, workspaces, collaboration platforms, conferencing, meetings

How efficient and effective collaboration support types?

• • •

•

• •

were

these

How have collaboration methods, tools, procedures (etc) facilitated your work? Are you satisfied with these?

Are there examples of when collaboration methods and tools have hindered your work?

How have they improved actual processes of collaboration. Give examples. Did they result in improved (joint) decision-making, planning, communication, negotiation, learning (etc) Did they result in lower cost, diminished effort, increasing performance of the process of setting up, planning, using, managing the cross border Living Lab network

Did they increase the value added of cross border networking of Living Labs, how can that be measured

What has hindered or stimulated the effect of the different forms of collaboration support (e.g. were partner agreements effective? Were roles and responsibilities sufficient clear? Were process support instruments useful? Have collaboration tools and platforms be useful and effective?)

What has hindered collaboration, and what has stimulated collaboration (drivers, factors)

• •

Hindered or stimulated: what were the underlying drivers and factors

What facilitated collaboration, e.g. active management interventions, key people as

the MDI platform was provided out of Dresden (clear service provisioning role)

Technical support via email and phone with a dedicated technical contact. use of existing tools: phone email file sharing (SAPmats) The previously adopted webcam tour has improved collaboration with possible future partners as well as WP6 project partners.

A Service Level Agreement (SLA) to ensure reliable technical support has been agreed upon by all partners, containing KPIs such as: support personnel availability, support message prioritization, message response time and fix rate).

User feedback on the web clients from Fiapal and Imeguisa lead to minor adjustments. all tools fully met our requirements w.r.t. the maintenance of built use cases cross border networking at the stage of business case identification, -development, -implementation requires a sophisticated collaboration platform (speed up of common understanding due to transparent knowledge transfer) The SLA ensured that all bugs and issues were promptly addressed and solved. Also the collaboration enforced by the SLA supported an exchange of experiences between the partners. The SLA was important for the continuous deployment and integration of the MDI platform prototype at Imeguisa and CENI. The webcam tours have proven to be an important method to introduce possible future partners to the experiment in a way that saves resources on both sides.

see above in addition it can be said that the (virtual / cross border) team building within WP4 was a clear accelerator for meeting the given project milestones.

Direct collaboration between technicians at SMEs and LL improved collaboration and accelerated

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 213 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable •

drivers, culture of collaboration

What were obstacles to collaboration: e.g. lacking tools, prohibitive culture of collaboration, lack of management interventions etc What is still needed or what could be useful to support collaboration (guidelines, recommendations, tools, process support)

•

• • •

• •

dedicated collaboration platform addressing trading, knowledge exchange service aspects is needed

Collaboration has now emerged, and collaboration support has been developed, however: what are at this point the still unfulfilled needs and requirements

How could collaboration models (structured forms of collaboration support) improve (e.g. partner agreements, business models) How could collaboration process support be improved by using process instruments?

How could collaboration tools (platforms, workspaces, conferencing tools etc) be improved, which ones are useful What are the guidelines and recommendations for collaboration that you can propose from experience so far?

•

implementation.

Recommendations in terms of formal methods, process support, collaboration tools Organizational recommendations General guidelines

see above SLA; dedicated technical, business and administrative contacts from each partner; a defined set of collaboration tools; use of a collaboration platform for service providers and consumers; setting up use cases at different SME to evaluate and improve adaptation possibilities, so the use case may be implemented at any SME; use tools that enforce access for SME suitable to their demands such as webcam tours and a collaboration platform;

Interoperability challenges within the WPx Resolving the interoperability challenges in creating cross-border collaboration of Living Labs networks is central to Apollon. Therefore we add specific questions regarding these interoperability challenges for each pilot WPx, in particular the role of collaboration.

Comment Petra: this section is more generic and does not relate to any special quarter, much of the stuff asked might be in the D4.3+D4.4 already, so I will check those two and pre-answer this section until the call next week.

Assessing collaboration in relation to interoperability challenges Question Area Answers and Lessons Learned Collaboration regarding common n/a ecosystems (WP2) • How did you interpret the specific interoperability challenge for your pilot, and how s that related to collaboration?

• What have been the main difficulties in collaboration for planning and managing APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 214 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable • • •

the innovation transfer process How have these been resolved, which methods, tools, procedures, arrangements have been used?

Have these been used satisfactorily? What benefit and impact did they create?

What kind of collaboration recommendations emerge from the work?

Focal points related to collaboration for creating common ecosystems: - Business agreements - Creating collaborative elements in the value network - Living labs working together Collaboration regarding common research benchmarking (WP3) • How did you interpret the specific interoperability challenge for your pilot, and how s that related to collaboration?

• What have been the most important ways of collaboration • What have been the key bottlenecks • What kind of collaboration recommendations emerge

Focal points related to collaboration for creating common benchmarks: - business matching and partnerships - knowledge transfer - technology testing, Living Labs working together Collaboration regarding common platforms (WP4) • How did you interpret the specific interoperability challenge for your pilot, and how s that related to collaboration?

• What kind of collaboration structures (e.g. licenses) have facilitated the business platform • How is the business platform used for new forms of business collaboration • How are Living Labs working together, based on the business collaboration platform Collaboration regarding common integration WP5) • How did you interpret the specific interoperability challenge for your pilot, and how s that related to collaboration?

n/a

Tbd.

   

User: SME: LL: ??

n/a

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 215 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable • •

What kind of collaboration structures (licenses etc have facilitated the transfer of technologies to other companies How have Living Labs worked together to support this

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 216 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable

6.5 Method Validation Documents Method Validation documents were delivered by all four experiments. These summarized the methods and tools that were in use including their origin, evolvement in the course of experimentation and validation. Please find in the following section their tables of content.

6.5.1 WP2: Home Care & Independent Living

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 217 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable 6.5.2 WP3: Energy Efficiency

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 218 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable 6.5.3 WP4: eManufacturing Comment: reference links to further documents have been taken out, to not confuse with the overall structure of this deliverable!

Method Analysis & Validation of Work Package 4 eManufacturing WP4: eManufacturing experiment (D4.1, D4.2, D4.3) The eManufacturing experiment is set up in three Living Lab environments within the automotive sector. These are: the Future Manufacturing Living Lab in Germany, the Fiapal Living Lab in Portugal and the Hungarian Vehicles Engineering Living Lab in Hungary. These Living Labs are collaborations between research partners including large companies and SMEs.

Roles & objectives

The thematic objective of the manufacturing experiment is to improve the innovation lifecycle for SME in the manufacturing supply chain. Three challenges have been identified that need to be addressed for this: stronger integration on operational and management level; a collaboration framework designed to facilitate seamless exchange of information between suppliers, subcontractors and consumers; sustainability requirements for manufactured and used products together with development of suitable policies. (DOW) The objectives of the eManufacturing experiment within APOLLON are (DOW, B1.1.5.):

(1) To adapt and evaluate a platform which will be capable of integrating realworld objects and resources (devices, business systems, humans and processes) under the same roof (2) To create a “plug-and-play” functionality which will facilitate different SMEs, irrespective of their business and technological expertise, to use and experiment each other’s services and entities (3) To provide an environment that will foster product innovation and exchange of ideas

Large Enterprises •

SAP AG, Germany

(From DOW, B1.7.2.2)

SAPs Research Unit runs five Living Lab locations in Germany, Switzerland and Australia and applies the Living Lab Methodology to the field of emerging economies in South Africa. The Future Factory Living Lab is one of three Living Labs collaborating in WP4.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 219 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable SAP is the eManufacturing work package lead as well as technological lead for providing, customizing, and deploying the integration and service platform for use in a cross border context. Moreover, it will guide other core partners and supporting SMEs in the development of interesting user scenarios and Green Manufacturing specific services.

As WP 4 lead SAP’s activities are: (D4.3, 2.1) -

Definition and introduction of use cases to all stakeholders; each Living Lab in Germany, Portugal and Hungary is set to implement two of these use cases.

Providing the prototype middleware for device integration and its documents to the Living Lab Partners. The platform is also provided to participating SMEs. Tutoring, coordination and support partnering Living Labs and their associates.

Fixing of bugs and errors reported by partners as well as guidance to help overcome errors Provide legal and administrative support for compliance with SAP IPR since the platform is SAP proprietary.

Implementation of the use cases Plant Energy Monitoring and Management as well as Tracking and Tracing of Tools and Material in a factory Environment at Future Factory Living Lab with partnering SMEs. Coordination, contribution and quality control of the deliverables to the EU.

http://www.sap.com/corporate-en/our-company/innovation/research/index.epx

SMEs •

Alfamicro-Sistemas de Computadores, LDA Portugal

(From DOW, B1.7.2.3)

Alfamicro, experienced in the applied research field, intends to support the participating Living Labs in coordinating their cross border activities applying Living Lab methodologies. They will provide guidance to design, implement and monitor the pilot activities; in particular the pilots located in Portugal will be coordinated by Alfamicro. It is also planned to implement a strong prodissemination of cross border activities results and impact and to provide policy recommendations at national and European levels.

The results will also benefit Alfamicro business activities in the Open Innovation field driven by users. http://www.alfamicro.pt

•

Ydreams Informatica S. A., Portugal

(From DOW, B1.7.2.3)

Ydreams is a specialist company in user interfaces and communication. These are fundamental issues related with the platform usability, communication between APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 220 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable partners and project dissemination. Ydream’s activities in the eManufacturing experiment will be: -

Platform usability: contributions to improve the platform user interface Communication tools: contribution to the development of communication tools to promote the platform near potential partners through the use of interactive presentations and experiences

http://www.ydreams.com

•

ISA – Intelligent Sensing Anywhere, S.A. Portugal

(From DOW, B1.7.2.3)

ISA is a company specialising in telemetry and remote asset management. Originally ISA is a partner in work package 3 responsible for implementing smart energy efficiency solutions. Since they are a manufacturer of smart meters, ISA was later asked to partner for the Plant Energy Monitoring and Management use case in work package 4. http://www.isasensing.com •

Ubigrate, Germany

(From Deliverable 4.1, 2.1)

Ubigrate is a specialist for business activity monitoring, as well as the integration of heterogeneous device landscapes in logistics and production. It develops integration software modules that serve as powerful building blocks for IT-solutions. Ubigrate is partnering in APOLLON’s Plant energy Monitoring and Management use case. http://www.ubigrate.com

•

Agilion, Germany

(From Deliverable 4.1, 2.1)

Agilion designs wireless radio technologies, communication infrastructures as well as integrating wireless interfaces to customized products. Agilion is partner in APOLLON’s tracking and tracing of tools and material in a factory environment use case. Its expertise in the implementation of wireless sensors at Future Factory Living Lab is guiding for the implementation at the other Living Labs. http://www.agilion.de/ •

Imeguisa, Portugal

(From Deliverable 4.3, 2.2)

Imeguisa is an industrial SME conceiving and producing special solutions for materials management for the automotive industry e.g. specific containers, racks and handling devices. Imeguisa has been identified as one of the customers to participate in the implementation of the Energy Monitoring Use Case, in APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 221 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable coordination with the partners. It supports all the activities of installation and use of the smart meters from ISA. http://www.imeguisa.com/ingles/home/home.asp

•

CENI - Centro de Integração e Inovação de Processos

(From Deliverable 4.3, 2.2)

CENI is a private and not for profit R&D association in the area of industrial logistics and organisational processes.

Within APOLLON project CENI has participated in the design of the asset viewing use case and the selection of parameters to measure, in coordination with the partners. Definition of technical specifications of the use case and testing of data acquired from the devices, design of dashboards is done in collaboration with Ydreams. http://www.ceni.pt

Living Labs •

Forum da Industria Automoviles de Palmela, Portugal

(From DOW, B1.7.2.4)

Fiapal Living Lab is a network for business in the Portuguese automotive engineering and manufacturing industries, as well as partners from services in the supply chain situated in Palmela area. It is used as a platform for information and best practices among its stakeholders. Its role in APOLLON is: -

The selection of SMEs that will install and use the new platform Follow up the process of implementation, development and customisation of the platform Facilitator between local SME and Future Factory Living Lab Dissemination of results within the Portuguese network

The FIAPAL Living Lab coordinates the activities in Portugal (Deliverable 4.3, 2.2): -

Evaluation of technical conditions and requirements for platform deployment at partner SMEs. To understand the platform: characteristics, limitations and potentialities.

Developing and or configuring agents for additional communication systems for applied use cases.

Maintain coordinated participation in weekly meetings with WP 4 team: FIAPAL, Ydreams, Alfamicro, CENI, Imeguisa and ISA. Keep an open and reliable flow of information between all partners locally and in Germany.

Supervise implementation of Energy Consumption Monitoring Use Case at Imeguisa. Close monitoring and support to the team to overcome any problems and difficulties.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 222 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable -

Supervise implementation of Asset Viewing and Management Use Case at CENI. Close monitoring and support to the team to overcome any problems and difficulties.

Conduct activities related to the selection of SMEs and preparations of the experiments.

http://www.fiapal.com/index.php

•

Majak Magyar Jamufejlesztesi Nonprofit KFT, Hungary (Hungarian Vehicle Engineering Cluster)

(From DOW, B1.7.2.4)

The Hungarian Vehicle Engineering is operating the Automotive Living Lab (ALL) of Gyor. Its founders / members are operating in different Hungarian regions, all over the country. All founders are SMEs. The main goal is to create the working environments, tools and workspaces for design engineering teams and automotive manufacturers.

ALL will be one of the three Living Labs participating in Work Package 4. Its composition of several SME is an ideal setting for the overall objective of facilitating cross border collaboration for SME. ALL stakeholders will assist in and be assisted in bringing products and services developed to market and fostered through the Living Labs methodology, mainly in the first phase of the product design, through a rapid prototyping and eAdvisory services. Business Industry and Services on a broader scale also have the role and interest in market trends and business practices that emerge from a close collaboration context with players in that field. It also permits the outsourcing of problems in that area to that group synergy which may be too costly or otherwise prohibitive for a large business player to tackle alone. http://www.engineering-cluster.com •

Future Factory Living Lab, SAP AG, Germany

Also participating is SAPs Future Factory Living Lab described in the large enterprises section above.

Experiment

The chosen focus theme for collaboration between the three Living Labs in the manufacturing experiment is to establish an integration and service framework.

A platform in use by one of the Living Labs will be transferred to and implemented at two other Living Labs under the aspects of three pre-set use cases as well as other possible use cases to be identified by stakeholders themselves.

To achieve this, the cross-border integration and service platform, specifically MDI (middle ware device integration) platform, was introduced. This platform has been developed and implemented beforehand at SAP’s Future Factory Living Lab and will be provided to the other Living Labs. In this aspect SAP Research in Dresden and its APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 223 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable local partners will be guiding and supporting the other Living Labs and their partnering SMEs during the experiment.

Use Cases

Three use cases for cross-border collaboration have been proposed: (Deliverable 4.1, 3.1-3.3) Use Case 1: Plant energy monitoring and management

Using smart meters the energy usage within a plant by its assets will be monitored and managed. The goal is to not only manage energy consumption but also to identify peaks and lows in order to consume energy as efficiently as possible.

Use Case 2: Collaborative Asset viewing and management

In order to get a uniform view of geographically distributed plant assets, such as devices, machines, enterprise software systems, and personnel a structured approach was taken. Health status updates will be included on a near real-time basis.

Goal: high level grouping perspective based on different categories of entities to the plant manager Use Case 3: Logistics traceability and optimisation

A localisation architecture is to be developed that will be used to track tagged entities in a de-centralised plant or warehouse. Wireless sensors will be used to map these assets within a plant.

One or more of these use cases were planned to be set up at each Living Lab site:

(1) Future Factory Living Lab at SAP Research, Dresden (SAP AG) a. Monitoring the energy consumption of a machine in a factory b. Tracking and tracing of tools and material in a factory environment (2) Fórum da Indústria Automóvel de Palmela, Portugal (FIAPAL) a. Monitoring the energy consumption of an assembly line b. Asset viewing and management in a factory (3) Hungarian Vehicle Engineering Cluster, Hungary (HVEC) a. Asset viewing and management in a factory

The implementation of the third use case “logistics traceability and optimization” has in the end not been planned at any of the Living Labs.

Both of the Use Cases to be implemented are based on applied research at SAP’s Future Factory Living Lab and have been in use there, before.

Part of the experimental setup was to identify customers. The following customers could be found: • •

Imeguisa (SME), Portugal: Energy consumption Monitoring Use Case CENI (SME, Learning factory): Asset Viewing and Management Use Case

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 224 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable

Methods & Tools Throughout the deliverables a number of methods and tools are mentioned or may be derivable. Several problems occurred where a method was needed to solve these.

We have categorized the methods as follows: -

Proposed Methods: Methods that are explicitly named and or described in the analyzed documents Identifiable Methods: Methods that are not named but may be identified from the course of action described in the document Reasonable Methods: Methods that can be derived from the document either as needed from the description of a problem or especially asked for by the partners

Methods and tools from Deliverable 4.1 Requirements â&#x20AC;˘

Proposed Methods

Deliverable 4.1 was written with a main focus on technical requirements and a brief description of the general experimental set up. Hence no methods were proposed explicitly. â&#x20AC;˘

Identifiable Methods

Methods that were not explicitly named as methods, but are identifiable from the document are: (1) Checklist

Several technical requirements are listed with each use case as well as general functional requirements. Therefore we propose the use of a checklist for software, hardware, assets and use case specific assets. This checklist will make sure that technical requirements are clearly set for all participating Living Labs while also pointing out where difficulties in adaptation may be found.

(2) Local & Cross Border Expertise Database

In the description for Use Case 2 Agilion (a wireless sensor manufacturer) is named as an SME working with Future Factory Living Lab that has obtained experience in the development of integration software components for wireless location managers and therefore will act as a supporting manufacturer for the other Living Labs on how to integrate different sensors. From this the method of a supporting expertise database is derived. Partners with expertise in the implementation or solution of certain technical aspects are identified and contact persons named. A database needs to be identified or developed.

(3) Kick Off Workshop / Tutorial

Since the integration and service framework as well as the use cases are based on existing applications at Future Factory Living Lab a workshop with participants from the other Living Labs is proposed before the use cases are set up at the APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 225 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable locations. Hence we derive the method of a tutorial or workshop to prepare participants for an application of a platform at their Living Lab that has been applied somewhere else before. This workshop would make sure all participants are at the same level of information and to support communication between the different partners on a cross-border level.

•

Reasonable methods derivable from the Requirements

(4) Scheduling & Monitoring

When describing the effort needed, specific numbers for PD are used for architecture tutoring, platform deployment, service development, development tutoring and a pilot. Also in the non-functional requirements paragraph the possibility of constraints in performance of the platform is mentioned. From these aspects we suggest scheduling & monitoring as a suitable method. The amount of time each task with its different subtasks is supposed to take should be scheduled and monitored accordingly. Risk management for the schedule should be included.

(5) Customer Identification Questionnaire/Template

Finding customers for the specific use cases had to be done using a certain method.

It is not described how this was done. We suggest a Questionnaire to identify suiting first adopter SMEs for each use case. This questionnaire may be based on the checklist of general and technical requirements derived from D4.1.

Methods & Tools from D 4.2 Experimental Setup •

Proposed Methods

As well as in the requirements deliverable (D 4.1) no methods are mentioned explicitly in deliverable 4.2. Technical aspects of the experimental setup are described.

•

Identifiable Methods

Methods that were not explicitly named as methods, but are identifiable from the document are: (1) Checklist

Technical requirements for the use cases are listed. Also use case specific hardware is described. We derive from this, that there has to be a list with all required assets, hardware and software, overall as well as case specific.

•

Reasonable Methods derivable from the Experimental Setup

(6) Visualisation

In the descriptions for the experimental setup pictures of assets, tools, as well as screenshots of the programs’ GUI and tree maps are used as visual examples. This enhances the understanding of the subject.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 226 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Methods & Tools from D 4.3 Deployment Scenarios and Use Cases In this deliverable there is one paragraph ( 3) dedicated to collaboration methodology. Applied methods are mentioned and described. In collaboration with Work Package 1 Methodology the research framework and the evaluation framework have been implemented.

The four phases of the Living Lab network lifecycle (Connect, Set Boundaries and Engage, Support and Govern, Manage and Track) have been used to identify and derive requirements and early solution prototypes. Six KPIs from the perspective of SMEs in the manufacturing sector have been identified: -

Acquisition of new customers Supplier relationship management Public visibility and marketing Sensing and identification of market demands and customer requirements Co-innovation with partners Tracking of technical improvements

•

Proposed Methods

Main activities and findings in terms of methodology are described along the four phases of the Living Lab network lifecycle.

(7) Living Lab Knowledge Center (LLKC)

The specific tools ‘lab finder’ and ‘Living Lab profiles’ within the comprehensive LLKC are designed for on-boarding of further Living Labs and systematic awareness of similar activities in other globally distributed Living Labs that offer synergies or further business opportunities. Additionally the LLKC adds other useful information in particular for SMEs. For further information: http://knowledgecentre.openlivinglabs.eu/ •

Identifiable Methods

Methods that were not explicitly named as methods, but are identifiable from the document are: (8) Communication Tools

In both the description of the specific deployment at the Living Labs in Germany and Portugal there are detailed information on what communication possibilities have been in use, namely: regular weekly conference calls, weekly coordination meetings between local stakeholders (Portugal), open and direct communication between local partners and with the other Living Labs, direct communication between developers in both countries.

In order to fulfil the need for clear and open communication on the strategic direction of the Living Labs methods need to be in use. So far a structured APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 227 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable communication plan combined with basic communication means has been adopted.

Further instruments are considered to be used in the future. These are: -

Online communities: a LinkedIn group is planned RSS-Feeds

(9) Supporting Expertise Network

In deliverable 4.1 Agilion had been named as a SME supporting other SMEs in the cross-border collaboration with its expertise in the development of integration software components for wireless location managers. In Deliverable 4.3 it is mentioned that a contact person at SAP Research in Dresden involved in the development of the platform has been appointed to support the other Living Labs in the implementation process and further communication.

(4) Scheduling and Monitoring

Solutions to issues and bugs that have been diagnosed are implemented in monthly releases of the platform. This means that there are rules on when and how often releases are executed. Other rules or scheduling is not specified. â&#x20AC;˘

Reasonable Methods derivable from Deployment Scenarios and Use Cases

Methods for following subjects are mentioned as missing and or needed.

(10)

Contractual Services / Templates

(11)

Web-based Communications Platform

Contractual agreements within the work package have been applied. It is stated that the negotiation process took lots of efforts and that there is the need for an automated system supporting subjects like limitations on IPR, public communications, logo usage etc. These problems surfaced since the identified customers for the use cases are not part of APOLLON consortium and therefore have not signed any contracts, the deployment of SAP software had to be based on a contractual agreement. A solution in form of the Software Development Licensing Agreement (SDLA) template has been found.

In order to facilitate continuous tracking and synchronization on development cycles, release strategies, addressed customers or target markets, as well as tracking of implementation and configuration a web-based communication platform is considered suitable.

Methods & Tools from Research Framework usage in WP4: eManufacturing experiment

In this chapter the application of the Research Framework as presented by WP1 in deliverable 1.2 within Work Package 4 is reviewed. According to deliverable 4.3 the Research Framework was introduced to WP4 and applied in close collaboration with WP1.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 228 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Within the Quarterly Template the application of the Research Framework is being retrieved with questions concerning each combination of research activities and outputs according to the collaboration model (Deliverable 1.2, pg. 13).

During the first two sessions of the quarterly reporting process the main focus was on the Build and Evaluate activities of the Research Framework. Answers to these stages were specific while only broad answers had been given to the questions from the activities Justify and Theorize.

Several methods are mentioned or can be derived from the answers given to the questions from the Research Framework. We follow the categorization of methods from above.

The following graph shall give an overview of methods and tools used, identifiable and derivable from the given answers according to the Research Framework. (based on initial template fill-in and 1st quarterly so far) Activities/ Outputs

Build

Constructs

Installation

â&#x20AC;˘

Justify

Theorize

Scheduling & monitoring Skills & competency observation Evaluation strategies

Model Method

Evaluate

Collaboration and Communication Tools Business Potential Validation

Review Cycle after each use case Final Interviews

Proposed Methods

(12)

Business Potential Validation

(13)

Skills & Competency observation

To validate the business potential of the implemented use case at the Portuguese facilities, interview, workshops and demonstrations are considered suitable tools (Method/Build). This Method is important to measure the success of the experiment since gained cross-border business opportunities for SME are an objective of APOLLON project. (It is not stated whether this method has been applied by Session 2, yet.)

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 229 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable The Living Labs and SME within WP 4 are dedicated to observing the skills in use, and whether new skills are required throughout the experiment as a measured element (Constructs/Evaluate). These observations can be used for the further implementation of use cases with new customers. Also the observation should lead to the information of whether further needed skills can be obtained from other experiment or APOLLON partners if the method is applied to the other work packages as well.

(14)

Review Cycle after each use case

(15)

Final Interviews

All stakeholders are involved in reviewing the process after each use case (Method/Evaluate). Therefore lessons learned and improvements may be added to each use case to be implemented in the future.

Interviews with all stakeholders are scheduled to take place at the end of the project (Method/Evaluate).

•

Identifiable Methods

(4) Scheduling & Monitoring

It is a mentioned objective of several of the project partners to monitor the fulfilment of the time plan (Constructs/Evaluate). For instance there is a set schedule on when bugs and issues are addressed and solved.

(8) Collaboration and Communication Tools

Tools in use are named that support communication and cross border collaboration (Construct, Method/Build).

•

Reasonable Methods

Utilization of the Research Framework as a tool in WP 4

The answers collected to the selected questions in context with activities and coordinating outputs from the research framework as of Session 1 and 2 are very specific but not detailed enough. The answers are mostly focused on the individual partners. Research processes, assumptions, outcomes, best practices, methods and tools are named but not described. A description of these elements would be needed to fully apprehend the experiment. Also a broader overview from the experiment’s perspective as an answer for each question would enhance the impact of the research Framework as a way to look at and understand the experiment.

The Research Framework is a tool to apprehend undertaken research. From the usage of this tool so far a broad overview of the experiment is possible. Since the answers given are mostly specific elements of the research the whole perspective of the experiment is not easily understandable from an outside view. Further understanding could be enhanced by common statements for each question.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 230 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Methods & Tools from scenario from WP4: eManufacturing experiment The Scenario focuses on an example small size company and its involvement in the Future Factory Living Lab. So far the company is bound to the German speaking market but the strategy is to expand its business cross border.

The requirements and tasks for the company during the experiment are described using the four phases of the Living Lab network lifecycle (Connect, Set Boundaries and Engage, Support and Govern, Manage and Track).

KPI’s are named in order of prioritization: -

Acquisition of new customers Supplier relationship management Public visibility and marketing Sensing and identification of market demands and customer requirements Co-innovation with partners Tracking of technical improvements

•

Proposed Methods

Several methods are mentioned or can be derived from the experiment specific Scenario. We follow the same method categorization as from above.

(8) Collaboration and Communication Tools

It is stated, that “a systematic information management (e.g. on news) that is not only built on personal relationships is highly desirable”.

Additionally a number of tools are listed: -

email, teleconferences newsletter Regular meetings community tools such as Wikis, Twitter

Also a structured communication plan should manage the communication efforts and keep track. All possible communication and collaboration tools used will drive the success of Living Lab networking.

This Method is explained for the Set Boundaries & Engage phase of the experiment but applies to all other phases as well.

• •

Identifiable Methods Reasonable Methods

(16)

Partner Networking

It is said that there is no awareness at the SME of similar activities in other globally distributed Living Labs that offer synergies or further business opportunities. This APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 231 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable fact and the customer acquisition KPI being named the most important, a method to support networking between partners, especially SME in different countries needs to be adopted.

This Method is especially important during the Connect Phase of the experiment but also needs to be applied again, as new use cases are implemented and new customers are to be reached.

(17)

Collaboration Platform

In a cross border Living Lab networking environment a tool to connect all activities as well as partners and customers is needed. Such a platform enhances business opportunities for SME by giving them access to customers and co-innovators in different markets.

SAPs platform that will be deployed in the experiment is named as a possible collaboration platform, but due restrictions on the addressable market in its development the use of an alternative platform is required.

This method is derived from the description of the Connect Phase but also applies to all other phases.

(18)

Strategy Networking

Aside from collaboration and communication tools, not only how communication works is important, but also what is being communicated. A clear strategy of the experiment needs to be communicated. Especially important from the view of an SME are the short and midterm commercialization opportunities and plans.

There should be an overall strategic planning for the experiment but also specific plans by each stakeholder, which have to be communicated to all other partners. It is also beneficial to share practices of how partners are involved in the experiment.

This method can be derived from the description of the Set Boundaries & Engage Phase.

(10)

Contractual Template

In terms of contractual agreements a NDA and a cooperation agreement have been signed. Since the development of these contracts took a lot of effort and negotiations it is stated that a more automated procedure is necessary.

This Method can be derived from the description of the Support & Govern Phase.

(11)

Communication Platform on technical deployment and usage

For the technical deployment process of the designated software continuous tracking and synchronization is required. Especially development cycles, release strategy, addressed customers or target markets need to be communicated. Also implementation and configuration by the customersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; side need to be tracked. Tools proposed to be included in this platform are: -

Alerting

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 232 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable -

Notification Status tracking

A web-based communication platform is sought after to suit these requirements.

This Method can be derived from the description of the Manage & Track Phase.

Usage of the Scenario as a tool in WP 4

The specific adaptations of the general APOLLON scenario for each Work Package have been derived in order to reflect the specific thematic approach and interoperability challenge (3.2.4).

With the example SME the specific requirements for SME in the manufacturing experiments are given. Each of the four phases of the cross border Living Lab network lifecycle (Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track) are described.

The specific obstacles in the manufacturing context as well as in the context of the vertical experiment’s focusing aspect of developing and implementing a common technology platform are considered. Also the driving forces for the participation of such an SME are specified and put in context of the experiment.

Several essential methods are described or indicated in the scenario.

Overall the scenario accomplishes to give a work package specific overview of the research undertaken. It may be used to introduce possible new customers to the use cases and also inform potential partners about the research perspective.

Methods & Tools derived from Quarterly Monitoring

The quarterly monitoring is being conducted in close collaboration between WP 4 and WP 1 and the dedicated liaison between these (Christian Merz, Petra Hochstein). The Quarterly Template developed by Work Package 1 is used to record the efforts done by work package 4 concerning experiment situations, Research Framework, methodology and collaboration between WP 4 and WP 1.

This chapter will include results from the Quarterly Template except the answers to the Questions concerning activities and outputs from the Research Framework which may be found in the paragraph above.

There are six consecutive quarterly reports. Each session is reviewed separately to keep up to the iterative process manner in which they are held.

Session 1 – Quarter IV / 2010

So far in Work Package 4 the proposed Software as developed by SAP Research has been deployed and is being tested. A user interface is in its development phase.

Customers for the use cases have been identified and implementation of the dedicated use cases has started and is ongoing.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 233 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable The Hungarian Living Lab may have to reduce its participation in the APOLLON project due to struggles during the financial crisis. Therefore efforts within WP4 will have to be redistributed.

Methods & Tools The Quarterly Template aims at accompanying the consulting and monitoring process of WP1 towards the experiments and helps documenting the collaboration & information collection of the respective liaison person. Mainly it analyses what methods and tools were used and how, which issues have been identified and how they have been resolved, both wrt the experiment itself, the collaboration and especially the cross-border aspects.

Throughout the filled out template/report a number of methods and tools are mentioned or may be derivable. Also there are several problems where a method is needed to solve these.

We follow the categorization of the methods from above. â&#x20AC;˘

Proposed Methods

(11)

Collaboration & Communication Tools

Several tools for communicating are named in the section asking for methods, tools and templates (pg. 6). There is an emphasis set on the regularity of communication.

The means these tools are needed for are as follows: -

Problem solving Regular update of all partners Keeping documents equally up to date at all locations / with all partners

The named tools for this method are: -

Regular phone conferences on a weekly basis Documentation sharing SAPconnect collaboration tool IBBT platform for document sharing, minutes etc.

Skype conferencing SAPmats for downloads Minute template

Remote desktop application sharing and instruments to share the same application (view) in combination with voice (SAPconnect) are named as most efficient (pg. 7).

In the methodology evaluation section bi-weekly conference calls are named, again (pg. 14).

Also more approaches are looked into, especially social networking, where the possibility of a closed LinkedIn group is considered.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 234 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable (9) Technical support (part of Supporting Expertise Network)

A dedicated person at Future Factory Living Lab has been named whom all partners may reach when experiencing problems or bugs. Also there is a clear schedule on when updates are being conducted.

(19)

Joint decision making

After the experiences with the setup of the first use case at FIAPAL Living Lab, the process to implement the second use case is planned. Activities that will be done are: -

Plan and set-up use case Joint decision making Joint creation and description of the scenario

This method is used to further involve all partners and deepen cross-border collaboration.

In the section on methodology evaluation, it is stated that so far each partner is doing their own business planning (pg. 14). Business planning could be another part of the joint decision making process to further cross border collaboration.

(3) Kick Off Workshop

For the kick-off of the experiment a workshop has taken place at Future Manufacturing Living Lab in Germany. Its purpose was to meet on a face to face basis and introduce the used software as well as the use cases to all partners.

The workshop is named in the description of the actual situation (2.1, pg. 6) and twice in the section concerning methodology evaluation (2.4.2, pg. 13+14).

•

Identifiable Methods

(20)

Partner Involvement Strategy

An experience report is planned to be written by the Hungarian Living Lab for Deliverable 4.5. This report should address problems, activities and decision taking concerning the drop out of the Hungarian Living Lab from the experiment.

From the report a method should be derived as to what obstacles should be considered in the beginning of a project to prevent failure.

(4) Scheduling & Monitoring

There are different issues to be considered for a scheduling & monitoring process.

First of all the experiment’s main scheduling is done before the start and constantly needs to be monitored. Throughout the quarterly report we found several issues that point towards this method:

In the section describing the situation of the experiment each partners’ assignments and roles are defined. Clearly setting tasks for each partner provides the opportunity to fulfil set targets and enforce scheduling.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 235 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Throughout section 2.1 the partnerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s dedication is mentioned several times.

Specifically the answers pointed out here are: -

Generally the tools are helpful if partners are dedicated (e.g. regular participation, active contributions) and ready for change (openness). (pg. 6, experience of how well means serve activity) Remote collaboration has certain shortcomings in terms of engagement of less committed partners. (pg. 7, experience of how well means serve activity) Partner dedication and commitment helps to bring people together at a specific time (time saving in terms of minutes etc.) (pg. 7, efficiency of how well means serve activity)

We conclude from these answers that there is a problem with what partners expect to and are expected to offer in terms of dedication to the project. A solution to this may be to make sure there are enough resources available at all project partners.

This should not only be done before the project but also repeatedly during the project to be able to react to changes and should be part of the scheduling & monitoring process. â&#x20AC;˘

Reasonable Methods

(18)

Strategy networking

(21)

Early technical feasibility check

(17)

Collaboration Support Method / Platform

it is stated that networking to determine strategies, customer requirements, etc. could be useful but has not been utilized in the eManufacturing experiment so far (2.1, pg. 7). Since several objectives including strategy and customer requirements are important issues for the success of cross border networking, a method clearly needs to be developed and adopted. We suggest starting this with a questionnaire to be answered by experiment partners to determine individual strategies and presentations thereof to the other partners.

A feasibility check is proposed to help improve later realization (pg. 7 efficiency of how well means serve activity).

When asked which kind of activity the experiment needs by way of methods, tools or templates (pg. 9) support in collaboration is being called for. Another answer to this question is exchange with other verticals on best practices and collaboration practices. Therefore a suited collaboration Support Method should include ways to: -

Support collaboration between practice partners Support collaboration between vertical experiments, possibilities should be developed.

Additionally to the different collaboration and communication tools that are listed above a collaboration platform is called for (2.4.2, pg. 16).

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 236 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable A platform to join all the efforts in place so far and connect them to new ones should be a suitable method.

(10)

Contractual Template

When asked which kind of activity the experiment needs by way of methods, tools or templates (2.1, pg. 9) it is asked for samples or templates for licensing agreements, cooperation agreements on how to jointly approach markets, customers, etc.

In the methodology evaluation section when asked for what support for the plan and engage phase is needed (pg. 17) two additional templates are named: -

CA IPR regulations SDLA - Software Development Licensing Agreement

It is said that these are needed to include SMEs as early as possible and may have to be replaced by a NDA if not yet in place.

(22)

Public Relations Plan

When asked which kind of activity the experiment needs by way of methods, tools or templates (pg. 9) it is stated that there is a need for means of awareness to “publish” and make others aware of the fact that WP4 SMEs plan to offer their services and products.

This plan should involve the planned service platform.

(5) Customer Identification

When asked which kind of activity the experiment needs by way of methods, tools or templates (pg. 9) ideas on how to find additional customers for the use cases are mentioned.

In the methodology evaluation section the minimum size of an SME to be motivated for risky research is stated as a lesson learned from involving partners from different countries (pg. 15). It is said that having more than 200 employees could be the possible minimum requirement, this number should be reassessed.

Another criterion is to select SMEs who are prepared to expand internationally (pg.

15).

A method on how to identify possible customers including results from the experiences of the work packages so far has to be derived.

(4) Scheduling & Monitoring

In the methodology evaluation section a proper risk assessment is called for during the Connect Phase (pg. 15).What this should look like and what aspects are important is not stated. This could also be part of the scheduling & Monitoring Method.

Session 2 – Quarter I / 2011

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 237 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable Both use cases that were to be implemented (energy monitoring & asset management) are up and running. The User Interface for the used software has been developed and presented to all partners.

The Hungarian Living Lab reduced their participation in the eManufacturing experiment and will write an experience report.

Three targets have been set for this quarter: -

Finalization of the use cases Continuously provide updates of the MDI (software distributed by SAP) to the partners in Portugal Give special focus on “how could cross-border collaboration look like and how to really generate new business for SMEs”

Methods and Tools

The Quarterly Template aims at analysing what methods and tools were used, may be derived or are needed within the experiments.

Throughout the filled out template / report a number of methods and tools are mentioned or may be derivable. Also there are several problems where a method is needed to solve these.

We follow the categorization of the methods from above: •

Proposed Methods

(23)

Web Cam Tour

A web cam tour of the Future Factory Living Lab in Germany has been set up. A first tour has taken place and another one is scheduled, there will be quarterly tours.

This tour aims at the project partners to get an insight of the experiment and the implementation of the use cases at Future Factory Living Lab and also make sure all partners have the same level of information.

The web cam tour is mentioned and evaluated in section 2.1, pg. 6-9.

Overall the implementation of this method has a very positive impact on the experiment. The arguments in favour of this method are: -

Helps visualize the Living Lab environment and making people understand what a Living Lab environment can offer Resource saving: at minimal cost more participants may join a tour of the Living Lab than a physical tour could facilitate Distribution beyond local boundaries increases Deemed right method for a Living Lab to reach out to their current and future target community Suited to put a special focus on acquisition of further SME partners to potentially collaborate with Future Factory Living Lab

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 238 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Also the webcam tour is ready to be rolled out to a larger community, namely ENoLL community and APOLLON partners.

(8) Collaboration & Communication Tools

Several tools for communicating are named in the section asking for methods, tools and templates (pg. 7). There is an emphasis set on the regularity of communication.

Most of these methods and tools have been used in the previous quarter as well (see Session 1). New methods and tools used in quarter I/2011: -

Remote tour with the help of webcam and SAPconnect (incl. web sharing and conference call)

(24)

Use of LinkedIn as communication tool

(25)

Service Trading Platform

LinkedIn had been suggested in the previous quarterly report as a possible communication method. Now a group has been started. Several obstacles have been met with the group: it does not provide a business context, partners do not get involved as much as needed and there is no further use to be seen than connecting.

We conclude that this is a used tool that did not proof suitable for the experiment during this stage. We do recommend to try this method during the connect phase of an experiment.

There is the need to support SMEs in their efforts to offer and trade their services cross border, a service trading platform can be the solution for this.

Important issues are that the service offer needs to be described, can be traded, and thus be found by potential customers and should provide for the collection of the demand of such services. (2.2, pg. 11-12). A platform to suit the experiment should have easy access for project partners as well as future customers. Supply and demand by these groups should be identified and presented to each other in order to connect and find business opportunities.

A service platform developed by SAP has been mentioned to be tested for its potential towards enabling business for cross border networks of Living Labs within WP 4.

This platform has been suggested to WP 4 by the WP 1 liaison person as a method.

(26)

Onsite Review

The large enterprise in this experiment (SAP) which had developed the use cases in its Living Lab environment will be reviewing the set-up of the use cases in Portugal (2.2, pg. 10-11). This was proposed because a webcam tour is not available in Portugal.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 239 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

Identifiable Methods Reasonable Methods

(27)

Experience Report Template

The HVEC Living Lab partners will be writing an experience report on what obstacles forced them to withdraw from the experiment (2.1, pg. 5). The results from this combined with a report from a partner that complete the experiment with or without struggles will be a great instrument for learning how to avoid withdrawal of a partner.

Therefore a template should be developed, to make sure all partners submit the same level of information.

(8) Collaboration Support Method/Tool

In section 2.1 when asked for cross-border activities (pg. 6) the search for a functioning collaboration platform (or collaboration means) is named as a new agenda item. That there is a need for such a platform/method has been stated in the previous Quarterly Report as well.

There has been a test with a closed LinkedIn group, which did not turn out to suit the needs of the experiment partners (see Proposed Methods).

(2) Local & Cross Border Expertise Database

The eManufacturing experiment has defined the target for Living Labs for the following quarter to find out how a Living Lab can provide local knowledge/expertise that enables business for foreign SMEs (2.2, pg. 10). Examples for this are: -

Policy Legal issues Electrical standards Certificates

So to define what such a method should achieve, it is important to look at the conditions of business opportunities and especially their differences in different countries, to collect the needed knowledge and present it in an easily accessible way.

The WP 1 liaison person is involved in trying to find an existing database for this.

(5) Customer Identification

The WP 1 liaison person has suggested to the WP 4 partners to check for additional customers within the WP 3 experiment and has proposed to moderate this process (para. 2.2, pg. 12).

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 240 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Session 3 – Quarter II / 2011 The two use cases have been implemented at FIAPAL Living Lab and are running.

After the Hungarian Living Lab withdrew from the project its tasks were transferred to the two remaining Living Labs.

For the implementation of the second use case the German Living Lab acted in a supporting role while the Portuguese Living Lab tried to implement the use case on its own as much as possible.

An onsite visit is planned to take place in Palmela/Portugal to see the use cases functioning and to verify, if additional support/training and enhancements of the platform and the use cases would be required. A part of that will be an initial presentation of a trading platform developed by SAP Research which is supposed to support future collaboration and was proposed to be adopted by the WP1 liaison.

Methods and Tools

The Quarterly Template aims at analysing what methods and tools were used, may be derived or are needed within the experiments.

Throughout the filled out template/report a number of methods and tools are mentioned or may be derivable. Also there are several problems where a method is needed to solve these.

•

Proposed Methods

(8) Communication Tools

As well as in the previous quarters, numerous communication tools were in use. It is stated that no new communication tools have been introduced.

Specifically emails and phone calls are mentioned once again, that were used for the solution of technical problems.

(24) Use of LinkedIn as a communication tool

It is described that LinkedIn was adopted as a method for communication and collaboration. After the project partners experienced that the lack of use did not make this method helpful for their purposes, they decided to discontinue using it.

The reasons this method was not of use have been stated in previous quarterly reports. In collaboration with the WP1 liaison contact it is decided that LinkedIn may be of more use during the Connect Phase of the experiment, which had passed by the time it was introduced.

(23) Webcam Tour

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 241 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable The Webcam Tour that had been introduced and conducted in an earlier stage of the project has been in use again to attract companies abroad. The reason to reapply this method was that it had proven to be useful in terms of information and motivation of the partners in the initial running.

(27) Experience Report Template / Feedback Collection

When the use cases had been implemented feedback was collected from Living Labs and SMEs that were involved.

Specifically the feedback by the users was used to adjust the deployed software, mainly improving its user interface.

•

Identifiable Methods

(28)

User Feedback

By the time the use cases had been implemented customer feedback was gathered within WP4 to improve the products and technologies in use as well as establish an improvement plan.

It is stated that feedback was collected by the different stakeholders (Living Lab, user/consumer, technology provider) via regular phone calls by the different stakeholders.

As a result of the user feedback technology providers implemented minor changes to their software. Also based on the feedback improvement plans have been established.

•

Reasonable Methods

Session 4 – Quarter III / 2011

The pilots are up and running in Portugal. Together with the work package 1 liaison contact options on how to use the platform software for collaboration from another SAP Research project are considered. Project evaluation is being done.

An onsite visit in Portugal has taken place.

•

Proposed Methods

(6) Visualisation

The scenario from the first use case is visualised for the documentation. The goal is to use this documentation for gaining new customers.

(26) Onsite Review

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 242 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable The Onsite review as planned previously has taken place at FIAPAL Living Lab and its environment in Portugal, to see the potential and limitations and to acknowledge how well the transfer has been realized and to get feedback from the end users.

(23) Webcam Tour

Further Webcam Tours have taken place at Future Factory Living Lab in Dresden.

Method summary

The Quarterly Reports of the eManufacturing experiment have exposed several methods and tools that are in use or should be derived. In this summary we take a look at their evolvement throughout the project and the possibility of applying those methods on the other experiments within APOLLON. Method

Origin

Evolvement

Recommendations

(8) Communication Tools â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Several tools to support collaboration and communication in WP 4 are in use, these are: weekly conference calls; documentation sharing; SAPconnect collaboration tool; IBBT platform for document sharing, minutes etc.; Skype conferencing; SAPmats for downloads; minute template; weekly coordination meetings between local stakeholders.

The method has been in use including a variety of different tools from the beginning of the experiment.

Starting with an initial list of tools, new ones have been proposed and applied. The benefit of several of the tools has been evaluated and priorities have been set. The importance of the use of collaboration and communication tools has been emphasized as a factor of successful Living Lab networking. After the initial set of tools had been extended, this set of tools remained for the duration of APOLLON collaboration.

A comparison of the tools used in WP 4 with the tools used in the other experiments is deemed useful.

Tools used in one of the experiments can be valuable in the other experiments as well.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 243 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Origin

(9) Technical Support â&#x20AC;&#x201C; A technical support for the implemented software is in place.

Support contact persons and availability have been appointed.

Updates and bug fixes are scheduled regularly.

For the deployment and implementation of the required software that is facilitated by one of the project partners this method has been in use from the beginning of the experiment.

(19) Joint Decision Making - By making joint decisions on use cases and scenario as well as implementation of methods and tools the cross border networking is emphasized in the experiment.

(3) Kick Off

Finally this tool is considered to be part of the Supporting Expertise Network.

Evolvement It is emphasized that this method is an important factor of the cross border collaboration.

Recommendations

This method has proven to be successful throughout the experiment. When the original contact person left the project team, a new contact was appointed. This method is timesaving for all involved partners and has been applied continuously.

This method is important for continuous support throughout the project. If not installed so far, it should be applied for all project partners that supply technical applications and utilities.

This method has been proposed during session 1 for the collaboration between Future Factory Living Lab and FIAPAL Living Lab for the implementation of a second use case.

This method was introduced after the experiment had been working together and had to reapply their knowledge towards a second use case.

The method is used to deepen cross border networking.

The Kick Off

The Kick Off

Since this method supports cross border networking we recommend to implement it in the other experiments as well. It has to be checked whether the introduction of this method is more suitable in the beginning of the experiment or after the first cycle of research.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 244 Living Lab networks

The specialty in WP submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Origin

Evolvement

Recommendations

Workshop â&#x20AC;&#x201C; This method is used in the beginning of the experiment for partners to get to know each other, to demonstrate the software that will run the use cases and for running an initial training session. A tour through the Living Lab where the use cases have been developed is also part of this workshop.

Workshop was proposed by the Future Factory Living Lab to get all the partners together, introduce them to the software technology and the use cases to be implemented.

Workshop was planned by the first session and carried out in the first quarter of 2011.

The partners agreed that this method was able to deepen communication and prepare all partners with the same level of information.

From the proposed report a template to be used by the other partners can be derived.

(20) Partner Involvement Strategies - A method has to be derived as to what obstacles should be considered in the beginning of a project to involve partners and prevent failure.

The experience report was introduced in the reports for session 1 and 2 as to be written by the Hungarian Living Lab about its experiences that led to withdrawing from the experiment.

4 is that the use cases had been developed beforehand at one of the Living Labs and therefore a workshop at this location is very suitable. With the content of such a workshop, adapted to the preconditions in another experiment, it is a very suitable tool to adapt.

The experience report of a Living Lab that had to drop out of the experiment is to be used to derive this method identifiable from the session 1 and 2 reports.

(27) Experience Report Template This template is used to evaluate the experiences made by experiment partners and generate best practices as well as lessons learned.

In the first quarterly report it is suggested to develop a risk assessment template which can be used to describe the expected engagement level.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 245 Living Lab networks

This template should be in use for the evaluation of the experiment by all work packages.

If results from the report can be used to derive a method, this would support all experiments as well as Living Lab cross border networking overall.

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Origin

Evolvement

Recommendations

(4) Scheduling & Monitoring Besides the overall experiment scheduling there are several different elements of the research that need to be scheduled and monitored.

The first report indicates that some of these elements have been identified.

Elements of this method are indicated in the session 1 and 2 reports. Risk assessment, which is called for in the session 1 report, has to be developed and become part of this method.

(18) Strategy Networking Strategy Networking is a method in which networking is used to determine common strategies, customer requirements, etc.

In the session 1 report it is stated that such a method could be useful but has not been utilized. It is not stated how to develop this method.

An approach we suggest towards implementing this method is to develop a strategies questionnaire to be answered by the partners at first.

For the implementation within the other experiments it is necessary to revise the elements of this method and add further ones.

Presumably elements of this method are in use in the other work packages as well and lessons can be learned from each other.

This is based on the experience made in WP 4.

(21) Early Technical Feasibility Check â&#x20AC;&#x201C; With the help of a checklist the technical feasibility of the experiment with its use cases can be evaluated in the beginning of the project. This check

An Early Technical Feasibility Check is proposed. A Checklist is the most suitable way to adapt this.

This method is proposed in the session 1 report as a check to help improve later realization. It had not been done in the beginning of the experiment.

Therefore this is a method derivable

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 246 Living Lab networks

Before a detailed method has been developed it cannot be stated whether it is suitable to be deployed to other experiments.

This is a method from lessons learned and should be considered for future Living Lab collaboration.

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method points out risks and chances for the technical implementation.

The checklist includes hardware entities, software requirements as well as human resources.

Origin

Evolvement

Recommendations

from the lessons learned to be used by later experiments or for the implementation of further use cases.

(17) Collaboration Support Method / Platform - A platform which supports collaboration between partners and between vertical experiments.

In the answers of the session 1 reports collaboration support was asked for.

(10) Contractual Template - The Contractual Template is a tool to ease possible further contractual agreements.

During the onboarding of customers for the implementation of the use cases it became evident, that since they were not APOLLON consortium partners, a contractual agreement had to be signed.

(22) Public Relations Plan This method supports experiments in

Possibilities to publish activities within work package 4 and to reach awareness of

The use of the mybbt platform was introduced to the APOLLON project partners early on. It is used for document sharing, as a wiki and for partner information.

After developing a contractual agreement for the identified customers of the experiment the experiment partners asked for a more automated process. A software development licensing agreement has been developed and applied.

The mybbt platform has been introduced to all of the APOLLON work packages.

The developed SDLA can be applied to the other experiments as well. In the context of future Living Lab networking it should be evaluated if a detailed template is needed and should be derived from this experience.

A plan on how to achieve this also involving the service trading platform has to be

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 247 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Origin

Evolvement

their public relations work by listing and scheduling PR activities.

the offered services and products are asked for in the first session report.

derived.

In the session 1 report it was stated that the experiment needed ideas on how to find additional customers for the use cases.

From experiences made certain criteria have been set by the partners.

The WP 1 liaison suggested looking for customers in the WP 3 experiment.

(23) Web Cam Tour - A web cam tour of the experimental setup at a Living Lab is used as a way for project partners to understand the Living Labs approach toward the use cases and give an insight into the Living Lab. It is accompanied by a Q&A discussion.

The planning of this method was started in the beginning of the project by the Living Lab that had previously implemented the use cases and has been applied regularly.

It has proven to be a great way to share insight with many people simultaneously which otherwise might not have joined an onsite tour. It has also proven to be a motivational factor in the beginning of the experiment.

LinkedIn was introduced as a collaboration tool where project partners are collaborating in a closed group within a network during the run of the

Including LinkedIn as one of the communication and collaboration tools has been contemplated during the first report session. A group was set up

(5) Customer Identification - This method includes criteria on how to as well as ways to identify customers for the use cases.

(15) Use of LinkedIn as a communication tool â&#x20AC;&#x201C; LinkedIN is an online tool for social networking in a business environment.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 248 Living Lab networks

Recommendations

Customer Identification formed throughout the experiment and best practices should be compared to those from other work packages to improve the method.

Where possible the implementation of such a web cam tour should be of equal value as proven in WP 4.

Within a variety of communication and collaboration tools LinkedIn might be of value for other experiments. From this experience it should be derived to check tools for submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Origin

http://www.linkedi experiment since n.com better networking means were wanted.

(25) Service Platform - A Service Platform is used by partners to offer their services and find future customers. The goal is to connect suppliers with customers and give easy access to both groups to research information on the other.

A service trading platform was one of the reasonable methods mentioned in session 2.

(2) Local & Cross

In the second

(26) Onsite Review - After the implementation of a use case this is reviewed by another participating Living Lab onsite.

In the report for session 2 it is stated that Future Factory Living Lab plans to undergo an onsite review of the implementation of the use case at FIAPAL Living Lab. This method is essential in deciding best practices in the experiment.

Evolvement

Recommendations

but soon the usability and partners realized consider that the tool did not alternatives. offer much more than networking and that partners did not get involved very much. The tool did not prove to be as useful as the partners thought.

This method was asked for in the session 2 report. By then the possibility of using a service trading platform developed by SAP had been suggested by the WP 1 liaison person. The use of the platform is implemented.

If the use of this platform proves to further cross border business opportunities for SME it should be deployed to the other vertical experiments as well as introduced to the EnoLL environment.

If possible such a review should be considered by all participating Living Lab because best practices can be determined with this. Alternatively the web cam tour can be used.

Examples for what

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 249 Living Lab networks

Such a database is submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Method

Origin

Evolvement

Recommendations

Border Expertise Database - This database aims at supporting SME to adapt expertise from project partners from other countries to use for their own business opportunities abroad. The included knowledge in this database as required from the demand is: policy regulations, legal issues, electrical standards and certificates.

session it is stated that an expertise database is needed.

kind of knowledge is needed are set.

The WP 1 liaison is involved in finding an existing database.

an important factor in reaching the task of enabling SME to further their business cross border. Therefore it should be deployed to all experiments.

This will be of benefit for SME already using this database as well as new ones because new expertise will be induced.

Conclusion

From the deliverables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, the reports from the quarterly template including the research framework and the specific scenario we have found numerous methods that are in use or should be.

Concluding our findings the methods are presented in the context of the four Phases of the cross border Living Lab networking lifecycle. This presentation is based on the overview table of the methods from the Quarterly Reports. The categorization of the methods has been done using the original design of the phases and the general scenario.

Validated WP 4 Methods

(1) Collaboration & Communication Tools

There are several tools listed for this method. Since some tools require a more detailed view (e.g. LinkedIn), these tools are viewed as individual methods.

Method

Several tools to support collaboration and communication in WP 4 are in use, these are: -

weekly conference calls documentation sharing

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 250 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable -

SAPconnect collaboration tool IBBT platform for document sharing, minutes etc.

Skype conferencing SAPmats for downloads minute template weekly coordination meetings between local stakeholders LinkedIn (see detailed method)

Phase

Connect, Set Boundaries & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

Evolvement

Starting with an initial list of tools, new ones have been proposed and applied. The benefit of several of the tools has been evaluated and priorities have been set. The importance of the use of collaboration and communication tools has been emphasized as a factor of successful Living Lab networking.

Origin

The method has been in use including a variety of different tools from the beginning of the experiment.

Recommendations A comparison of the tools used in WP 4 with the tools used in the other experiments is deemed useful. Tools used in one of the experiments can be valuable in the other experiments as well.

Validation

These tools support managing a Living Lab network during all phases of the networking lifecycle.

(2) Technical Support

Method Phase

Origin Evolvement

A technical support for the implemented software is in place.

Support contact persons and availability have been appointed.

Updates and bug fixes are scheduled regularly.

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

For the deployment and implementation of the required software that is facilitated by one of the project partners this method has been in use from the beginning of the experiment.

This method has proven to be successful throughout the experiment. When the original contact person left the project

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 251 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable team, a new contact was appointed. This method is time-saving for all involved partners.

Recommendations This method is important for continuous support throughout the project. If not installed so far, it should be applied for all project partners that supply technical applications and utilities.

Validation

This method can be categorized in the means to support the innovation process of an SME side of the cube.

(3) Joint Decision Making

Method Phase

Origin Evolvement

By making joint decisions on use cases and scenario as well as implementation of methods and tools the cross border networking is emphasized in the experiment.

Connect, Plan & Engage

This method has been proposed during session 1 for the collaboration between Future Factory Living Lab and FIAPAL Living Lab for the implementation of a second use case.

This method was introduced after the experiment had been working together and had to reapply their knowledge towards a second use case. The method is used to deepen cross border networking.

Recommendations Since this method supports cross border networking we recommend implementation in the other experiments as well. It has to be checked whether the introduction of this method is more suitable in the beginning of the experiment or after the first cycle of research.

Validation

Considering the APOLLON focus, this method supports the different phases of a Living Lab establishment and managing a Living Lab network.

(4) Kick Off Workshop

Method

This method is used in the beginning of the experiment for partners to get to know each other, to demonstrate the

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 252 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable

Phase

Origin Evolvement

software that will run the use cases and for running an initial training session. A tour through the Living Lab where the use cases have been developed is also part of this workshop.

Plan & Engage

The Kick Off Workshop was proposed by the Future Factory Living Lab to get all the partners together, introduce them to the software technology and the use cases to be implemented.

The Kick Off Workshop was planned by the first session and carried out in the first quarter of 2011. The partners agreed that this method was able to deepen communication and prepare all partners with the same level of information.

Recommendations The specialty in WP 4 is that the use cases had been developed beforehand at one of the Living Labs and therefore a workshop at this location is very suitable. With the content of such a workshop, adapted to the preconditions in another experiment, it is a very suitable tool to adapt.

Validation

The workshop was considered a success. The targets set for this method were reached. When considering the means of managing a Living Lab network this method is suitable for the Plan & Engage phase since it supports project team commitment and supports collaboration as well as definition of technical issues.

(5) Experience Report Template

Method Phase

Origin Evolvement

This template is used to evaluate the experiences made by experiment partners and generate best practices as well as lessons learned.

Manage & Track

The experience report was introduced in the reports for session 1 and 2 as to be written by the Hungarian Living Lab about its experiences that led to withdrawing from the experiment.

From the proposed report a template to be used by the other partners can be derived.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 253 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Recommendations This template should be in use for the evaluation of the experiment by all work packages.

Validation

This Template supports the Manage & Track phase of a Living Lab establishment.

(6) Partner Involvement Strategies

Method Phase

Origin Evolvement

A method has to be derived as to what obstacles should be considered in the beginning of a project to involve partners and prevent failure. This is based on the experience made in WP 4.

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

The experience report of a Living Lab that had to drop out of the experiment is to be used to derive this method identifiable from the session 1 and 2 reports.

In the first quarterly report it is suggested to develop a risk assessment template which can be used to describe the expected level of engagement.

Recommendations If results from the report can be used to derive a method, this would support all experiments as well as Living Lab cross border networking overall.

Validation

(7) Scheduling & Monitoring

Method Phase

Origin

Evolvement

Besides the overall experiment scheduling there are several different elements of the research that need to be scheduled and monitored.

The first report indicates that some of these elements have been identified.

Elements of this method are indicated in the session 1 and 2 reports. Risk assessment, which is called for in the session 1

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 254 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable report, has to be developed and become part of this method.

Recommendations For the implementation within the other experiments it is necessary to revise the elements of this method and add further ones. Presumably elements of this method are in use in the other work packages as well and lessons can be learned from each other.

Validation

(8) Strategy Networking

Method

Strategy Networking is a method in which networking is used to determine common strategies, customer requirements, etc.

Origin

In the session 1 report it is stated that such a method could be useful but has not been utilized. It is not stated how to develop this method.

Phase

Evolvement

An approach we suggest towards implementing this method is to develop a strategies questionnaire to be answered by the partners at first.

Recommendations Before a detailed method has been developed it cannot be stated whether it is suitable to be deployed to other experiments.

Validation

(9) Early Technical Feasibility Check

Method

Phase

With the help of a checklist the technical feasibility of the experiment with its use cases can be evaluated in the beginning of the project. This check points out risks and chances for the technical implementation. The checklist includes hardware entities, software requirements as well as human resources.

Connect, Plan & Engage

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 255 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable Origin

Evolvement

An Early Technical Feasibility Check is proposed. A Checklist is the most suitable way to adapt this.

This method is proposed in the session 1 report as a check to help improve later realization. It had not been done in the beginning of the experiment. Therefore this is a method derivable from the lessons learned to be used by later experiments or for the implementation of further use cases.

Recommendations This is a method from lessons learned and should be considered for future Living Lab collaboration.

Validation (10)

This method supports managing and establishing a Living Lab network in terms of the APOLLON focus cube.

Collaboration Support Method / Platform

This method is able to cope with the issues addressed in the ‘Partner Networking’ method that was derived from the specific WP4 Scenario and is therefore included.

Method

A platform which supports collaboration between partners and between vertical experiments.

Origin

In the answers of the session 1quarterly report collaboration support was asked for. A collaboration platform between Living Lab and partners is also mentioned in the scenario as a method that is needed.

Phase

Evolvement

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

The use of the mybbt platform was introduced to the APOLLON project partners early on. It is used for document sharing, as a wiki and for partner information, although it is not suitable for the interaction with future customers.

Recommendations The mybbt platform has been introduced to all of the APOLLON work packages.

Validation

This method supports managing a Living Lab network as well as its establishment during all phases of the Living Lab networking lifecycle.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 256 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable (11)

Method

Contractual Template

The Contractual Template is a tool to ease possible further contractual agreements.

Phase

Plan & Engage

Origin

During the on-boarding of customers for the implementation of the use cases it became evident, that since they were not APOLLON consortium partners, a contractual agreement had to be signed.

Evolvement

After developing a contractual agreement for the identified customers of the experiment the experiment partners asked for a more automated process. A software development licensing agreement has been developed and applied.

Recommendations The developed SDLA can be applied to the other experiments as well. In the context of future Living Lab networking it should be evaluated if a detailed template is needed and should be derived from this experience.

Validation (12)

Method

This template supports the Plan & Engage phase of a Living Lab establishment.

Public Relations Plan

Phase

Origin Evolvement

Recommendations

This method supports experiments in their public relations work by listing and scheduling PR activities.

Support & Govern

Possibilities to publish activities within work package 4 and to reach awareness of the offered services and products are asked for in the first session report.

A plan on how to achieve this also involving the service trading platform has to be derived.

Validation

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 257 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable (13)

Method Phase

Origin

Evolvement

Customer Identification

This method includes criteria on how to as well as ways to identify customers for the use cases.

Plan & Engage

In the session 1 report it was stated that the experiment needed ideas on how to find additional customers for the use cases.

From experiences made certain criteria have been set by the partners. The WP 1 liaison suggested looking for customers in the WP 3 experiment.

Recommendations Customer Identification formed throughout the experiment and best practices should be compared to those from other work packages to improve the method.

Validation

(14)

Method

Phase

Origin Evolvement

This method is valuable to support the innovation process of an SME and support the plan & engage phase of a Living Lab establishment.

Web Cam Tour

A web cam tour of the experimental setup at a Living Lab is used as a way for project partners to understand the Living Labs approach toward the use cases and give an insight into the Living Lab. It is accompanied by a Q&A discussion.

This method is also suitable to review the experiment.

Plan & Engage, Manage & Track

The planning of this method was started in the beginning of the project by the Living Lab that had previously implemented the use cases and has been applied regularly.

It has proven to be a great way to share insight with many people simultaneously which otherwise might not have joined an onsite tour. It has also proven to be a motivational factor in the beginning of the experiment.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 258 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Recommendations Where possible the implementation of such a web cam tour should be of equal value as proven in WP 4.

Validation

(15)

Method Phase

Origin Evolvement

This method supports the Plan & Engage as well as Manage & Track phases of the experiment by means of Living Lab establishment and the innovation process.

Use of LinkedIn as a communication tool

LinkedIn is an online tool for social networking in a business environment. http://www.linkedin.com

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

LinkedIn was introduced as a collaboration tool where project partners are collaborating in a closed group within a network during the run of the experiment since better networking means were wanted.

Including LinkedIn as one of the communication and collaboration tools has been contemplated during the first report session. A group was set up but soon the partners realized that the tool did not offer much more than networking and thus partners did not get involved very much. The tool did not prove to be as useful as the partners thought.

Recommendations Within a variety of communication and collaboration tools LinkedIn might be of value for other experiments. From this experience it should be derived to check tools for usability and consider alternatives.

Validation (16)

Method

This tool was supposed to support the Connect phase of managing a Living Lab network.

Service Platform (also named collaboration platform in Scenario)

A Service Platform is used by partners to offer their services and find future customers. The goal is to connect suppliers with customers and give easy access to both groups to research

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 259 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

Phase

Origin Evolvement

information on the other.

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern A service trading platform was one of the reasonable methods mentioned in session 2 as well as in the Scenario.

In the Scenario SAPs platform that is deployed in the experiment is named as a possible collaboration platform, but due restrictions on the addressable market in its development the use of an alternative platform is required.

This method was asked for again in the session 2 report. By then the possibility of using a service trading platform developed by SAP in the context of another research project had been suggested by the WP 1 liaison person. The use of the platform is implemented.

Recommendations If the use of this platform proves to further cross border business opportunities for SME it should be deployed to the other vertical experiments as well as introduced to the EnoLL environment.

Validation

(17)

The support of SME in cross border activities is given with this method by helping them connect do future customers and partners . This method therefore supports the innovation process of an SME as well as supporting the Connect, Plan & Engage and Support & Govern phases of the experiment in managing the Living Lab network as well as expanding (establishing) it.

Experiment Review

The Methods ‘Onsite Review’ (26) from the Quarterly Report Session 2 and ‘Review Cycle after each Use Case’ (14) from the Research Framework should be combined as one method since the onsite review is just an adaptation of a regular review.

Method

After the implementation of a use case this is reviewed by another participating Living Lab. The focus of the project as well as the vertical experiment is considered and the outcomes evaluated.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 260 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Phase

Origin

Manage & Track

In the report for session 2 it is stated that Future Factory Living Lab plans to undergo an onsite review of the implementation of the use case at FIAPAL Living Lab. The review cycle is named as an evaluation activity in the context of the Research Framework during session 2.

Evolvement

This method is essential in deciding best practices in the experiment.

This method helps decide best practices and to implement these within further use cases.

Recommendations If possible such a review should be considered by all participating Living Lab because best practices can be determined with this. Alternatively the web cam tour can be used.

Validation

(18)

Method

Phase

Origin

Evolvement

This method is important for the evaluation of the experiments accomplishment and results during the Manage & Track phase.

It supports the innovation process.

Local & Cross Border Expertise Database

This database aims at supporting SME to adapt expertise from project partners from other countries to use for their own business opportunities abroad. The included knowledge in this database as required from the demand is: policy regulations, legal issues, electrical standards and certificates.

Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

In the second quarterly session it is stated that an expertise database is needed. Also in deliverable 4.1 a partner is named that is the supplier of a technical asset needed for the implementation of one of the use cases. Its expertise in the past implementation is used by partners at the Living Lab that is adapting this use case now.

Examples for what kind of knowledge is needed are set. The WP 1 liaison is involved in finding an existing database.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 261 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable Recommendations Such a database is an important factor in reaching the task of enabling SME to further their business cross border. Therefore it should be deployed to all experiments. This will be of benefit for SME already using this database as well as new ones because new expertise will be induced.

Validation

(19)

Method

This method supports managing a Living Lab network as well as the innovation process during the Plan & Engage and Support & Govern phases of the experiment.

Checklist

A checklist for software, hardware assets and use case specific assets is in place to make sure that technical requirements are clearly set for all participating Living Labs.

Phase

Connect Phase

Origin

Evolvement

The checklist could be derived from the requirements description in deliverable 4.1. Especially the hardware and software requirements are listed within the deliverable. The requirements list had been developed by the work package before setting up the use cases and finding customers.

Recommendations Validation

This checklist was derived from the requirements and can be used for the implementation of further use cases.

As one of several methods the checklist has been used to identify whether the implementation of another use case can be accomplished at a Living Lab and to identify customers.

It is a suitable method as means to support the connect phase of managing a Living Lab network.

(20)

Method

Visualisation

Visualisation is a method that supports understanding of complex context. There is a variety of different graphs, maps, video and pictures that can be used. In the WP 4 context these

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 262 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable are screenshots, (tree) maps and scenario graphs.

Phase

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

Origin

The deliverables 4.1 and 4.2 describing the requirements and the setup of the experiment include detailed graphics which are screenshots of software GUI and use case scenario.

Evolvement

Recommendations Validation

(21)

Method

This method is utilised to support comprehension and is valuable for all measures the cube for the visualization of the APOLLON focus offers.

Living Lab Knowledge Center LLKC

Phase

Origin Evolvement

The method has been in use early on for the development of the specific scenario, the initial description of the use cases, the kick off workshop as well as the webcam tour. As the experiment advances the use of this method changes towards more detailed views.

The specific tools ‘lab finder’ and ‘Living Lab profiles’ within the comprehensive LLKC are designed for on-boarding of further Living Labs and systematic awareness of similar activities in other globally distributed Living Labs that offer synergies or further business opportunities. Additionally the LLKC adds other useful information in particular for SMEs. Connect

So far there had not been any advanced mechanisms in place to get further Living Labs or partners on board. To enhance awareness of similar activities in other Living Labs the ‘lab finder’ and ‘Living Lab profiles’ were introduced to WP4.

Recommendations Validation

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 263 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable (22)

Web-based Communications Platform

Method

A web-based platform that serves the purpose of continuous tracking, and synchronisation on development cycles, release strategy, addressed customers or target market. Also the tracking of implementation and configuration of software is possible. It administers alerts and notification for the users.

Phase

Plan & Engage, Support & Govern

Origin

In deliverable 4.3 it is stated that a communications platform on technical deployment and usage is needed.

Evolvement

Recommendations Validation (23)

Method

This method supports the innovation process during the Plan & Engage and Support & Govern phases.

Business Potential Validation

To validate the business potential of the implemented use cases several tools are used. These tools are: -

Interviews Workshops Demonstrations to Living Lab partners

Phase

Manage & Track

Evolvement

Although this method has been mentioned earlier it has not been in use by Session 2.

Origin

Recommendations Validation

In the answers to the research framework questions it is stated that from a SMEs point of view the business potential can be validated by obtaining interviews, workshops and demonstrations to other SME.

This method supports the Manage & Track phase.

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 264 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable (24)

Method

Skills & Competency Observation

The required skills for the experiment are monitored. If new skills are required, it is checked whether these can be obtained from a partner of one of the other vertical experiments or need to be obtained from outside the project.

Phase

Connect, Plan & Engage, Support & Govern, Manage & Track

Origin

This method was named as an evaluation activity in the research framework.

Evolvement

Recommendations Validation (25)

Method

The method supports the innovation process during all phases of the networking lifecycle.

Final Interviews

Phase

Origin

Evolvement

The method has been in sue from the beginning

Final interviews with all stakeholders are scheduled to take place at the end of the project.

Manage & Track

This method was named in the Research Framework section of the second session.

Recommendations Validation

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 265 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Deliverable 6.5.4 WP5: eParticipation

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 266 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

7. Table of Figures Figure 2-1: Methodology Framework (D1.4 Chapter 3). ....................................................... 14 Figure 2-2: Four use cases (also called experiments) within APOLLON ................................ 15 Figure 2-3: Overview of sample methods & tools within the initial APOLLON methodology framework’s four phases (D1.2) .......................................................................... 16 Figure 2-4: Three-dimensional cube for positioning of APOLLON .......................................... 19

Figure 2-5: Steps within the thematic experiments .................................................................... 20 Figure 2-6: Interaction between the APOLLON deliverables.................................................... 21

Figure 2-7: interaction between liaisons & experiments (WPx).............................................. 23 Figure 3-1: Generic scenario with main steps within collaboration network phases ......................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 3-2: initial eManufacturing Scenario during the 1st phase ..................................... 42 Figure 3-3: adapted eManufacturing Scenario during the 2nd phase.............................. 42 Figure 5-1: Innovation Lifecycle .................................................................................................... 115 Figure 5-2: Socio-economic challenges in the pilots............................................................. 118 Figure 5-3: Validated methods and tools ................................................................................... 119 Figure 5-4: Visualization of APOLLON Methodology framework ................................... 120

8. List of Tables Table 3-1: Design science framework (March and Smith, 1995) ....................................... 25 Table 3-2: Thematic experiments’ focus and content communicated in categories of ‘activities’ and ‘outputs’ ........................................................................................................................ 26

Table 3-3: Methodology needs expressed in Pilot documents (Examples) ................... 29 Table 3-4 Applying the Research Framework in the Homecare Pilot .............................. 32 Table 3-5: Methods and Tools in the Homecare pilot ............................................................. 32

Table 3-6: Applying the Research Framework in the Energy Efficiency pilot .............. 33 Table 3-7: Applying the Research Framework in the Energy Efficiency pilot .............. 34 Table 3-8: Methods and Tools in the eManufacturing pilot.................................................. 35 Table 3-9: Application of the Research Framework within the eParticipation pilot. 36

Table 6-1: Overview of uploaded quarterly monitoring reports .................................... 168

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 267 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012

APOLLON – Deliverable

9. References Fowler, C. (2007): Scenario-based design. Chimera: Institute of Social and Technical Change. University of Essex. Consulted through www.chimera.uk.com Gafney, G. (2000): Scenarios. In: Usability Techniques series, Information and design. Accessed through http://www.infodesign.com.au Glenn, Jerome C. (2008). Brief Overview of some Future Research Methods @ "Challenging uncertainties: the future of the Netherlands' armed forces"; The Hague, , The Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael”; http://www.clingendael.nl/cscp/events/20081216/ March, S. T. and G. F. Smith (1995): "Design and natural science research on information technology".

APOLLON Methodology Framework for xBorder 268 Living Lab networks

submitted, 03/05/2012