Apollon - eParticipation and eMedia - Recommendations and Strategy for a Cross Border Network of Liv

DELIVERABLE Project Acronym:

APOLLON

Grant Agreement number:

250516

Project Title:

Advanced Pilots of Living Labs Operating in Networks

D.5.6 : Recommendations for a cross border network of Living labs / Strategy for setting up cross-border pilots in eParticipation domain

Revision: Final

Authors: Alan Holding (MDDA) Dave Carter (MDDA) Claudio Vandi (LUTIN) Eric Legale (ISSY) Gary Copitch (PVM)

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

Public

C

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

Apollon – D.5.6

Revision History Revision Date 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.0

Author

Organisation Description

6/4/12 Alan Holding

MDDA

First draft

9/4/12 Alan Holding

MDDA

Merged text from Dave Carter

26/4/12 Alan Holding

MDDA

26/4/12 Alan Holding

MDDA

Merged text received from APOLLON Work Package 5 partners

26/4/12 Alan Holding

Final input from partners

MDDA

Final version with tacking changes complete

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

Statement of originality: This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise.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

2

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 Table of Contents 1.

2.

3.

4.

Introduction..................................................................................................................... 5 Challenges identified in the pilot ............................................................................. 5

2.1 Language ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Involvement of local stakeholders and identification of appropriate local testbeds to support cross border experiments ........................................................................ 6 2.2.1 Control over the physical space where the experiments take place .........................6 2.2.2 Support of local stakeholders involved in the experiment ...........................................7 2.3 Livings Labs representing “non-local” SMEs.................................................................. 8 2.4 Cultural differences/ Duplicate a foreign model into a different cultural setting ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Maintain contact and stay up to date with the evolution of the other experiments .......................................................................................................................................... 9 2.6 Find a partner to replace the initial participation of AirGraffiti ............................ 9 2.7 Collaboration bottlenecks in creating the network (connect) e.g. setting up the pilot .......................................................................................................................................... 10 2.8 Collaboration problems in planning the network (plan, engage) ...................... 10 2.9 Collaboration problems in Operating network (support)..................................... 11

Recommendations for pilots in a cross border network of Living Labs.. 11

3.1 Recommendations on eParticipation Experiments ................................................. 11 3.1.2 Be clear on the capabilities and requirements of the product/service being tested 11 3.1.3 Identify the target audience and adapt your product/service accordingly ........ 12 3.1.4 Have a good knowledge of the Living Lab ecosystem and keep a close connection with its stakeholders ........................................................................................................... 12 3.1.5 Educate the Living Lab stakeholders in helping them to understand the importance and the benefits of cross-border collaboration ....................................................... 12 3.1.6 Be aware of interoperability issues ..................................................................................... 12 3.1.7 Be aware of Intellectual Property Rights issues ............................................................. 13 3.1.8 Use low cost tools and processes to facilitate collaboration ..................................... 13 3.1.9 Be clear on research requirements ...................................................................................... 13 3.1.10 Be aware of need for adding new partners to the experiment ................................. 14 3.1.11 SMEs may need to develop their product and materials (e.g. documentation) to support a "hands off" approach ....................................................................... 14 3.2 Recommendations on an integration Framework ................................................... 15 3.2.1 Technical Recommendations ................................................................................................. 15 3.2.2 Business Recommendations ................................................................................................... 16 3.3 Recommendations on Cross border Living Lab Networks .................................... 17

Strategy for a cross border network of Living Labs........................................ 17

4.1 Objectives of the eParticipation Network.................................................................... 17 4.2 Scope of the Network .......................................................................................................... 17 4.3 Organisational model.......................................................................................................... 18 4.4 Domain Network Services offered to Living Lab and SMEs ................................... 18 4.4.1 An online marketplace where member Living Labs could promote their specific services and expertise to other Living Labs in the network and SMEs ................. 18 4.4.2 A methodology to address potential new pilots and cross-border collaboration ................................................................................................................................................... 19 4.4.3 Identification of success cases and stories to support new pilot establishment ................................................................................................................................................. 19 4.4.4 Activating the Network ............................................................................................................. 19 3

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 4.5 Resources needed for the Network ................................................................................ 19 4.5.1 Technical support of the marketplace platform ............................................................. 19 4.5.2 Administrative support and co-ordination of the Network....................................... 19 4.6 Business Model of the Network ....................................................................................... 20 4.6.1 Key Partners .................................................................................................................................. 20 4.6.2 Key Activities................................................................................................................................. 20 4.6.3 Key Resources............................................................................................................................... 21 4.6.4 Value Propositions ...................................................................................................................... 22 4.6.5 Customer Relationships............................................................................................................ 22 4.6.6 Channels .......................................................................................................................................... 22 4.6.7 Customer Segments .................................................................................................................... 23 4.6.8 Cost Structure ............................................................................................................................... 23 4.7 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 24

4

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6

1. Introduction The eParticipation Work Package of APOLLON carried out four cross-border experiments during September 2010 to January 2012 as part of the eParticipation pilot.

The experiments tested prototype products developed by SMEs in a range of scenarios and enabled the participating Living Labs to identify areas for improvement in future cross-border experiments as part of a Thematic Domain eParticipation Network of Living Labs that could be set up and made sustainable after the conclusion of the APOLLON project. (See Deliverable 5.5 for more information on the experiments carried out.)

This deliverable (D5.6) outlines the lessons learned and challenges identified during the experiments faced by the Living Labs, makes recommendations for future pilots and experiments in a cross border network of Living Labs, and provides a strategy for the setup and development of such a cross border network.

2. Challenges identified in the pilot The challenges identified during the cross border experiments carried out during the eParticipation pilot are summarised below.

It should be noted that the challenges identified are not felt by the project partners to be insurmountable and future cross border experiments could be enabled if the recommendations proposed by this document (see section 3 below) are implemented.

2.1 Language

The operational aspects of the APOLLON project required that the Livings Labs involved in the eParticipation pilot (MDDA, Lutin, Issy Media) speak and read common languages between them – mainly French and English.

There were no major language difficulties between the Living Labs during the pilot and the Living Labs were able to act as interpreters, where required, when communicating with their local SMEs during the project.

The experience gained through the pilot, however, suggests that, in order to enable Living Labs and SMEs who can only communicate in one language (their own local language) to be involved in future cross border experiments, resources must be identified and obtained in advance, so that interpreters can be made available to ensure clear communication between Living Labs and SMEs from different countries when taking part in the cross border experiments.

It is proposed that the funding for interpreters and other translation services could be an element of the charging model that Living Labs employ when carrying out future cross border experiments or translation could be a service that Living Labs offer to each other when taking part in cross border experiments.

5

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 The need for clear communication during cross border experiments is particularly important for SMEs, as they may not be able to be physically present when a cross border Living Lab is marketing their product to local stakeholders when developing the scenario for a cross border experiment.

2.2 Involvement of local stakeholders and identification of appropriate local testbeds to support cross border experiments

The Living Labs involved in the eParticipation pilot identified existing projects and activities in their local geographic areas which could be used to support the cross border experiments.

For example, Issy used the redevelopment of the Fort of Issy to carry out experiments using products from SMEs, such as Navidis, and MDDA used an existing art gallery exhibition to test a product by IBBT, and similar ways of working could be replicated in other places.

Identifying local testbeds where cross border experiments can take place is a challenge for Living Labs as many factors need to be taken into consideration. A range of factors to be taken into account are identified below.

2.2.1 Control over the physical space where the experiments take place

When defining the requirements for a cross border experiments, the level of control over the physical space where the experiments will take place (for example, testing sessions with users) would need to be clarified. Not being able to “change” or “adapt” a physical space to meet the requirements of an experiment (for example, internet connectivity is not available, equipment cannot be mounted in the space) would have an impact on whether that space could be used.

One example highlighting this is the testing of IBBT’s MuseUs app in art galleries and museums which required that the space had good wireless internet connectivity, that the galleries and museums were willing to put additional equipment into exhibition spaces (such as placing QR codes next to art works, putting tables and chairs into spaces so testers could sit down when completing evaluations forms, placing display screens into spaces so that information generated by the MuseUs app could be displayed), that the space was accessible, and similar.

Even where the Living Lab itself has control over the physical space where the experiment will take place, care must be taken to ensure that the facilities provided meet the requirements of the product being tested, and iterative checks should be put in place as the product develops during the experiment (for example, as a new feature is added to the product based on user feedback) so that the space can continue to support the experiment. For example, where internet connectivity is important to the product being tested, the Living Lab and SME may need to ensure that the speed of the connectivity is fast enough so that it will not affect the outcomes of the experiment.

6

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 2.2.2 Support of local stakeholders involved in the experiment In this context, a “local stakeholder” is a group or organisation in the geographic area where the experiment will take place that controls some resource (for example a physical space, a mailing list, a membership group, technologies) that the local Living Lab or SME involved in the experiment needs in order to complete the cross border experiment.

Unless a Living Lab has a dedicated space that can be used for cross border experiments (such as the Media Lab at Lutin Living Lab) and / or can have complete control over the experiment without requiring external support, local stakeholders who control appropriate resources will need to be approached as soon as possible to gain their support.

Where possible, the local Living Lab where the experiment will take place should carry out a “mapping” exercise, based on their own in-house knowledge and local expertise, to identify local stakeholders with whom it would be most appropriate to approach for involvement in a cross border experiment.

The mapping exercise would take into consideration a number of factors, including: •

•

•

•

The market and/or thematic area that the product to be tested during the experiment is targeting (e.g. eParticpation) in order to narrow down the best local stakeholders to approach; The number of users that the product would like to involve in the experiment, which could be used to further narrow down the list of local stakeholders to approach, based on the size of their membership and mailing lists, number of visitors to their buildings, etc.;

The current projects, activities and priorities that the local stakeholders are progressing, which can identify if and how a product in the experiment can be “piggy-backed” onto existing projects and activities in the local area, potentially saving time, effort and money for the Living Lab; The technologies, equipment, expertise and other resources that a local stakeholder has available that the Living Lab can utilise during the cross border experiment.

When suitable local stakeholders have been identified from the mapping exercise, the Living Lab needs to have a clear process in place to approach them to be involved in the experiment.

Being able to carry out such a mapping of the local stakeholders will require the local Living Lab to establish and maintain a knowledge base about key local stakeholders. Such a knowledge base or “local landscape” can be established and developed using online collaborative tools such as MediaWiki (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki). This could enable information about local stakeholders to be maintained and updated by the local Living Lab and the stakeholders themselves and provide a searchable knowledge base that other Living Labs in the network could use when defining a cross border experiment with their local SMEs. 7

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 An aspect of gaining the support of a local stakeholder in a cross border experiment is to identify how the experiment can benefit the stakeholder themselves. Some benefits of being involved in a cross border experiment that can be communicated to potential stakeholders may include: •

• •

Marketing their services to a wider client base;

Potential income (for example, for the use of specialist equipment of expert knowledge during the experiment);

Building up business connections with similar organisations in other parts of Europe.

They can then become aware of new technologies and internet-based media products more quickly and more effectively.

2.3 Livings Labs representing “non-local” SMEs

The operational requirements of the APOLLON project meant that SMEs involved in cross border experiments were not always able to be physically present at meetings with potential local stakeholders when the Living Lab was at the stage of getting stakeholder support.

Though SMEs were able to use video conferencing, teleconferencing, email, instant messaging and may other standard communication tools to liaise with stakeholders involved in the experiment, there was still a need for the SME to be physically present at some points during the experiments. For example, an SME may want to take responsibility for demonstrating the product to local stakeholders, or be on hand to answer any questions about the product face-toface with stakeholders.

SMEs may also wish to use such physical meetings with “foreign” Living Labs and stakeholders to connect with business networks in other countries.

This led to the local Living Lab having to act as the “salesperson” or marketeer for the SME’s product during meetings with local stakeholders as the SME could not be physcially in the same room.

(Travel and accommodation costs were covered by the APOLLON project during the pilot to enable SMEs to travel to other countries where experiments were taking place, but this will not be the case for future cross border experiments and the funding for any such travel would need to be identified when an experiment is being defined.)

During APOLLON the main process for setting up an experiment approximated to: a) An SME’s product/service to test is identified;

b) The SME works with the “foreign” Living Lab/s to develop an experiment to test the product/service; c) The Living Lab generates interest and support for the experiment by approaching local stakeholders, sometimes acting as a “salesperson” for the SME’s product/service, sometimes with the SME present; 8

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 d) The experiment is carried out by the Living Lab, the results evaluated and sent back to the SME so they can improve their product/service, and more experiments are carried out if required.

The requirement of a Living Lab to act as the SMEs representative when generating local stakeholder interest in the experiment brings into question certain aspects of the above process. The main question is whether the role of the Living Lab should be to simply identify local stakeholders that could work with the SME to help test their product/service, facilitate the experiment and deal with the logistics, but then leave the actual testing and evaluation to the SMEs, or for the Living Lab to have a more active role?

2.4 Cultural differences/ Duplicate a foreign model into a different cultural setting

One of the challenges Issy Media were faced with during the project was to duplicate People’s Voice Media (PVM) model of Community Reporters in Issyles-Moulineaux.

Issy followed the main guidelines set up by PVM and adapted the process to the specificities of the French audience.

•

• • •

We recruited young people as reporters, since one of the persons undergoing training in Manchester worked at the Youth Centre in Issy

We changed the name of “Community Reporters”, which didn’t translate well in French, into “Web reporters”, more known in French We adapted the training sessions and the training content to the age of the youngsters, making it dynamic and easy to understand.

With regards to the identification system of the reporters, we created badges (according to the PVM model), but replaced their T-shirts with caskets which contain a QR code linking to the website of the web reporters. PVM decided to adopt this model and propose it to its network of Community Reporters which is currently being developed in Europe.

2.5 Maintain contact and stay up to date with the evolution of the other experiments

Keeping track of the evolution of each experiment was quite challenging, mainly because each Living Lab was concerned to see its experiment through to its successful completion, and focused mainly on exchanging with the project partners directly involved in the local experiment.

Updates about the experiments’ status were exchanged via email when needed, but perhaps it would have been more useful to have monthly conference calls with all WP5 partners to discuss project status and the difficulties encountered.

2.6 Find a partner to replace the initial participation of AirGraffiti

For the French pilot, the initial actions planned at the beginning of the project didn’t correspond to the actual situation on the field. More precisely, the timing 9

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 planned for the launching of the pilot wasn’t compatible with the development stages of the AirGraffiti application.

Issy Media was able to overcome this issue thanks to a good communication with the project partners involved in the local pilot (via physical meetings, Skype, telephone and email). We arrived to the conclusion that we could not postpone the deployment of the pilot and that we had to find a similar technology which could replace that of AirGraffiti; thanks to a good knowledge of the local ecosystem, that was possible in due time, without delaying the pilot implementation.

2.7 Collaboration bottlenecks in creating the network (connect) e.g. setting up the pilot

At the beginning of APOLLON, partners didn’t have a complete knowledge of each other expectations and skills. These were progressively defined during the process of co-designing the scenario for the pilot.

Given the different profiles of SMEs partners, the harmonization of partner’s objectives was a challenge we needed to solve at the beginning of the project.

SMEs like Virdual and Navidis expected to find business opportunities through Apollon; NGOs like People Voice Media expected an international validation of their activity; Startups like Air Graffiti and the supporting partner Mobexplore wanted to get user traction and visibility through APOLLON.

The way in which we managed to harmonize all partners’ objectives was through the process of co-designing the scenarios for each experiment in a way that the goals of each partner were addressed if not completely matched. The process of harmonizing these goals involved some level of compromise for each partner.

2.8 Collaboration problems in planning the network (plan, engage)

The co-design of the pilot was one of the most labor-intensive phases of the project and involved various iterations that led to the final scenario. The main challenges were the harmonization of partner’s objectives and the integration of SMEs partners’ technologies with no budget directly allocated to software development.

Match-making between SMEs and Living Labs is a fundamental step in determining the success of collaboration between Living Lab and SMEs. When the Living Lab ecosystem is not adapted to the SMEs, opportunities are lost. For example, for SMEs as Virdual specialized in the domain of cross-media and Interactive Television, one of the main regrets for Apollon is the fact of not having been introduced to a network of Living Lab with experts in this domain.

In the same way, when the SME solution is not flexible enough it can be hard to integrate it in a Living Lab ecosystem. For this reason, an agile approach (prototype, test, iterate) should be encouraged when working with Living Lab. Startups that can easily pivot if they found unforeseen opportunities benefit from cross-border pilots more than SMEs with a closed solution. On the other hand, the risk of working with a startup which product is under development is to be delayed on the initial schedule.

10

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6

2.9 Collaboration problems in Operating network (support) One of the main challenges for the cross-border was that the travel budget and the development budget for SMEs was very limited. Travel and accommodation costs to enable SMEs to visit potential partners and scenarios in foreign markets will need to be resourced if cross-border Living Labs are to continue to operate after APOLLON. In the same way, not having a budget for developing specific adhoc solutions that would have facilitated the integration of two or more technologies was a big constraint for the pilot. Future projects will need to consider this when defining the budget for cross-border pilots involving technology integration.

The partners and co-partners involved in the all experiment spoke English well, but this may not always be the case in cross-border experiments. Getting access to translation resources can be a challenge for future projects. Translation resources that Living Labs can access (either via support from ENoLL, by reserving budgets or pooling local resources) would need to be made available to support future cross-border experiments.

3. Recommendations for pilots in a cross border network of Living Labs The following recommendations are made based on the experiences of the SMEs and Livings Labs which took place in the eParticipation pilot cross-border experiments, and the input of the local stakeholders who supported the experiments.

3.1 Recommendations on eParticipation Experiments

3.1.2 Be clear on the capabilities and requirements of the product/service being tested Living Labs should be clear on the capabilities and requirements of the product or service being tested.

Ideally, the Living Lab should receive a version / copy of the product or service that is the one that will be tested with users during the experiment.

A formal agreement should exist between the SME and Living Lab to “lock down” the version of the product/service to be tested so that when the Living Lab is gaining the support of local stakeholders it is clear what is to be tested.

The Living Lab should be made aware of any changes made to the product/service after the experiment has been defined and local stakeholders have signed up to support it.

Changes in the capabilities of the product being tested may affect the set up of the experiment and even affect if a local stakeholder would want to remain involved in the experiment.

The Living Lab and its SME partner/s should be clear about the options for longer term development of the product/service, including IPR issues, perhaps 11

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 agreeing a MoU and/or a local version of a ‘consortium agreement’ to set out the main terms and conditions for longer term development and deployment.

3.1.3 Identify the target audience and adapt your product/service accordingly

Following the e-Participation experiments carried out in Issy, Brussels and Antwerp, we arrived to the conclusion that access to technology is different across countries. Moreover, the use of e-Media and mobile technologies might facilitate the involvement of a younger audience, but can be a drawback for the older generations. Living Labs wanting to set up e-Participation experiments should consider this aspect and identify the audience targeted by the experiment to be put in place.

On the other hand, the access to the technology should be made as easy as possible, whether by using a mix of low-tech and hi-tech solutions, or by making available the necessary tools for users to participate in the experiment (for e.g. by lending devices for the test).

3.1.4 Have a good knowledge of the Living Lab ecosystem and keep a close connection with its stakeholders

So that a pilot can be carried out successfully, it is essential that the hosting Living Lab has a good knowledge of the local ecosystem, allowing it to select the most appropriate partners for the project, according to its objectives. This could be done by setting up a centralised "contact relationship management" system in the Living Lab to keep details of contacts who are willing to act as testers, businesses which might become potential business partners or organisations that can act as 'resources' during the testing of a scenario and product.

After the Living Lab introduces the foreign SME to the local stakeholders, it should not step back, but work with all participants to ensure that the experiment is carried out successfully. The Living Lab should assure a smooth communication between the SME and the other participants in the experiment, so that all project partners are aware of their roles and responsibilities during the experiment.

3.1.5 Educate the Living Lab stakeholders in helping them to understand the importance and the benefits of cross-border collaboration

Education is needed to help local stakeholders understand the reasons for supporting cross-border SMEs as well as local SMEs. Having a partner with a supervising role is important to make sure that cross-border objectives are not given less importance than local ones. One of the partners (or someone inside the coordinating Living Lab) should have the precise task of “project manager” of the experiment, ensuring a good communication flow between partners and making sure that work goes according to plan.

3.1.6 Be aware of interoperability issues

During the e-Participation pilot we were faced with the issue of technical interoperability of the partners’ technologies. This has been tackled through the close collaboration of SMEs along the definition of the pilot scenario. SMEs went 12

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 through face-to-face meetings to introduce each other technologies and then worked remotely towards a common solution.

Future projects will have to evaluate to which extent partners’ technologies are interoperable by asking SMEs to provide a clear description of their technology before the beginning of the pilot and by planning early meetings with all technological partners. In addition, SMEs should be encouraged to develop an Application Programming Interface (API) as this facilitates the process of communicating with third party technologies.

3.1.7 Be aware of Intellectual Property Rights issues

The fact of piloting the integration of e-Media technologies raises questions of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) for the solutions developed by combining two or more existing technologies.

For future projects, IPR and related licenses (Copyright, Creative Commons, etc.) should be defined at the beginning of the project in order to let each partner decide what knowledge they want to put in the project and understand what they take out. In their vocation to support open innovation, Living Labs should support hybrid models (as Creative Commons or such) which allow the copyright holder to share some part of the knowledge generated through an innovation project with a wider community.

3.1.8 Use low cost tools and processes to facilitate collaboration

Low cost and / or free web and internet based collaboration tools have helped a lot in the set up and running of the experiments.

Though these tools aided the running of the experiment, the use of these tools was taken on as the experiment developed. In future, it would be useful to agree on a range of collaboration tools before the experiment begins so that all participants know what tools to use and what for (e.g. Dropbox to share files). No web-based available project management / 'to-do' list tool was set up for use by the experiment. Though actions were not missed, it usually meant relying on email and individuals project management tools to ensure work was done. In future, it would be useful for the Living Lab and SME to agree on a project management tool to use (such as Basecamp http://basecamphq.com/) before the experiment starts.

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

Manchester Galleries staff,) 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 slowdowns in working with those staff during the experiments as they were not able to directly access resources that were being freely shared between the Living Lab (MDDA) and the SME (IBBT).

3.1.9 Be clear on research requirements

SMEs working with Living Labs should be clear what evaluation research they want to get out of the experiment. Even if the product / idea being tested is quite focused (such as an iPhone app), the reason for the carrying out the experiment 13

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 should be clearly defined before the work required to set up the experiment proceeds. What one or two things is the SME looking to find out by carrying out the experiment? Clarifying this would help to produce much more focused user testing sessions and identify the most pertinent stakeholders to help with the process.

Living Labs willing to realize cross-border activities involving multiple partners will need to take into account their different goals. One solution to reduce the complexity of managing this issue could be to start from one SME goals and try to find partners that have compatible expectations.

3.1.10 Be aware of need for adding new partners to the experiment

One of the problems we had to face was that no budget could be allocated to new partners being added to the experiments or SMEs that needed to provide additional ad hoc development to adapt to the scenario or to make sure that two applications could be integrated effectively. Future cross-border pilots involving the integration of two technologies will have to consider this issue. Two solutions can be proposed to deal with this issue in future projects: • •

Keep a budget for additional partners that need to join the consortium of for extra development costs that need to be covered;

Encourage the participations of SMEs that can adapt quickly to shifts in the scenario and have developed or are willing to develop solutions (such as APIs) that can facilitate the integration with third party applications;

Future projects will need to make sure to attribute a sufficient time to the matchmaking phase before beginning the project since this is a fundamental step for making sure that Living Labs and SMEs expectation and goals can be fulfilled.

3.1.11 SMEs may need to develop their product and materials (e.g. documentation) to support a "hands off" approach

Prior to the APOLLON project, Peoples Voice Media has tight control on all aspects of the Community Reporters programme (the "product" that was involved in the cross-border experiment with Issy Media). Due to language and travel budget constraints it was not possible for staff from Peoples Voice Media (based in the UK) to be physically present when Issy Media (based in France) were carrying out testing of the Community Reporters model with local citizens and stakeholders. This required Peoples Voice Media to review, analyse and develop the supporting materials (e.g. documentation, training materials) and methodology (e.g. interaction with the users of the service, administration of the service) for their product, so that Issy Media could take the lead on running the experiment and Peoples Voice Media could take a "hands off" approach to the experiment.

SMEs taking part in future cross-border experiments may need to do similar work to adapt their supporting materials and management methodologies of their products so that a Living Lab can carry out experiments and testing of their products without the SME being physically present. The SME may see this as an opportunity to work with the Living Labs (both their local Living Lab and foreign 14

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 Living Lab) to review, adapt and improve the supporting materials for their product.

3.2 Recommendations on an integration Framework

In order for future cross-border experiments to be carried out efficiently between participating SMEs and Living Labs who are part of the ePartipation Thematic Network, the following recommendations are made.

3.2.1 Technical Recommendations 3.2.1.1

Development of “local maps” of resources, stakeholders and services available to Living Labs to support cross-border experiments

As mentioned in section 2.2.2 above, it would be advantageous for Living Labs who are members of the eParticipation Thematic Network to use and contribute to a knowledge base of local stakeholders, resources and experts that can be approached to take part in cross-border experiments.

When a member Living Lab of the Thematic Network is planning a cross-border experiment, the knowledge base could be consulted to identify useful stakeholders and resources that are known to a “foreign” Living Lab. Stakeholders could also use the knowledge base to market their services and expertise to member Living Labs.

A website to support the development of such a knowledge base could be set up using software such as MediaWiki (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki), which is a free open source wiki package originally used to develop Wikipedia.

The Thematic Network would need to identify who would take responsibility for setting up and maintaining the knowledge base website. As MediaWiki is free software, the costs for setting up a MediaWiki based website are mainly down to person time (e.g. someone with web skills to set up and maintain the MediaWiki installation), website hosting and some initial training for users (Living Labs staff). The costs for maintaining the website could be taken from memberships fees of the Living Labs who are part of the Thematic Network.

This model could be used to develop similar knowledge bases for other Thematic Networks, or the networks may wish to come to an agreement to develop one knowledge base used for all the Thematic Networks.

3.2.1.2

Sharing of documents to support set-up, testing and evaluation of cross-border experiments

As identified in section 3.1.8 above, there is a need for SMEs and Living Labs to have a central repository for sharing documents, files, video, etc. during the course of the experiments.

15

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 Some of the tools used during the pilot experiments included: • • • • •

Dropbox (http://www.dropbox.com) for sharing files without having to email files back and forth.

Skype (http://www.skype.com) for video and audio calls.

Google Docs (http://docs.google.com) for collaborative document editing.

Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com) for video sharing.

Delicious (http://www.delicious.com) and Pinboard (http://pinboard.in) for sharing bookmarks.

Many of these tools are free or low cost. The costs for using these tools could be covered either centrally by the administrative body of the Thematic Network, by the local Living Lab as part of their operational costs or taken from costs of charging SMES for running cross-border experiments.

A “package” of such tools should be identified by SMEs and Living Labs during the setting up stage of a cross-border experiment so that documents can be easily shared during the experiments, and can also be archived for later use.

3.2.1.3

Hardware and software required for carrying out experiments

SMEs and Living Labs participating in cross-border experiments should clearly identify the hardware and software, and associated costs, that will be required to carry out the work of the experiment.

For example, some of the equipment required to carry out the test of MuseUs in Manchester Art Gallery included: • • • • • •

8 x Apple iPod Touch (some paid for by the Living Lab, some paid for by the SME specifically for the experiment)

1 x Apple iMac (already owned by the Living Lab prior to the experiment)

2 x laptops (to support the day-to-day operation of the experiment and the testing sessions) 1 x Plasma TV (already owned by the Living Lab)

WiFi internet access (equipment already installed by the Living Lab) iPod touch app (provided by the SME)

Most of the above equipment was already available to the SME or Living Lab. However, specialist equipment (specific hardware, specific software licenses, online service charges, etc.) that the Living Lab or SME needs to carry out the experiment that cannot be sourced “at no cost” would need to be clearly identified during the budgeting of the experiment.

3.2.2 Business Recommendations

SMEs pay local Living Lab to prepare the experiment, identify which “foreign” Living Lab to approach to Resources for translation services are required in order to enable SMEs and Living Labs who can only speak one language to work together.

16

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 Templates developed for Service Level Agreements between SMEs, local Living Labs, foreign Living Labs and local stakeholders to clarify the roles and responsibilities, timescales, services, insurance and legal responsibilities of the participants in the experiments.

3.3 Recommendations on Cross border Living Lab Networks

To do.

4. Strategy for a cross border network of Living Labs The following strategy is proposed for setting up and maintaining a Thematic Network of eParticipation Living Labs across Europe.

4.1 Objectives of the eParticipation Network

The proposed objectives of the eParticipation Network are:

1. To develop a network of Living Labs that specialises in testing products and services focused on internet-based media developed by European SMEs.

2. To provide a marketplace where member Living Labs can promote their services and expertise to other Living Labs in the network and European SMEs. 3. To provide a gateway for SMEs to approach member Living Labs to develop cross border experiments to support testing of their products/services.

4. To promote the European Network of Living Labs and associated initiatives, such as the Connected Smart Cities Network.

5. To provide knowledge sharing opportunities between members of the network via events and a collaborative online knowledge base.

4.2 Scope of the Network 1. Members will be Living Labs who are members of the European Network of Living Labs and have a strong focus on internet-based media.

2. Clients will be SMEs who trade in the European Union, or SMEs who have a strong market presence in the European Union, and have a strong focus on internet-based media. Note that this does not excluse SMEs who are based outside the European Union.

3. Stakeholders will be organizations local to each Living Lab who are able to provide resources (staff, equipment, facilities, time, access to networks) either via in-kind support, free or at cost to support.

17

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6

4.3 Organisational model The proposed organisational model is to develop a virtual business network based on the commitment of local Living Labs and partners, especially SMEs, and able to work on a complementary basis with partner networks, for example collaborating with the EUROCITIES network, both through the core facility in the Brussels office and with cities and business partners involved in the Forums. The options for having dedicated resources, including staff to coordinate this work, based on income generating services (which are in the process of being evaluated) include: • Linking together funding from national sources, e.g. Technology Strategy Board in the UK, to develop common cross-border exploitation of new products/services being developed on a concurrent basis at national level;

• Developing supply chain networks with corporate business to provide test-beds for new collaborative products and services which could provide a fee income for the network development work undertaken by the Living Labs;

• Clustering together specific product and/or technology groups (Living Labs and SME partners) on a cross-border basis and having ‘membership fees’ for each cluster or development ‘club’ to support the network.

4.4 Domain Network Services offered to Living Lab and SMEs 4.4.1 An online marketplace where member Living Labs could promote their specific services and expertise to other Living Labs in the network and SMEs The marketplace would be searchable by geographic region, areas of expertise, technologies available to support experiments, so that Living Labs could find each other.

To save initial set up costs, the marketplace could be developed using an open source platform such as MediaWiki (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki) which member Living Labs would contribute information to about their services and expertise.

At the absolute minimum the “marketplace” could simply be a website that contains links to the websites of member Living Labs which outline the services and expertise they provide.

It is intended that such a platform may also be useful to other APOLLON Thematic Networks and to ENoLL itself and further discussions are planned to assess the viability of this and the potential for generating funding through enhanced collaboration.

18

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 4.4.2 A methodology to address potential new pilots and cross-border collaboration The domain network will offer guidance and consultancy towards the SMEs with regard to domain specific issues. Especially in relation to the process of a crossborder pilot as well as on how to capture feedback of users in this context, will be one of the key elements.

4.4.3 Identification of success cases and stories to support new pilot establishment

The domain network will organize various workshops and will be present in different events and conferences in the e-Participation and e-Media domain.

During these events, it will provide a platform for the SMEs to showcase and or demonstrate successful projects. In addition, during the cross-border pilots in which the domain or one of its members is involved, local showcases will be organised. This is not only for promoting the project results, but also to act as a matchmaking event between SMEs themselves as well as towards the other Living Labs and their projects.

4.4.4 Activating the Network

The domain network will keep its members up to date with European calls & tenders and e-Participation related events, conferences and workshops, in order to promote visibility of the member Living Labs and facilitate the establishment of partnerships.

4.5 Resources needed for the Network 4.5.1 Technical support of the marketplace platform If an online marketplace were developed, technical support would need to be resourced.

One model could be that a member Living Lab is contracted by the Network to perform the technical support by receiving a percentage of the membership fees generated by the network.

4.5.2 Administrative support and co-ordination of the Network

As with point 4.5.1 above, administrative support of the network would need to be resourced

One model is to fund a staff member in a member Living Lab to act as the network co-ordinator and / or handle the day-to-day administration of the network.

The co-ordination duties would involve • •

Arranging meetings of the steering group

Preparing and distributing minutes of the steering group 19

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 •

Acting as the first point of contact for membership enquiries from Living Labs who wish to join the eParticipation Thematic Network.

The costs of supporting that staff member’s time would come from a percentage of the membership fees generated by the network.

4.6 Business Model of the Network

The proposed business model of the eParticipation Thematic Network is outlined below.

4.6.1 Key Partners

The Network will need to liaise with key partners in order to promote its services and identify business networks where its services can be marketed.

A good working relationship with the following partners will be considered key to the success of the Network •

•

•

European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). ENoLL is a membership based organization that supports, promotes and markets the services of European Living Labs. ENoLL could provide access to its membership list so that the eParticpation Network and could be marketed to its members.

Existing local business networks. Living Labs who are members of the Network will be expected to have strong links to existing or developing business networks in their local geographic area, in order to develop a client base to which the services of the Network can be marketed.

Government agencies responsible for inward investment and business support. For example, the Technology Strategy Board in the UK is responsible for promoting new internet-based business models and services. The Network would want to market the services of its member Living Labs to such agencies as they may have access to government funding that can support the activities of the cross-border experiments.

4.6.2 Key Activities

Some proposed key activities for the Network are given below.

•

•

Bi-annual showcase event. In order to identify SMEs that may want to utilize the services of the Network and its members to carry out crossborder experiments, a member Living Lab would host an event which showcased the products of key SMEs in their local geographic area, and some key resources from member Living Labs and their local stakeholders that SMEs could utilize (for example, specialist expertise, specialist facilities such as a usability lab, etc.) The showcase events could be used to promote the previous cross-border experiments carried out by the Network and promote the services of the Network to potential new SME clients.

Helping SMEs develop their product to a point where it can be tested by a Living Lab in another country. As mentioned in section 3.1.11 above, Issy 20

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6

•

•

•

Media worked with Peoples Voice Media to develop the supporting materials for the Community Reporters model so that Issy could carry out testing of the model independently of Peoples Voice Media. The Network could offer this as a service to help SMEs identify where supporting materials for products (e.g. documentation, training materials and processes) could be improved for foreign markets.

Translation services. Where more than one spoken or written language is involved in running a cross-border experiment, a member Living Lab who is proficient in those languages could offer translation services to the Network as part of the activity of the experiments. The Living Lab providing such translation services could cover their costs either by directly charging another Living Lab or SME, or by gaining a reduction in their membership fees of the Network.

Development of a “marketplace” where the resources, expertise, facilities and local knowledge provided by member Living Labs can be marketed to potential SME client.

Supporting member Living Labs to run workshops with their local SMEs and stakeholders to raise awareness of the services provided by the Network.

4.6.3 Key Resources

Some of the key resources that can be marketed by the Network are given below.

•

•

•

•

Equipment and / or facilities provided by the member Living Labs. Some member Living Labs may directly own equipment or facilities that can be used to support cross-border experiments. For example, a usability lab, a software platform, a fibre broadband network, and similar. SMEs and / or member Living Labs who wish to use such equipment and facilities could be provided priority access and / or preferential costs / rates when accessing such equipment via a cross-border experiment provided through the Network.

Access to knowledge of local stakeholders in a foreign market. Where member Living Labs develop a knowledge base about local stakeholders who can support cross-border experiment, client SMEs who use the services of the Network would gain access to this knowledge.

Access to local experts and business networks. Living Labs in markets foreign to a client SME may have knowledge of and access to local experts who can help the SME develop their product. The Network could act as a gateway to such local experts and networks.

Expert knowledge of running cross-border Living Lab experiments. The collective knowledge of the member Living Labs who have run crossborder experiments could be marketed as a resource in its own right to other Thematic Network or Living Labs. Access to such knowledge about how to run cross-border experiments could form part of the marketing materials to Living Labs who are considering joining the Network.

21

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 4.6.4 Value Propositions The value proposition of the Network is based around the following areas:

1. For SMEs, the Network is providing a solution to the problem of how SMEs operating in specific geographic areas of Europe can gain access to established expertise and resources in other parts of Europe that can help them test their products.

2. For Living Labs, the Network is providing access to knowledge of local networks and experts in other parts of Europe that can help SMEs in their own area develop into other markets, and the Living Labs themselves can gain access to knowledge about running cross-border experiments.

4.6.5 Customer Relationships

There are two main levels of customer relationship that are proposed.

1. Personal assistance. This is where a client SME pays the Network to carry out a cross-border experiment on their behalf. A Living Lab local to the SME acts as their primary contact to develop and clarify the activity and outcomes of the cross-border experiment. The local Living Lab identifies foreign markets where the experiment can be carried out, and works with foreign Living Labs in the Network to identify the local stakeholders can resources that can be utilized, timescales, roles and responsibilities for carrying out the experiment and associated costs. The local Living Lab sub-contracts the foreign Living Lab to carry out the testing activity during the experiment and collate the evaluation results. The local Living Lab liaises with the SME throughout the experiment to ensure that the activity is proceeding as expected.

2. Some level of self-service, This is where a client SME or potential member Living Lab visits the marketplace website to find out more about how the Network operates, how they could use the services of the Network, how they could join the Network, and similar.

4.6.6 Channels

The potential channels through which the services of the Network are communicated to potential client SMEs and member Living Labs are below.

It should be noted that unless the costs of providing administrative and technical support to the Network is clarified, then some of channels may not be available.

For example, there is little point starting a Twitter account if there is no-one available to monitor it on a day-to-day basis and build relationships with potential clients through that channel.

Additionally, the amount of information provided by these channels may be limited by the resources required to translate the information into multiple languages. This may point to no “central� channels for the Network, but a nominated Living Lab in each member country gaining resources from the Network to translate marketing materials about the Network into their local 22

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 language, or member Living Labs simply providing information about the Network in their own language through their own existing communication channels.

•

•

•

•

•

•

Awareness raising events run by local Living Labs. Regular small-scale event could be run by local Living Labs to promote the Network to SMEs, or by “piggy-backing” on to existing event already being run by local SME networks.

Representation by the Thematic Network co-ordinator / administrator or nominated member Living Lab at specific events across Europe (e.g.

EUROCITIES events). Face-to-face interaction can take place between a representative of the Network and potential SME clients and member Living Labs.

Website. If the Network were to develop a website (which is dependent on resources available to set-up, maintain and manage the website by the Network), it could be used to market the services of the Network, provide examples of previous cross-border experiments, promote testimonials from client SMEs, act as a point of contact for email enquiries, and similar.

Knowledge base website. If the Network were to develop this website (again, dependent on resources available), it could be used to provide member Living Labs will update information on resources available when planning cross-border experiments, and provide potential member Living Labs with an understanding of the resources they could gain access to should they join the Network.

ENoLL network. The existing activities and channels (website, etc.) provided by ENoLL could be utilized by the Network to market its services.

Social media (Twitter, etc.) / newsletter. Social media services such as Twitter and LinkedIn and email newsletters could be used to market the Network to potential client SME and member Living Labs, but this is again dependent on resources available to the Network

4.6.7 Customer Segments

The customer segment(s) for the Network will be:

1. SMEs focused on internet-based media products who market their products and services in the European Union.

2. Living Labs in the European Union who are focused on eParticipation as a means of developing business opportunities for SMEs. 4.6.8 Cost Structure

The proposed cost structure for the Network is based on two areas: 1. Membership fees.

2. Client services

Membership fees will be taken from: 23

Final Version

Apollon – D.5.6 •

•

Member Living Labs. The fees will support the administration and coordination activities of the Network (e.g. paying for a member of staff to carry out the day-to-day operations of the Network, support and hosting costs of communication channels)

Client SMEs. The fees would pay for information alerts (e.g. Newsletters) and preferential / reduced rates access to Network services such as crossborder experiments.

Client services will be taken from: •

• •

Member Living Labs providing specific services to support operational activities of the Network, e.g. translation services, access to specialized equipment and facilities, generating reports) Client SMEs paying for member Living Labs to run cross-border experiments on their behalf.

Client SMEs paying for market specific reports to be produced (e.g. market reviews, funding opportunities)

At this stage no figures have been proposed for these fees, and if / how the services will utilise a fixed / variable cost model for the services provided.

4.7 Conclusions Based on the experiences of the Living Labs and SMEs who took part in the eParticipation cross-border pilots of the APOLLON project, an eParticipation Thematic Network of Living Labs that offers both free knowledge exchange, based on the added value of new projects, and fee-based services to SMEs marketing their products in Europe is possible. The next stage is that further business planning will be undertaken through the commitment of the partners to maintain collaboration. Work in progress will be reported through the meeting taking place during the Future Internet Week in Aalborg on May 9th-11th and the joint APOLLON-FIREBALL meeting in Mechelen on May 22nd/23rd. Further discussion on collaboration with the Connected Smart Cities Network will also take place at the next EUROCITIES Knowledge Society Forum conference in Belfast on June 20th/21st. The aim is that a revised business plan, taking into account feedback through these consultations, will be agreed in September 2012.

24

Final Version