Apollon - Energy Efficiency - Evaluation Report on the Cross Border Experiment

DELIVERABLE Project Acronym:

APOLLON

Grant Agreement number:

250516

Project Title:

Advanced Pilots of Living Labs Operating in Networks

D3.5 - Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

Version: Final

Authors: All Partners

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

Public

x

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

Revision History Revision Date Author

Organisation Description

D3.5

20.2.

Niitamo

PV

summary of 4 wp3 sites/LLs

D3.5

26.3

Oja

PV

Editing

D3.5 D3.5

16.3 11.4

Niitamo Oja

PV

Editing

PV

Editing based on partner comments

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Statement of originality: This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise.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

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 1.2

Objectives............................................................................................................................................. 5 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 5

2 Description of the Pilot ............................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Research Focus .................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Cross-border collaboration focus ............................................................................................ 15 2.2.1 Process Vision implemented a tender process in the Apollon project ............................. 15 2.2.2 Process Vision and Alfamicro participates in the DigiEcoCity initiative and others .. 16 2.2.3 Cross borders actions between partners ...................................................................................... 17 2.3 Design of the Pilot .......................................................................................................................... 22 2.3.1 Visualization of the metered data to end users .......................................................................... 22 2.3.2 Technical Architecture.......................................................................................................................... 29

3 Description of the experiments ......................................................................................... 30

3.1 Botnia Living Lab in Luleå, Sweden ......................................................................................... 31 3.1.1 Partners involved and their role .................................................................................................... 31 3.1.2 Research Set-up and Data Collection Methods ................................................................... 31 3.2 Amsterdam living Lab in Amsterdam, Netherlands .......................................................... 31 3.2.1 Partners involved and their role .................................................................................................... 31 3.2.2 Research Set-up and Data Collection Methods ................................................................... 31 3.3 Aalto Living Lab in Helsinki, Finland ...................................................................................... 32 3.3.1 Partners involved and their role .................................................................................................... 32 3.3.2 Research Set-up and Data Collection Methods ................................................................... 33 3.4 Lisbon Residential Living Lab in Lisbon, Portugal ............................................................. 33 3.4.1 Partners involved and their role .................................................................................................... 33 3.4.2 Research Set-up and Data Collection Methods ................................................................... 33

4 Qualitative Evaluation of the Pilot as a whole .............................................................. 34 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9

Cross-border Collaboration Experiences & Evaluation ................................................... 58 Benefits .............................................................................................................................................. 58 Challenges ......................................................................................................................................... 59 Methods and Tools......................................................................................................................... 60 Partners – End-Users .................................................................................................................... 60 Partners – SMEs and Large Enterprises ................................................................................. 60 Partners – Local Authorities ...................................................................................................... 61 Research ............................................................................................................................................ 62 Living Lab Perspective ................................................................................................................. 62

5 Pilot specific evaluation ....................................................................................................... 64

5.1 Contextual Factors ......................................................................................................................... 65 5.2 Eco-Systems...................................................................................................................................... 67 5.2.1 Evaluation of cross-border activities for innovative SMEs utilizing LLs for RDI and market entry.............................................................................................................................................................67 5.2.2 General business ecosystem layers for emerging applications and user centric services in the smart grid/smart meter market ........................................................................................ 67 5.3 Interoperability Issues ................................................................................................................. 69 5.4 Lead market opportunities ........................................................................................................ 69

6 Quantitative Evaluation of the Experiments ................................................................. 71 7 Summary & Lessons Learned ............................................................................................. 74

3

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

4

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

1 Introduction 1.1 Objectives As stated in the Description of Work the objectives for the Energy Efficiency work package are: •

• •

To establish a common benchmarking framework for the four energy related LLs to include a service model for clients, business model for sustainability, as well as a reference model to share data, knowledge, experience and competencies and seek towards more efficient resources usage To test the impact of real time data on the consumers.

To foster SME innovation commitment and support its scalability in the European marketplace.

These work package specific objectives are refined to be the objective for Task 3.4, out of

which two deliverables D3.5 and D3.6 are written. The task specific objectives are to design a set of requirements and recommendations for a cross-border network of Energy Efficiency Living Labs based on the activities performed in each experiment as well as through the assessment of the common approach. The requirements will be focused on contextual factors, eco-systems, interoperability issues and lead market opportunities.

In this deliverable an evaluation of the cross- border experiment requirements, results and recommendations, based on the results achieved, will be reported. These evaluations are then created into a set of recommendations for cross-border network of Living Labs in Energy Efficiency and they are reported in Deliverable D3.6.

1.2 Methodology

This document (D3.5 Evaluation report on the cross border experiment) consists of summaries of several questionnaires sent to each Living Lab site. These questionnaires are divided into 3 categories; 1. WP1 requirements to harmonize evaluations and form evaluation out of all 4 domains. These questionnaires and templates report on summary templates and a framework for evaluating Cross border Networking Experiments. Due to very limited cross border experiments in WP3 we evaluate more Cross border collaboration and a common research benchmark.

2. Contextual questionnaires. Living Lab questionnaire; which describes not only the different experiments but also the differences in modus operandi, research activities, business plan and objectives of each Living Lab. Country questionnaire; this questionnaire sets the context on how user centric lead market piloting activities are supported nationally and how regulation, industry legacy, standards and interoperability are challenged.

3. Content questionnaires. Living Lab user engagement questionnaires; which were collected by Liander/NL and SME (LE), these questionnaires aim to understand the value and challenges for innovative SMEs willing to commit to cross border lead market piloting. The evaluation will have as a central focus the conception of larger European and even global concepts for supporting potential European Lead market opportunities in citizen-centric ICT enabled Energy Efficient RDI activities. These are related to cross border Living Lab activities and the recommendations from D3.5 towards D3.6.

5

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration This document will not repeat materials of previous WP3 deliverables and only reference them. Details of these Living Labs (LL) or experiments are referenced in detailed Living Lab reports and this document will only highlight challenges and opportunities for cross border activities and options for strengthening collaboration.

6

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

2 Description of the Pilot The Energy Efficiency experiment was set up in four countries, involving four Living Lab environments. The thematic objective of the energy experiment was to stimulate behavioural changes among people, by providing real-time updates on energy consumption through Smart meters as well as testing new smart metering solutions and creating new business models for SMEs based on the finding of these actions.

2.1 Research Focus

In order to establish a common language and terminology and an easy and effective communication with the various partners within the Living Lab experiments a common research framework was applied to the experiments. This framework has assisted the experiments in structuring the activities and putting them into a process oriented frame.

In this context the Apollon research framework was modified to accommodate the different experiments and here below is the aggregated table summarized from all the four different living labs.

Activities /

Build

Evaluate

Justify

Generalize

Outputs Construc ts

What are the What are the How do you variables that elements that decide best you study? you measure? practices across the experiments?

1. Feasibility of 1. SME interest Integrated business model and collaboration 1. technical solution, and cross- activities. border Openness and cooperation cooperation trust, willingness agreement, possible business between SMEs. to invest. value.

2. Changes in 2.

Behavioural user behaviour. changes against 2. Effectiveness of user intervention 3.

Energy energy and consumption. consumption empowerment of patterns.

3. Changes in users. weekly, 4.

User daily, monthly and 3. Level of user response to participation smart metering yearly patterns of created. technology as a energy 4.

Comparison service/improv consumption. between sites and ed usability of 4. Exchanging best your solution. practices when understanding in designing user difference context. interphases, impact of user 7

How do you filter pilot specific elements out?

1. Understanding socio-economic and technical context.

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

3. Understanding technical solution and its applicability.

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

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

Model

Method

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

feedback.

What measures What are the do you use to success criteria evaluate the that you use? validity of the assumptions?

1. Follow-up few years behaviours 1. Replicability of of LL sites against interventions in consumption 1. The user other LLs. 2. Follow up LL behaviour is Comparing user questionnaires on changed only populations. value between through pro- 2. Replicability in collaboration active project common 3. Questionnaires dissemination practices. to companies, and Common value continued Apollon communication propositions and like projects. of best transparency practices. between LLs and 2. Establishing co operation protocols between SMEs is to promote technological transfer with assurance that SMEs won’t deviate from their natural core business.

active participants (SMEs)

What is the process for validating the assumptions?

How do evaluate adjust validation process?

3. If trust and value sharing takes place it will result in sustainable business consortia.

1.

Level

of

How do you assess the wider applicability of the model?

1.

Refer to common research

2. Growth of LL activities in Energy savings

3. Very difficult but common regulation needed for Europe and ENoLL role important

3. Did not yet materialize in great scale. Also to be evaluated by ENoLL members among their partners

8

you How do you and justify the use of the selected methods?

1.Effectiveness of

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

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration partner commitment and efficiency of ecosystem building.

1.

Quality of partnering commitment and activities, level of 1. Understanding contingency plans trust, partner the roles in and accessibility 2. Measurement of expectations for user behaviour, 2. Effectiveness of the business 2. Continuous introduction of intervention ecosystem. measurement new interventions 3. User trust and Common business of behavioural 3. Quality of data accessibility and proposals and change success rate and localisation business results 3.

Iterative success in development of business terms technical solution and its localisation.

Installation

Who are the stakeholders at your experiment?

How do you evaluate added value for each stakeholder?

Portugal:

Portugal:

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

ISA: solution demo and user feedback on the usability;

2. Understanding the drivers for change in user behaviour

How do you justify the selected collaboration model?

Portugal:

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

Dwellers and building administration: lower energy costs and increased energy and global sustainability Dwellers and builawareness ding’s administraFinland: tion: E-Nova: Process Vision Lisboa understanding the (SW and ser- mainstreaming best pilot and scaling it vice provider); the up ISA, There, environmental energy Lisboa E-Nova: Aidon, UTU and practices at a Obtaining an Powel (techresidential level energy reduction nology pattern at a 9

3.

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

How do you compile recommendation s for sustainability?

ALL Countries:

Sustainable revenue sharing and business model for ISA and partners; Pay-back model for the dwellers

Data collection: Dwellers and SME Interviews, savings proven, user satisfaction and behavioural change.

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

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration providers); Varma Insurance company (Client and building owner); Aalto University (academic partner)

Proof of new residential level. market potential for each partner.

Finland:

continue.

Strong common business interest and willing to scale with Varma.

More LL activities with EnoLL.

Finland:

New business for Process Vision and service model for Varma. New opportunities for testing to other Sweden: Sweden: companies KYAB/Saber involved.

Proof of Concept (technology among different and service LLs provider); Sweden: LuleĂĽ Energi Extended (Supporting business for partner) KYAB, Benchmarks for LuleĂĽ Energi Netherlands: Amsterdam LL and Amsterdam Innovation Motor (facilitators, Technical solutions and service providers); Liander and Home automation Europe (Operator)

Energy savings achieved in the four different living labs have been achieved as means of three different layers; smart metering solutions with their 'built-in' reporting to endusers, partner SME/LL operator's created reporting to end-users and end-user engagement activities designed by the living lab operators. In all the four LLs there has been many stakeholders involved that have all contributed to some of these three layers, it is quite difficult to deduct the individual impacts but instead the whole impact is quite clear in terms of energy saving results. Also the results will still continue even after this project has ended and the energy savings will most likely cumulate to even higher level in the future, but this does not say to which LLs and in what rate.

10

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration The research framework has given all the LLs the possibility to evaluate all the three layers individually and to view the feasibility and business prospects between themselves and the partners contributing to each layer. As a whole the research framework has given the partners in WP3 a tool to view their own actions individually and also the possibility to exchange the best practices from their own LLs, whether they are the solution from just one layer of the experiment or a practice that has been moulded from the all. This research framework has given the four Living Labs an understanding of the measurable data in the experiments. We have studied the best ways to collect data, best avenues for showing this measurement data to end users and also created a user behaviour methodology to be used in the different Living Labs.

Common interests were found between the partners involved in the different country specific experiments and these cross-border actions are described in this deliverable in the next section. Below is the validation of the above table.

Phase of development

Common benchmarking model

Needs finding & identification

Development of the Methodology

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, utilizing design science framework.

Lulea has led knowledge sharing and user behavior transformation.

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.

In the beginning case description framework was set up: how to describe the case (more in detail in deliverable 3.2).

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment This is an ongoing experimenting process.

Continuous evaluation and adding. Bottom up and top down.

How far we are now: there is a framework which should be formalized and made applicable in other contexts.

Formal definition will be end result more or less.

Classification from case description is also a practical outcome.

11

Adoption and Use of the Methodology

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the Methodology

CONCLUSION REGARDING VALIDATION

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.

We did not develop the benchmarking framework in the case, it was supposed to emerge from the cases.

Was stepwise process.

Has been process which is now reaching maturity.

Learning by doing.

Framework will come from what has been done.

Not formalized earlier.

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)

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.

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration As a common understanding within WP3 a need for common knowledge sharing and user behavior transformation methodology was needed in order to exchange the lessons learned and best practices cross-border between the four different experiments. For this need a user behavior transformation method was designed by the partners in Luleå University. This tool was used both to design the user involvement study as well as to document the found results. The template for this case is shown below: Background of the case

Describe the background of the case, • Purpose, identify key-questions to be answered •

Research questions

•

Innovation to be implemented in the users context

•

Partners (who are involved in the case and what are their competence area)

Time frame: Specify the duration of the case as well as the duration of the test as such The set-up phase of the case for energy use transformation •

Define which technology to implement in the users context

•

Define the functionalities of the technology (determine all that is possible to do with the technology).

This will guide your design of the case later on

•

Determine user groups

•

o

who are the users

o

where can they be found

o

how can you get in contact with them

o

which selection criterions should you have. Suggestions for selection might be:

o

gender

o

how many adults and children that lived in their home

o

the age of the children

o

how they live (house, apartment etc)

o

what kind of heating they have in their home

o

the size of their house

o

if they plan any renovations in their house, ( if, so which),

o

their interest in energy saving questions

o

how many users are you involving. The appropriate number depend on what you want to achieve with your study

Divide roles among partners o

Define who are in charge of which activity during the case and the test as such

12

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration Process design Describe the suggested process for the case. One suggested process might be: •

Training sessions to learn about the technology for the partners involved

•

Functional testing within the Living Labs to make sure that the technology is working and to become acquainted with the technology

•

Translation of instructions, screen texts, messages and other information if needed

•

Decide on user interaction technologies to be used (surveys, communities, social media etc)

•

Decide on how to evaluate the experiment

•

Recruitment of participants

•

Selection of participants

•

Set up of collaboration agreements and other legal agreements among partners

•

Develop tools for comparing results from the implementation of the technology.

•

Determine how user input will be gathered and develop sufficient tools

•

Develop user interaction scheme (how often should they be contacted, what kind of contacts should it be, why have you chosen to do it like that)

•

Develop a test-storyline with activities the users should conduct, time schedule for when they should do what and the technology to collect their experiences of the activities, their energy behaviour change and their attitudes.

•

Installation of technology in the field.

•

Interact with the users according to the test storyline

•

After each interaction, self-evaluate the approach to make sure it gives the needed input. If not, make needed adjustment in correlation with the purpose of the case

•

After the test is finalised, conduct the same base-line questionnaire again to be able to compare the results.

•

Evaluate the users experiences of using the innovation, taking part in the test and their energy consumption behaviour in general.

•

Document the findings and reflect to learn for the next user study.

During the workshops in WP3 these above mentioned tools were gone thru in detail and discussed with the different Living Lab operators and out of them good common practices arose that were then applied to the living labs. Such common practices were for example: TV-screens used in Luleå living lab that was adopted to Helsinki Living Lab and weekly questionnaires done in Luleå living lab that were then taken to use in 13

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration Helsinki and Lisboa living labs with minor modifications. Below is the validation of the user behavior transformation methodology.

Phase of development

Needs finding & identification

Development of the Methodology

Introduction and deployment in the pilot environment

Adoption and Use of the Methodology

User behavior transformation

There was a need for sharing knowledge about users’ 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 new business models, distinguishing from their competitors. Also a need for minimizing energy fluctuations: a tool to manage energy use. It is actually the need of the whole ecosystem, also the users themselves.

Was developed by Botnia LL and LuleĂĽ, 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

Evaluation and learning lessons regarding the Methodology

Learning and sharing experiences is highly important.

What happens in the different cases / pilots, how to learn from it and how to implement it in other cases.

Transition needs fulfillment of requirements by partners: use of research methodology, knowledge, resources,. Some of the SMEs are small so are dominated by everyday business.

Small micro companies that do not have the resources.

They should be convinced by the benefits.

Localization of the technology: R&D costs were not considered during the project setup phase, SMEs were not prepared to adopting the technology. Project focuses on a dopring existing technology but the cross border setting requires investing in technology for which SMEs might not see the business case. The quality of the planning of the cross border pilot and ecosystem circumstances is a factor.

Netherlands did research on user motivations.

14

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

2.2 Cross-border collaboration focus 2.2.1

Process Vision implemented a tender process in the Apollon project

In preparation for the Helsinki Aalto Living Lab a tendering process was carried out for the LL measuring implementation. In the first phase measurements were started with five smart metering solutions. First solutions tested were from a Nokia spin-off company called There Corporation. There Corporation’s Meter device system was installed in April 2010 and measuring is still on-going as their metering technology proved successful. Also a Wattson metering system from a British company called DIY Kyoto was installed; however the pilot showed that the solution was not compatible with the electrical system of the building piloted. Three device systems from ISA were purchased in June 2010, the co-operation is still ongoing but due to lack of local ISA presence, the ISA solution was not selected by the building owner (Varma Insurance company).

From the first phase of the Helsinki Living Lab the conclusion was drawn that metering solutions were not quite on the maturity level necessary to conduct piloting in an effective way, therefore the larger scale tendering phase was postponed to the second phase. In the second phase a request for proposal was sent to nine metering instrument vendors (including all 4 Apollon SMEs with possible solutions). Tendering answers received showed that postponing this phase was the right decision as technology had developed in this short time and pricing had also clarified. In the proposal the specifics of the metering solutions were investigated, as well as up-scaling potential and pricing.

Six answers were received to the proposal. Based on those, three vendors were chosen.

To decentralize the solutions, partners with different data communication solutions were selected, three with radio, one with KNX-based and one system with M-Bus based system. The devices chosen were installed in January 2011 after which the Living Lab measurement was carried out full scale. Also plans for extending the LL to the private homes of client company employees (20) were implemented, however since it was a commercial pilot project and the client did not want to allow results to be used for commercial purposes the only outcome is that the pilot solutions started getting into premarket-ready condition. The timeframe of the implementation process in the Helsinki Aalto Living Lab can be seen on the picture below.

15

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

The following SMEs are part of LL pilots in Finland; Process Vision, Aidon, There corporation, UTU Powel, Wireless Mesh Networks, Porvoo Oske, Ouman, Porvoo Energy, EON Finland, Sensinode and bigger players such as: NSN, Fortum, Helsinki Energy. The highlighted companies ultimately became part of the solution and with these Finnish partners similar pilot lead market projects were implemented during 2011-2012. In the evaluation part reasons for selecting local Finnish partners are evaluated.

2.2.2

Process Vision and Alfamicro participates in the DigiEcoCity initiative and others

Other cross border collaboration activities have been developed with Process Vision and Alfamicro, biggest being the Digital EcoCity Initiative in China and several initiatives with Alfamicro and ISA in Brazil. Also one letter of Intent was signed with a Portuguese wave power pilot and Process Vision, hopefully materializing in April 2012.

DigiEcoCity is a model for an ideal city combining the principles of sustainable development, the innovations of which are made possible by the digital revolution and the urban functions necessary for providing a framework of good everyday life in a gardenlike environment. DigiEcoCity combines living, working, public and private services, culture and leisure. Its scale and details respond to local needs. DigiEcoCity is a human and ecological alternative to concentrated metropolises.

DigiEcoCity combines three fundamental concepts: 1. DIGI concepts cover digitally integrated highly interactive information systems providing access to community services like health care, learning and trade, highlyautomated transport, logistics and building systems, and information systems to city management and service production.

16

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration 2. ECO concepts cover ecologically sustainable reactive solutions providing energy efficiency at both the building and community level, utilizing renewable energies and waste as a source of energy and recycled materials and security of water supply and clean water environment for recreation, working and living.

3. CITY concepts cover localized proactive urban solutions enabling efficient logistics, new combinations of working and living, increases in functional diversity making the urban structure more vital and resistant against the impacts of the changing social and macro-economic conditions.

DigiEcoCity derives from the early Living Lab work done in Finland (Arabianranta and Suurpelto). DigiEcoCity provides a demonstration platform for innovative companies and individuals to develop sustainable services and products. The development work is based on bilateral agreement with the Finnish Ministry (TEM) and Chinese Ministry (MOST).

Conception started 2009 and first city development projects signed and first city will be built 2010-2013. MoU has been signed with Future Learning Finland which is developing Living Lab environments for learning solutions with Process Vision.

2.2.3

Cross borders actions between partners

The only actual cross border data transfers took place early in the project with ISA equipment from Finland to an ISA datacenter in Portugal. Since this did not become a permanent solution the activities were ceased already early in 2010. The challenges facing this set-up were a clear example of how the cross border aspect within Europe is a real issue because of language barriers. The set-up was as follows: Process Vision purchased 3 medium voltage smart meters from meter vendor ISA. The first hurdle to take was that the ISA equipment is designed for private homes and they were targeted to be installed to a higher voltage office building. This installation was however managed with a few innovative actions by the installation team and measurement was able to start. The data was then gathered to ISA’s own database in Portugal through the internet, and Process Vision was then able to view these measurements through the ISA web portal called the iCenter. This would have been an acceptable solution, had the desired output of the measurements been to just view data. But as Process Vision’s goal was to achieve a new business model for their own end, this solution was not enough.

The two companies were unable to establish an interface to copy the data from the ISA database to the GENERIS energy management system because of lack of common interests.

The second cross border data transfers took place from the Liander office tower in Amsterdam to Finland and Process Visions Generis platform. As pilot standardized reports were provided to show that the granularity of measurement location and interval can be anything and data compatibility was not a problem. Continuation of this would have required a commercial contract between both parties. Below some examples of dataseries and reports of that action.

17

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

18

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration This image cannot currently be displayed.

Towards the end of the project a new data transfer experiment took place between two Living Labs; Finland and Lisbon. The data transfer set-up was quite easy to undertake as both LL already had gathered the data out of their own consumption points and then these measurements were sent to the other LL operator to feed into their metering data management system out of which standardized report were run. In the case of Helsinki hourly consumption data was sent to Lisbon to be refined and below are few pictures of the reports created.

19

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

The Lisboa E-nova remote management tool is created and used mainly for end-user (meaning low and medium voltage metering points) and therefore the standardized reports are not really viable in the case of Varma office building, where consumption patterns are very similar from week to week and the consumption profile is heavily tilted toward weekdays. So in reports where the consumption is compared between different types of weekdays, does not really offer any new insight for the Varma building owners. The data transfer between the two sites was however well established and 20

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration worked very smoothly and it was shown that had the pilot sites been similar in ways of consumption profile the remote management tool had proven to be very useful in ways of reporting. In the case of Lisbon the LL operator sent two years worth of data from a public and a couple of weeks of data from an end-user to Process Vision to be uploaded in to their Generis system, out of which two reports were generated that can be seen below.

Here again can be seen that the GENERIS system into which standardized report templates are created to be used in the energy management solution is mainly created for higher voltage consumption points and the reports are not as detailed as would be useful for individual end users. The data transfer altogether showed that there are no barriers in the data transfer between these two partner countries as such, but as shown earlier in the project in the case of Process Vision – ISA, the problem is more in the real time data gathering between two countries. The data transfer between Lisboa E-Nova 21

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration and Process Vision will still be ongoing and result sharing will be gone through in detail to see what the differences in the two systems are and how they both can be modified to accommodate the needs of the other.

2.3 Design of the Pilot

In the way of involving end-users in the living lab experiment, different levels of visibility for energy measurement were given in the different living labs. All four living labs have installed different metering vendors’ metering solutions as cross-border collaboration in the metering front proved unsuccessful in the execution of the Apollon project. Also the different metering systems are controlled by different management systems and from these management systems the measurements are shown thru different portals. Although the systems have different routes to achieve the showing of measurements to end-users the ultimate goal is the same. In all the living labs the reasoning is the same, namely: in order to achieve mitigation in energy consumption the awareness of the users has to be increased.

2.3.1

Visualization of the metered data to end users

The different living labs have had many experiments on how to show the measurement data to end-users, and that is where cross-border collaboration achieves maximum benefits. In order to have the end-users engaged in the experiment, they have to be informed on what the initial energy usage was, and how it has changed during the process.

In the Botnia Living lab, in an earlier set-up of Living Lab in the culture house, a set of screens had been set up from which the users could view energy consumption and the change in the consumption during a certain period. This set-up was adapted for the Aalto Living lab, as the benefits of such screens were established in LuleĂĽ. The technological solution behind the screens in neighboring countries was quite different but the basic idea was adopted and refined. In general, since the living labs represent such infrastructural different sites, the technological cross-border activities are less beneficial, but the sharing of ideas is most productive.

The users in the Apollon project have been made part of the energy saving experience through providing visibility of energy saving on a daily usage basis. Whatever the medium through which the consumption information is given -ranging from a screen showing real-time measurements to discussions with users or a weekly email with a survey concerning some energy saving theme, information is the key player in the reduction of energy usage. Some information channels are more effective than others.

Within the Apollon project many of these channels were discussed with the living lab operators in workshops organized throughout the project, and the benefits and downsides of the different channels were mapped out. Key most of all is to incorporate the channel into everyday life of the end-users. If the channels are something that users have to make any effort to access, the risk of not reaching all participants increases. In short, the media should be something that the users can readily access – or better still, unavoidable.

22

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration 2.3.1.1 Lisbon: The users were provided with a tool that could easily be installed and from the first minute displays the energy consumption, thus the user could be aware of its consumptions right from the beginning. The solution envisaged for the pilot could be easily rolled out, since it was only necessary to set up a distribution list, supported by a customer service line, and the users can easily, by themselves, install the equipment.

In terms of technological challenges it was interesting to understand how keen the users were to Internet usage, since it’s a web-based solution. Although a great part of the solution requires the use of Internet, it is not a necessary asset to have, to be able to use the solution, since the in-home display also provides the access to the consumption data and historical records. The installation process will be an opportunity to understand how easy it is to install the solution.

Below you can find the internet interface where the end-user can check its consumptions and the historical data:

The Remote manager tool for monthly readings aimed the creation of a competition between users, assuring data privacy, ranking the user in relation to the average dwellings consumption, ranking the user among the others and fostering curiosity among users and engagement in relation to energy savings.

An information brochure is sent every month and it looks like the following:

23

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

2.3.1.2 Amsterdam: In the Amsterdam pilot the users has had access to promotion materials out of which an example can be seen below:

24

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

Also vital part in user engagement has been the Eco Tours (a guided tour to specific energy related facilities, e.g. energy production facility, waste management facility, etc.), Eco Sessions (at primary school to engage with children and parents to discuss energy savings and sustainability issues, exchange of tips and suggestions, as well as hands on experiments.) and Information sessions with experts (inhabitants to discuss the topic of energy savings and smart meter topics like safety, privacy issues and energy bill implications.)

To view the actual energy consumption there has been in place twi kinds of real time energy displays: Onzo display and the GEO display, that real-time interacted with the smart meter.

2.3.1.3 LuleĂĽ: In the LuleĂĽ LL, metering solutions from two different local vendors were installed, and both of these vendors had their own solution for showing the measured data to end users. Those users that had the KYAB solution installed could follow-up on their energy consumption through a web portal out of which some screenshots below:

25

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

Those end-users that had the ELIQ solution installed had the possibility to view their consumption from a home display. ELIQ is a user friendly touch screen display that communicates wirelessly to a transmitter on your electricity meter. The transmitter unit is reading the electricity consumption in real time and sends the information to the display.

26

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

2.3.1.4 Helsinki: The users in Helsinki Living Lab were able to view the energy consumption thru an excel report that was updated hourly to the intranet site viewable to all, also they had the possibility to view the consumption thru an extranet site called eGeneris that showed the energy consumption also on hourly basis.

Hourly updated excel report

27

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

eGeneris webportal

With the weekly questionnaires the users were also given thru e-mail extra reporting that showed the consumption on weekly interval, shown below.

Weekly report

Also in Helsinki the idea adopted from Luleü, the users had the possibility to view the energy consumption when entering the building, as in the building lobby a screen showed the changes in energy consumption as a graphical tree comparing today’s consumption to previous five working days, this is shown below:

28

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

2.3.2

Technical Architecture

In the newer LLs in Helsinki and Lisbon the testing of smart metering solutions were indicated as one of the results in the living lab process. In Lisbon LL the metering vendor solution was installed in 10 homes. Also in the Lisbon LL a central management tool was adapted by Lisboa E-Nova into which the measurements of conventional energy meters were fed on a monthly basis. This tool was previously used for medium voltage buildings. Within Apollon project it was adapted by Lisboa E-Nova to low voltage buildings, like residential flats. In Helsinki the smart meters installed were plugged into existing management software provided by Process Vision, called Generis. The metering solutions showed many technological challenges in the beginning of the project as many of the smart metering solutions available at that time were not commercially viable and thus the installation and support showed view delays. But for all the pilots, as the final metering installations came into place, the experiment took on a swift turn to gather reliable data in real-time.

In the cases of older living labs the metering solutions had already been tested out in previous experiments and therefore there was no need to test the technical solutions as such but instead the focus was on using meters that had their own screens or were connected to internet sites. In the LuleĂĽ and Amsterdam cases there was no centralized meter data management system to gather the data and to create the reports: this output was achieved using intermediary independent decentralized systems. Expanding the technical solutions used in one living lab to another proved to be quite problematic. The technical architectures of the individual living labs were quite different, as residential homes in different countries have different voltages and different placements of the main fuse boxes as a factor, as are industrial scale usage and thereby voltage constraints.

The truly viable exchange of lessons learned in the living labs comes directly from the user involvement methods.

29

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

3 Description of the experiments Within the Apollon project four different living labs were in place in four different partner countries. The technical solutions were chosen to accommodate each pilot site needs in its own infrastructure. The four different living labs were chosen to act as pilot sites for different reasons and the energy saving achieved should be approached with some caution because of geological location as well as the usage of the buildings. Below the initial motivators and goals for the different living labs are described separately.

All four living labs had different technical architectures, varying user involvement methods and all have described methods and tools they have used, but we have not used the same methods, hence, it has been difficult to have a deep discussion of the experiences and to share knowledge cross border. We have not had any directive about which methods to use in the experiments and few of the partners have used the methods that have been suggested. There has been no discussion of which methods and tools to use in the project as a whole. It would have been good if WP1 would have suggested methods and tools to be used in the different work packages and hence making it possible for all WPs to share knowledge and experiences between work packages.

The four different living labs have all been very similar goal-wise. Reported goals have been either testing new smart metering solutions or to test the different end-user screens provided be different meter vendors. First and foremost the goal has been to mitigate the energy consumption and smooth out consumption peaks as well as lowering baseline consumption. The goal has been the same but the road travelled has led along different paths in different living labs. The challenge has been to expand the solutions and lessons learned within the work package, as different environmental issues have played a determining part in the different aspects of energy consumption. It would have been beneficial to have a clear, united, harmonized goal taking into consideration the different relevant aspects in different countries participating in the experiment from the very beginning of the project, and also to communicate such an objective in detail to all partners and living lab operators. In this way the demands and barriers could have been mapped out before the installations of the living labs were initiated. But since in most cases the business plans were created the as experiment was being executed, not all objectives could be achieved as some implementations were already in place when alternatives presented themselves.

30

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

3.1 Botnia Living Lab in Luleå, Sweden 3.1.1

Partners involved and their role

Botnia Living Lab was established in 2001 and is hosted by CDT which has its headquarters in the campus of Lulea University of Technology in Northern Sweden. The living lab is based on CDT’s long term contractual partnership between the University and Swedish IT companies (Ericsson and TeliaSonera). CDT/Botnia LL works with a broad range of topics related to advanced ICT based services, with a main focus on services for “everyday life of mobile people”. As such, CDT/Botnia does not rely or depend on any particular physical environment or infrastructure other than what is needed case by case.

3.1.2

Research Set-up and Data Collection Methods

Together with Luleå Energy AB, Botnia Living Lab invited 20 households to participate in thetest and evaluation of two different visualization technologies aimed at energy saving. The first technology ELIQ focuses on electricity and price while the second technology SABER can measure and visualize consumption of district-heating, electricity and warm water consumption. All households have had the technology installed for more than nine months. They have all answered a first base-line questionnaire on energy knowledge level, interests and environmental interests. During the test they received assignments to stimulate their learning about energy consumption and to thus also create a change in behavior. Foreach assignment a questionnaire was answered by the households and in the end the same questionnaire as from the beginning was answered again to enable comparisons. Finally a focus group interview was performed with seven of the households to better understand their experiences from the pilot. All of this was fed into the improved awareness of methods for behavioral changes in energy efficiency projects.

3.2 Amsterdam living Lab in Amsterdam, Netherlands 3.2.1

Partners involved and their role

The Amsterdam Living Lab was started by the Amsterdam Innovation Motor (AIM) together with Waag Society, NoVay and the University of Amsterdam. Via the Amsterdam Smart City initiative many additional industry partners were included to specifically tackle the key challenge for sustainability programs and smart grid development in the city of Amsterdam w.r.t. Sustainable Living, Sustainable working, Sustainable Transport and Sustainable Municipality. Partners are: Amsterdam Innovation Motor (AIM), Home Automation Europe and supporting partners Alliander, Process Vision Netherlands and Logica.

3.2.2

Research Set-up and Data Collection Methods

The Amsterdam Smart City initiative tackles the key challenge for sustainability programs and smart grid development. It is a Living Lab with real life measurement capabilities across the whole energy chain, from energy production, delivery and consumption that includes smart meters & smart grid technology. The pilot area covers two city parts of Amsterdam and involves about 1250 households. The focus is on activities concerning sustainable living in social and supported housing. It aims to 31

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration reduce the energy consumption in households through the use of innovative products, services and techniques, including smart meters, energy control mechanisms, direct feedback and information provisioning etc. Its aim is three fold: to gain insight into usage behavior, to raise awareness, and to achieve behavioral change.

The Amsterdam Smart City program (being part of the Amsterdam Living Lab) consists of many different projects (20) which each have many different stakeholders (more than 65 overall). The ”Geuzenveld” pilot is most relevant for the Apollon project. The purpose of the Buurzaam Wonen – Geuzenveld project is to stimulate awareness among Amsterdam’s citizens and their energy consumption patterns, to make them aware of how to improve their behavior and thereby to actually save energy. The residents are engaged in the project on an individual and on a collective basis. Another important objective is to gain experience with respect to the implementation of smart meters and energy feedback displays.

Exceptional about the Buurzaam Wonen (Neighborly Living) project in Geuzenveld is the intensive activity level and interaction between the local residents. Different sessions were organized to activate residents and to discuss issues related to energy saving. The residents are also stimulated to discuss the individual and collective aspects of energy saving. Moreover, residents can exchange their thoughts and ideas via a blog.

Activation in this neighborhood area is a challenge because of the high rate of social housing and the social structure of the neighborhood. Over 500 smart meters have been rolled out in the Geuzenveld area. Sixty residents are also issued with a display that is connected to the smart meter. The purpose of the display is to give the residents insight into their energy consumption. Grid operator Liander is the leading partner in the project in Geuzenveld and is also responsible for the overall technical realization, infrastructural work and organization of the project, which includes the installation of the smart meters and energy displays. In addition, all eight partners play an important and indispensable role in the realization of the project.

3.3 Aalto Living Lab in Helsinki, Finland 3.3.1

Partners involved and their role

The Aalto living lab building is a good example of Finland’s office building as commonly built in the 1990’s when energy awareness was not yet such a hot topic. Together with the building owner and superintendent some of the most vital energy consumption points were mapped out. The building was originally chosen as an energy saving living lab because of the owner’s need to mitigate the energy consumption in all the like buildings and, as the chosen building is also the head quarter for Process Vision, it was quite easy to start testing the different measurement solutions as the immediate vicinity provided quick response times to the needed configurations for the meters themselves.

The stakeholders in the Aalto living lab were; living Lab owner Aalto University who take part through partner co-ordination as well as providing academic input; and Process Vision, who are the driving force in making the living lab process run smoothly and efficiently. Also, being a corporate entity, Process Vision has the vision and motivation to make the living lab operations into a profitable and scalable new business model. The last stakeholder is the building owner VARMA from whom the initial choice of the current location as the living lab has come. VARMA is the partner who can objectively value the different solutions and judge the added value in all of them.

32

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration 3.3.2

Research Set-up and Data Collection Methods

Goal of the living lab was to test technical solutions on the metering side, but also, and more importantly, to see how energy savings can be achieved through smart metering and user involvement. The energy savings achieved will benefit the energy markets as a whole, but also, through monetary gain, the building owner/users. The points of interest in energy usage reductions are: Curbing unnecessary energy consumption peaks, mitigation of base load and downshifting of consumption profiles.

3.4 Lisbon Residential Living Lab in Lisbon, Portugal 3.4.1

Partners involved and their role

Lisbon Residential living Lab is located at Lisbon’s uptown area in the Jardins de São Bartolomeu Condominium, which is a residential block with different dwellers (356 dwellings and 18 spaces reserved for commercial activity). The stakeholders in the Lisbon Residential Living Lab were: technology provider and Apollon partner ISA, building dwellers, building administration, Lisboa E-Nova and Alfamicro. Lisboa E-Nova, Lisbon’s Energy and Environmental Agency is responsible for the coordination of the pilot and for the general Lisbon Residential Living Lab. It is the link between the end users and SME’s. Lisboa E-Nova participated in some cross-border activities (namely promoting knowledge transfer and data analysis). Lisboa E-Nova has adapted an appropriate tool, the energy remote manager software, for all data analysis, and for the production of periodic reports to support the users in their energy consumption reduction. It is a complementary and powerful tool in combination with ICT and dissemination activities.

3.4.2

Research Set-up and Data Collection Methods

The purpose of the Lisbon Residential Living Lab is to implement energy efficiency measures in private households through behavioral change, to test the effect of using smart metering technology and remote management tool software in the reduction of energy consumption, to promote and prove the feasibility of investing in residential housing, and to achieving viable and profitable solutions for energy management and communication. The purpose of the Lisbon Residential Living Lab is to implement energy efficiency measures in private households through behavioral change, to test the effect of using smart metering technology and remote management tool software in the reduction of energy consumption, to promote and prove the feasibility of investing in residential housing, and to achieving viable and profitable solutions for energy management and communication.

Lisboa E-Nova compared the use of smart metering combined with a strong dissemination activity with dissemination activities, having for this purpose divided the users in two groups: with and without smart meters. All the users were provided with monthly real consumption data and a competition was settled between them, fostering their energy awareness. Other users had smart meters installed, together with visualization tools (display and internet interface) where they could check their consumption anytime and anywhere. Lisboa E-Nova treated all the users anonymously, in order to protect their privacy.

33

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

4 Qualitative Evaluation of the Pilot as a whole WP3 will focus its evaluation on qualitative aspects. Reason for this is that very limited data or numeric results were transferred between Living labs. Evaluations are based on the questionnaires mentioned earlier as well as experiment evaluation forms gathered from all four Living Labs, here below as the aggregated form of all four experiment evaluations, which are added as attachments to the end of this document. Out of the experiment evaluation forms a qualitative evaluation is performed in given topics and can be found below.

Evaluation Framework Experiments

of

Cross-Border

Networking

Background Information WP number Experiment description

WP 3

Summary of Experiments in Portugal, Netherlands, Finland and Sweden.

Finland: Aalto/PV LivingLab at Varma office Building in Helsinki. Measuring energy saving behaviours among Process vision personnel against past reference data and data after interventions (user ideas, competition, online data feedback, monetary rewards) Separate report LL Evaluation.

Netherlands: Amsterdam LL, which consists several sites of homes, consumers and office sites. Cross-border collaboration with users in office environment (Liander bulding). User motivation models, business case comparisons, user interphase designs and exchange of user data with PV/Finland.

Portugal: Residential area in Lisbon with alternative energy production/microgeneration and resident user behaviours.

Technology interchange with Finland (ISA-PV).

Involved Partners

Sweden: User behavior changes methodology Living Lab-Living Lab. 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.

Finland: (Varma-LE, Nokia LE, Aalto Uni, Process Vision SME and There Corp. SME) Netherlands: (Liander-LE, Logica-LE, Amsterdam Innovation Motor-LL, Plugwise and HAE are SMEs

Portugal : (Alfamicro and ISA-SMEs, Lisboa E-Nova rep LL as PPP) 34

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration Sweden: (Luleå LL repr. By LTU/CDT and city of Luleå, Luleå Energi and KYAB rep SMEs)

Number of countries Four (FIN,SWE,NETH,POR) involved in the experiment

Type of cross-border User behaviour transformation between all four LL sites, Data activities that has comparability/management between two sites(Fin LL- Dutch been carried out in the LL), Technology Exchange between two sites (Fin LL-Porexperiments LL).SME crossborder interest and business models between all sites and LL Operational models between all sites and country context comparisons between all sites and Large Enterprise Value Interests between two sites (FinLL and Dutch LL) Purpose of the cross- To establish an Apollon methodology for user-behavioural border activities 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.

Validate business models of Companies (SME focus), Test technology interoperability and data compatibility, learn contextual differences and evaluate LL cross-border collaboration value.

Experienced strengths Sharing experiences, learning across countries, knowledge of working in cross- exchange on methods and experiences from energy cases with border collaboration users. experiments Realism in cross border SME collaboration related to leadmarket business value and LE and SME role in LL cross-border pilots.

Ideas for the value of European Energy Efficient LL Network formation.

Experienced challenges of working in cross-border collaboration experiments

Identification of Cross border country specific contextual opportunities.

Challenges are between LLs, between SMEs and relations with Les. For SMEs the challenges are in technological differences, with different time planning and business models as well as with ways of working. For Living Lab point-of-view the challenges are mainly resulted from different energy contexts.

Approach Approach refers to the methods and techniques that have been used to support the cross-border collaboration in the APOLLON project. Hence, it has a broader scope than what is usually assessed in Living Lab activities.

35

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration In the following table, some questions require numerical value while others are of more descriptive character. Thus, not all questions will have a numerically measureable impact but if other impact has been observed these should be filled in.

Theme

Approach

Measures

Value

(output)

No of cross-border 6 activities No of intellectual 3 products

Measurement tool

Impact

D3.3

25%

(e.g. % ratio of (where the data stem from, e.g. ordinary deliverable number, values, or qualitative interview etc) impacts) D1.5

No of technology 6 transfer activities

25%

Task3.3-4, SME 100% meetings and interviews (all countries), Data and technology trials 3 Countries

Which methods User transformation methodology – A process to were used in the support the test of energy monitoring technology experiment? and by the tasks suggested in the methodology being able to track user’s energy consumption behavior.

Test storyline - A method that gives structure for the test where tasks are given and questions related to that task are described in detail Workshops – Knowledge sharing activities related to methodology for use transformation Knowledge transfer across pilots – Having similar pilots at the different sites and then share experiences from these processes among the partners in the pilot.

What is the experiences from using methods/ tools to support cross border experiments? What

Sharing best/good/worst practices Partners(mainly companies)

between

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

Transition needs fulfillment of requirements by partners: use of research methodology, 36

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration have been the benefits, challenges?

What would you like to do differently?

knowledge, resources. Some of the SMEs are small so are dominated by everyday business.

Small microcompanies that do not have the resources. Hey should be convinced by the benefits and direct company to company meetings should be facilitated and endorsed.

Important is to realistically empower companies to common objectives ad activities from very beginning of a project.

Localization of the technology: R&D costs were not considered during the project setup phase, SMEs were not prepared to adopting the technology. Project focuses on adopting existing technology but the cross border setting requires investing in technology for which SMEs might not see the business case. The quality of the planning of the cross border pilot and ecosystem circumstances is a factor.

Problems and failures are also good learning and results for learning to manage cross border LL pilots and create value for Companies participating.

Partners and Users The section Partners & Users refer to those who has been involved and brought their own specific wealth of knowledge and expertise to the project and thus, helped to achieve cross-border networking experiments.

Note! All sections might not be relevant in your experiment since you might not have included all stakeholders. Hence, only fill in the parts that are relevant for your work.

Also, let the partner involved (such as an SME) fill in the SME part, and the large enterprise the part for them etc.

In the following table, some questions require numerical value while others are of more descriptive character. Thus, not all questions will have a numerically measureable impact but if other impact has been observed this should be noted.

37

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

Theme

Measures

No of Users that has been involved in the experiment

Partners: EndUsers

Value

Measurement tool

Passive involved users several hundred(most in Lisbon)

No of user total some 200 involvement of users activities providing individual feedbacks No of new ideas that emerged from the crossborder collaboration with users

(The lines that only have one column to fill in aims of at gathering No implementations qualitative of e.g. new data) functions as a result from the cross-border collaboration with users

Impact

(where the data stem (% ratio from, e.g. deliverable of number, interview etc) ordinary values) energy consumption monitoring by person/household/room (d3.3)

questionnaires, mail feedbacks and f-to-face meetings D3.3

1 from Sweden From user to Finland (on opinions(qualitative) public screen use) 1 in Finland

better suited public lobby screen for Process Vision personnel(user interphase and data displays)

No of redesign of 1 same products/ before services as a result from the cross-border collaboration with users

as

User engagement Behavior change studies. The users has been assigned activities in detail tasks that they should do in order to become acquainted with the technology and to change their energy consumption behavior as well as their intention to change their behavior.

Competition between departments of energy savings and individual monetary incentives(Fin) 38

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration What was the Use the technology, carry out assigned tasks and user’s role in the answer to survey questions related to that. cross-border In Finland some users were also designers and collaboration feedback from other sites improved designs activities?

What has been the added value for users being involved in crossborder experiments?

Learned about their energy consumption

What have been the challenges of involving users cross border experiments?

Long process and hence it has been difficult to keep the motivation for the users during the process and difference in timing between sites, several pilots are still continuing.

Learned how to use new technology for energy monitoring

Learned how to change their energy consumption behaviour in order to save energy.

Understanding similar challenges irrespective of country/context in few cases.

PARTNERS: SME In this section, the aim is to evaluated the SME engagement and the added value of their participation for them as SMEs

Theme

Measures

Value

(output)

Measurement tool Impact

(where the data stem (% ratio of from, e.g. deliverable ordinary number, interview values) etc.)

No of SMEs 2 each fin-por lower than involved in the country (interoperability of 10% experiment data and technology), Notes, swe-neth meetings. (notes), PARTNERS: SME

No SME tens of Notes of meetings and engagement business results activities meetings between most SMEs(8) 39

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration (The lines that only have one column to fill in aims at gathering qualitative data)

No of new most SMEs partner level international were not materialized only on partners familiar agreements for new LL before public funded Apollon proposals No of signed 1 letter of intent between partners and/or customers No of new businesses generated in other countries

No of business proposals

ISA-Process Vision

1 commercial 1 in Portugal and one Portugal proposal and in Netherlands agreement 1 in proposal to manage preparation Energy for PV production data during 2012

new 2 (PV)

No of new 1 bending customers in other countries Do you have a better understanding of your position in the EU market and more effective roadmaps for future development in a European ecosystem?

Do you have plans for developing new products and partnerships based on your experiences with a cross-border

0% sofar

0% so far

PV answer yes(better understanding of Portuguese market) and ISA better understanding in SWE and FIN markets, otherwise no

PV prepared for 3rd country No implementations and I do not continue with all SMEs know similar pilots.

Yes

Most SMEs willing to Not relevant in continue Apollon type pilots(7/8) this 40

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration Living Lab?

experimen t

Did the crossborder collaboration lead to increased turnover

No

no

Has the process of taking part in testing a new product helped or hindered the development of projects that may want to use those products?

Helped

It has helped us understand the customers’ needs and requirements of products of this kind

Has interacting with a foreign supplier provided new contacts or prompted new cross-border project ideas with foreign suppliers?

Yes

only project ideas

Has using products / interacting with companies from foreign markets improved their corporate image as a pioneer in new market creation / crossborder collaboration?

Yes

participation in Apollon events/fairs and seminars

Did the APOLLON project influence your organization’s technological skills and/or

Yes

when sharing openly practices/solutions

41

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration knowledge some way?

in

What impact, if any, did the experiments in the APOLLON project have on your own technology?

Yes

How has working with a product from a foreign company impacted the testing / use of the product?

The products from foreign companies didn’t work at the start of the test and were thus not implemented in Sweden.

Did the crossborder collaboration lead to increased customer retention

Not relevant in this experiment

PV confirms that premarket testing and related product integration easies to implement with local SME partners.

Similar experience in Finland and need for much closer local contacts to confirm interoperability.

SME engagement LEN has been the main contact between the activities in companies and the test users. Len has offered expert detail validation of user assignments provided by the living lab. Len has also installed the products in all households and provided support to the users in Sweden.

What was the role of the SME in the crossborder collaboration?

What has been the added value of participating in cross border experiments?

In Finland several tests of different technology SME providers and final selection among Finnish SME partners for marketable solution.

Learning how difficult to interact between SMEs who are without presence in a local market and create common business objectives. Also Large Enterprise (LE) dominate the market and are needed as well.

For SMEs it is to evaluate their maturity to enter new markets.

Next quote from Sweden; ’ Our knowledge of working in a big international project has increased, and we now have a better understanding of the European energy market.

We also have a better understanding about the customers’ needs and requirements of functions of 42

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration What have been the challenges of being involved in cross border experiments for the SME?

products that visualizes the energy consumption.’

National legacy markets are many times dominated by locals and few multinationals. Standards and practices vary and even legislations.

Business models also vary by market/country.

43

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

PARTNERS: Large Enterprises In this section, the aim is to evaluate the Large Enterprises engagement and the added value of their participation for them as Large Enterprise No of LEs 2 in involved in the Netherlands experiment and 2 in Finland

Logica, Liander in Netherlands and Nokia(18months), Varma in Finland

No LE No cross Nokia interacted with 3 engagement border LE to two SMEs in Portugal activities LE activities and Liander with PV/Fin.

Large Enterprise No

of new (The lines international that only partners have one column to fill in aims at gathering qualitative data)

No of signed letter of intent between partners and/or customers

PV has become bigger than SME(some 300 employee) during project and working with Liander 1 between PVVarma, Proposals submitted from PV to Liander

No of new none businesses generated in other countries No of business proposals

new 2

No of new customers in other countries Do you have a better understanding of your position

Logica and competitors.

PV

are

Varma is a local LE only operating in Finland

Nokia span its energy business as a management buy-out 2010 during Apollon project

one to Portugal (PV) and one to Netherlands (Liander) pending one

Yes

Nokia realization of the difficulty of this market and got out of it.

Liander is interested on 44

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration in the EU market and more effective roadmaps for future development in a European ecosystem?

Do you have plans for developing new products and partnerships based on your experiences with a crossborder Living Lab?

Yes

Has the process of taking part in testing a new product helped or hindered the development of projects that may want to use those products?

Has

best/good practices cross border and emergent business models. Logica is very competent with European instruments for Apollon type of piloting International LE are interested on close to market instruments for lead market testing(like CIP instrument)

Did the crossborder collaboration lead to increased turnover

No

Helped/

In case of Nokia it has hindered but helped for PV.

Has interacting with a foreign supplier provided new contacts or prompted new cross-border project ideas with foreign suppliers?

Yes/No

not for Nokia but yes for Liander, Logica and PV.

Yes

yes for PV

using

Hindered

45

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration products / interacting with companies from foreign markets improved their corporate image as a pioneer in new market creation / crossborder collaboration?

Did the APOLLON project influence your organization’s technological skills and/or knowledge in some way?

Yes

In user interface designs for PV. And radio communication challenges for in-house smart metering network.

Yes

Did the crossborder collaboration lead to increased customer retention

Not relevant in this experiment

For Nokia to confirm to pull out of the market.

For PV confirm of a scalable choice of technology in new markets

Did the crossborder collaboration lead to increased

No

What impact, if any, did the experiments in the APOLLON project have on your own technology?

How has Very difficult Local presence needed working with a with Apollon product from a resources. foreign company impacted the testing / use of the product?

46

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration turnover

Did the crossborder collaboration lead to increased customer retention

No

LE engagement Liander focused on user engagement and behaviour, activities in understanding different practices and business detail models.

Nokia distributed technologies that never functioned properly PV prepared reporting models of a Liander sample data.

Logica wishes to continue to work with data management models

Varma develops models to counter fit old existing office buildings for modern new energy saving services.

What was the LE to understand best/good practices from other role in the cross- countries border experiment What has been the added value of participating in cross border networking activities for the LE? What have been the challenges of being involved in cross border experiments for the large enterprise?

New understanding of smart meter based services and how market is scaling.

Understanding challenges. Understanding how to work with LLs No one European market, diversity of different legacy systems/solutions, difference in legislation, standards and regulatory environments. Lead markets not scaling, interests towards larger contents/markets (China, Brazil etc.)

PARTNERS: Local Authorities

In this section, the aim is to evaluate the Local Authorities engagement and the added value of their participation for them as Local Authorities 47

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

Theme

Measures

Value

(output)

No of local authorities involved in the experiment PARTNERS: Local Authorities

Measurement tool

(Where the data stem (% ratio from, e.g. deliverable of number, interview etc.) ordinary values)

supportive facilities/buildings/data High city organizations and city owned energy companies as well as energy agencies (6)

No local supportive authority members engagement activities No of new none international partners No of signed none letter of intent between partners and/or customers No of new none businesses generated in other countries No of business proposals

Impact

new none

No of new none customers in other countries Do you have a Yes better understanding of your position in the EU market and more effective roadmaps for

towards RDI European Instruments

48

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration future development in a European ecosystem?

Do you have plans for developing new products and partnerships based on your experiences with a crossborder Living Lab?

Yes

national LL projects in Finland

Has the process of taking part in testing a new product helped or hindered the development of projects that may want to use those products?

Not relevant in this experiment

Has using products / interacting with companies from foreign markets improved their

Not relevant in this experiment

Did the cross- No border collaboration lead to increased turnover

Has interacting with a foreign supplier provided new contacts or prompted new cross-border project ideas with foreign suppliers?

Not relevant in this experiment

49

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration corporate image as a pioneer in new market creation / crossborder collaboration?

Did the Not relevant APOLLON in this project influence experiment your organisation’s technological skills and/or knowledge in some way?

What impact, if any, did the experiments in the APOLLON project have on your own technology?

Not relevant in this experiment

Did the cross- No border collaboration lead to increased customer retention

How has none working with a product from a foreign company impacted the testing / use of the product?

Did the cross- Not relevant border in this collaboration experiment lead to increased turnover Did the crossborder collaboration

Not relevant in this experiment 50

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration lead increased customer retention

to

Local authority Helsinki Energy gave its data for project use. engagement LuleĂĽ city hosted meetings and provided the building activities in for testing detail LE participated actively into meetings and questionnaires

Amsterdam Innovation Motor is a partner and facilities our meetings and local LLs Lisbon energy agency runs the LL site

What was the Help in meetings promote themselves local authorities role in the crossborder collaboration experiment What has been understanding the added value Europe of participating in cross border experiments for the local authority (public organization)?

other

contexts/environments

in

What have been Not international, limited competence on Cross the challenges of border activities being involved in cross border experiments for the local authority?

Technology and Infrastructure The ICT & Infrastructure component outlines the role that new and existing ICT technology can play to facilitate new ways of cooperating and co-creating new innovations among stakeholders.

In the following table, some questions require numerical value while others are of more 51

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration descriptive character. Thus, not all questions will have a numerically measureable impact but if other impact has been observed these should be filled in.

In the questions where answers of Yes and No character are asked for, please respond according to the experiences from the experiments

Theme

Measures

Value

No of products that 3 has been transferred in the experiment

Technologies

No of cross-border none collaboration tools that has been used the experiment No of NEW (for the none stakeholders) ICTtools that has been used in the experiment No of distributed none cross-border collaboration activities Did the cross-border collaboration tools you used lead to increased access to relevant information

Did the cross-border collaboration tools you used lead to increased effectiveness in communication

We didn´t use any collaborative tools

We didn´t use any collaborative tools

Did the cross-border We didn´t use 52

Measureme nt tool

Impact

(% ratio of (where the data ordinary stem from, e.g. values) deliverable number, interview etc) ISA equipment to Finland and There equipment to Netherlands and Portugal

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration collaboration tools any you used lead to collaborative increased co- tools creation of innovations among stakeholders

Which collaboration mail , mybbt site and telemeetings tools have been used to support the crossborder collaboration in the experiment What has been the efficiency, savings and follow-up added value of using tools to support the cross border experiments?

What has been the test foreign technology, understand the need for added value of local service/maintenance. transferring technology in the cross-border experiment?

What has been the no local representatives, difficult communications, challenge of delays etc. transferring technology in the cross-border experiment?

Research Research symbolizes the collective learning and reflection that take place in the Living Lab, and should result in contributions to both theory and practice.

In the following table, some questions require numerical value while others are of more descriptive character. Thus, not all questions will have a numerically measureable impact but if other impact has been observed these should be filled in.

In the questions where answers of Yes and No character are asked for, please respond according to the experiences from the experiments. This is not an exact measure, it rather strive to gather the impressions of the impact.

Theme

Measures

Value 53

Measurement Impact

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

tool

Research

No of research 20 research, activities that has more RDI been performed activities during the experiment

only two research partners (Aalto U and LTU)

No of authored 2 conference papers

Ståhlbröst, A. and BergvallKåreborn, B. (2011).

Living Labs – RealWorld Experiments to Support Open Service Innovation. eChallenge2011, Firenze, Italy, 26-28 Sept and Pentti Launonen Aalto U. same Conference

No of authored 2 trade journal energy journals journal articles articles

by A Jokinen/PV

No of research 8 by CDT, PV, eChallenge conference Aalto, Alfamicro Smart Cities and presentations energy saving No of new research 5 projects initiated

Did the cross-border Yes collaboration lead to increased comparability of Living Lab research

Fire Budapest ICE

ERKC SSCT

Cassandra Smarties

Wattalyst

Among wp3 partners LTU, Aalto University and Alfamicro and Liander

What has been the The experiment has led to increased crossadded value of cross border knowledge exchange between the four 54

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration border experiments living labs. We have worked in workshops and from a research shared experiences. The idea is that a perspective? methodology for this kind of experiments can be developed based on this work What have been the challenges of doing research in the cross border experiments?

Different methods and set-ups in the experiments have made it difficult to compare results. The differences in energy standards, markets and all aspects of energy in different countries have made it necessary to use different methods and tools.

Management Management represent the ownership, organization, and policy aspects of Living Labs.

In this project, the aim is also to define the role of the Living Lab in the cross-border collaboration as well as the impact of the project on local Living Labs as well as the EnoLL. In the following table, some questions require numerical value while others are of more descriptive character. Thus, not all questions will have a numerically measureable impact but if other impact has been observed these should be filled in.

In the questions where answers of Yes and No character are asked for, please respond according to the experiences from the experiments. This is not an exact measure, it rather strive to gather the impressions of the impact.

Theme

Measures

Value

No of Living Labs 4 that has been involved in the experiment 55

Measurement Impact tool partners d3.3

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration No of new 4 collaboration initiatives between Living Lab network MANAGEMENT: members (planned, or Living Lab prepared submitted) Management Role No of new Living 0 Lab network members No of international partners

new 10

No of signed letter 2 of intent between partners and/or customers

No of new 0 (3) businesses generated in other countries

No of new business 4 in Finland, 1 proposals in Portugal, 1 in Netherlands, 1 in Sweden and 1 in China No of new customers in other countries

Yes

Did the border

Yes

Did the cross- Yes border collaboration lead to increased value proposition to the stakeholder community cross-

56

Interview D.3.4

for

Interview d3.4 ISA-PV, PV and AW-Energy Pending. PV has conducted 3 commercial projects and 3 other proposals with the learnings of Apollon

only in home markets, one in China

Enterprise energy management system completed for PV, several proposals in home market in Finland New proposals

RDI

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration collaboration lead to increased learning of Living Lab collaboration in networks Did the crossborder collaboration lead to increased maturity of Living Lab management

between LLs nationally and European wide Yes

several leanings in each site positive and negative

The Living Lab’s Planned and led the experiment which in turn role in the cross- will contribute to the pilot. Organised border workshops, summarize the results from the collaboration pilot and report on that activities

The experiment’s difficult to evaluate since results and impact on local challenges have been introduced to national policies research and funding organizations in Finland, some impact surely on focusing to close to market conditions with ‘Living Labbing’ What has been the added value for the LL to be involved in cross border experiments?

What have been the challenges of being involved in cross border experiments for the LL?

Increased knowledge on cross border collaboration among Living Labs, new proposals between LLs, desire to continue Apollon after 2012.

Great diversity of each Living Lab at WP3

Motivate experiment partners and users in the process Differences in technological between countries

standards

Different expectations and knowledge base among the partners

The SMES have not been the one initiating the collaboration with the LL and they have in some cases not been mature and ready to enter a European market. It requires a large company to manage and have resources to enter a European market.

The SMEs reality is also constantly changing which makes it difficult to follow the plans in the project. There were also no budget for the

57

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration companies to make necessary adjustments of their technology to be implementable in other countries.

4.1 Cross-border Collaboration Experiences & Evaluation The most sustainable part of Cross-border collaboration and its evaluation is the collaboration between the Living Labs, who share most of the interests and whose strategic focus does not shift as rapidly as does the corporate side. Also, research collaboration is very much linked to most LL activities and sharing research findings add value for those partners. Public sector partners such as municipalities or regional innovation agencies are there to support and facilitate rather than to take part in the project operational side.

Apollon shows that the business side is the most challenging to manage. Three years ahead of materialization, a new emerging lead market opportunity is very difficult to structure into the DoW without many changes being necessary during the execution period of such a project. In the case of Finland, the status of each partner was changed during the project: HSE/CKIR was merged to Aalto University; Nokia exited the energy business and sold its Home automation system to its employees (becoming There Corporation) who decided only to continue as supportive member. Process Vision was purchased by Capital Investors from Norway and the size of the company doubled with new strong offices in Nordic countries. The challenge was to quickly find innovative ways to accommodate a radically different situation. All local SMEs had resource challenges since they all were entering new lead markets and commercial projects started taking a serious slice of their attention.

Large Enterprises are needed in scaling these new user centric innovations in local markets and across borders. SMEs are too small and often less open to their solutions being shared between other SMEs. Creating true trust between these players is vital to success. Clear competitors need to be openly acknowledged and and pilot results need to be facilitated in a relatively open manner. The biggest challenge for creating true scaling lead markets is the fragmented national European energy market which does not support cross border activities and WP3 has proven that Chinese or Brazilian markets might offer more valuable collaboration to some of the SME partners (Process Vision, ISA, and Alfamicro).

4.2 Benefits International cooperation benefits from exchange of experiences and lessons learnt from the partners, allowing the results of an initiative developed elsewhere to be 58

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration appropriated and worked upon in other projects. This allows a convergence of resources, leveraging European-wide available assets (scientific excellence, technologies, methodologies, tools, experimental facilities, Living Labs, user communities) and avoids double work while achieving the same results.

A European level initiative can more broadly assess a wider range of topics, methodologies and technologies, count on a wider network of stakeholders and reach a far bigger audience and so prompt results on a totally different scale from those achieved if the experiments are solely conducted at the local level, which, due to a lack of economies of scale and budgetary constraints, would of necessity be deficient and incomplete.

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

Benefits for Research and business are: • • •

Knowledge transfer

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

The challenge is to identify and show the benefits that the cross-border activities have to offer to all SMEs. After all, private companies’ goals are to do business and make profit.

Therefore, the best benefit is to help them achieve more profit by establishing partnerships and creating synergies between SMEs.

4.3 Challenges The challenge for public organizations and non-profit private entities, which seek to contribute to sustainable development by systematic and continuous improvement of the energy and environmental performance of the city (Amsterdam Innovation Agency, city of Luleå and Lisboa E-Nova) is to implement a continuous improvement process involving all of the city’s key stakeholders in a holistic and quantifiable way which results in a measurably better energy and environmental performance of the city. Our cross-border activities consisted of several such cases, all with the purpose to test and evaluate new technologies for energy saving and behavioural change in terms of energy consumption, all striving to share experiences, methods and tools among their sites and to provide business opportunities for their SME communities.

The challenge for SME’s is to take the advantage of being in permanent touch with up-todate technologies, from different companies, in the field of energy metering, with partners from different European countries, sharing ideas and forming business alliances. The most obvious benefit is for the Living Lab community and network to be able to actively disseminate Apollon experiences and pilot results, at the local, national and European levels. The greatest challenge is the absence of a single uniform European 59

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration Energy service market for consumers. There are different industry legacies, regulatory environments, standards and supporting instruments for each individual European country. This emphasizes the prime importance of an instrument like to bring obstacles and challenges in this emergent lead market to the attention of the European Commission.

4.4 Methods and Tools Methods and tools used were openly shared between pilots. Findings were mainly relevant for LL operators. Companies shared their products for testing, and data traffic was proven to function. The strongest common nominators; however were for all the 4 sites, the common research benchmark and user engagement findings that could be shared between all sites.

As an academic research institution the partners from Luleå University created a user behaviour methodology that was adopted successfully as an underlying structure when designing all the four different user involvement cases in the four LL’s. This methodology was used as a basis and with the methodology in mind all the partners came up with initial plans that were openly discussed in the WP3 workshops and idea sharing made the different elementary plans into successful studies. The user behavior methodology is a five part process that is used to design the whole energy saving project/Living Lab from the original set-up all the way up until result evaluation, this method is descibed in the deliverable D3.6.

The most vital tool inWP3 has been the Common Research Framework which is a template to design the whole LL pilot and also the user behaviour methodology within that frame. The Research Framework has been a template provided by WP1 and can be looked into in more detail in deliverable D1.3.

Other not just Living Lab specific tool has been the project plan that was collected from all the partners within WP3 and in those all the partners described their project management issues such as possibilities and risks and how to tackle them as well as work plan for the issues allocated to each partner and their own local aspirations. Also within WP3 we have had many roadshows in which different SME as well LE partners and local companies have had the possibility to share ideas and innovations within the Apollon frame.

4.5 Partners – End-Users

Describe the collected experiences from the experiments from involving users in cross border experiments. What has been the added value for the users to be involved in cross-border experiments? What has been the added value of involving users in the experiments from the other stakeholder’s perspective? What has the users contributed with in the experiments?

4.6 Partners – SMEs and Large Enterprises

Available public funding for SMEs helps when it focuses on RDI issues close to markets, since their development cycles are very short. LLs should aim to provide ‘same type services’ for SMEs in each location. Energy efficient LL network should be strengthened 60

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration nationally and European-wide, and services should be harmonized in order to bring business benefits to companies.

SME companies should have joint sessions in which common objectives are agreed and trust is created, and commitment of resources to the activities already at the start of the project is ensured. LLs and research organizations alike should share the objectives of SMEs and agree on a way of reporting which is meaningful to all of them. SMEs should create an open forum to uncover common interest areas and pinpoint those competition challenges which obstruct openness. In Apollon WP3 the sharing of common concepts was the correct approach and any true/direct cross border business value could be reported as an extra bonus. Objectives which are overly ambitious could hinder collaboration. Business objectives of different SMEs could well be so diverse that no meaningful shared business interests could be found. The idea of attracting supporting business members to Apollon proved a good idea that should be retained to allow new supporting members to come in. SMEs always are under resourced so good co-operation between LLs and research partners are very important in order not to lose momentum.

SMEs also need flexibility in their shifting business focus and EU rules should facilitate changes in DoW. Large Enterprises represent sustainability and potential cross border interest. Also national resources as owned by LEs represent potential for all to scale up businesses.

4.7 Partners – Local Authorities

In WP3 Local Authorities were municipality representatives, energy companies owned by local authorities and energy agencies. So local authorities drive the local energy policy and support local SME community for piloting. Local energy management systems are an asset in achieving local energy consumption optimization, facilitating the delivery of a balanced supply system and an optimal integration of demand storage means. The residential level created by e.g. the Lisbon pilot promotes the reshaping of energy consumption patterns by smoothing peak hours’ consumption and implementing management procedures that allow transfer of consumption to off-peak hours, settling of dynamic baselines of consumption according to energy supply conditions, combining grid needs with dynamic accumulation sources and strategies that shall be addressed within the energy management arena for the installations evaluated. This methodology, commonly used at a higher level than the municipal can be easily replicated to the municipal level.

Energy agencies, like Lisboa E-Nova, are the link to the energy test bed. Their unique position allows them to be the bridge between local authorities, SMEs and Universities, positioning such a consortium to be the real framework that motivates the LL methodology. Comparable to the energy agencies there are the entities directly linked to the local authorities, with a more envisioned perspective on the city needs and strengths, capable of operationalizing APOLLON successfully. Municipalities can appropriate results and draw up new policies and legislation both at the urban planning and urban management level, exploiting APOLLON results towards a more sustainable approach to the urban environment.

The implementation of communication strategies and the visibility of the pilot project impacts at the local level and dissemination of results to other municipalities, regional and national authorities, NGOs and other stakeholders of sustainable energy continue to 61

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration require attention. The promotion of new energy management business models, fostering SMEs and energy service companies (ESCOs) participation in local and decentralized energy production, in partnership with local authorities, is also a recent objective endorsed by APOLLON WP3 consortium and should be an outcome of the experiments conducted in the project, combining energy efficiency activity with the adoption of renewable energy technologies and alternative local energy production, such as cogeneration and multi-generation.

4.8

Research

In WP3, there were two Research Institutions as partners; Helsinki Aalto University and LuleĂĽ University of Technology. For research institutions in this experiment, the focus has been to do research on how to stimulate users to change their energy consumption behaviour by means of new technology and by means of tasks that stimulates their use of the implemented technology. In this experiment we have been able to elaborate with methods and tools for user behaviour transformation and we have also gained a lot of experience. For instance, one aspect of the experiment has been to have done a longitudinal study with user involvement for a longer period of time. Here it has become obvious that it is difficult to involve users and to keep them engaged for several months.

One way that we have tried to stimulate their engagement has been to give them assignments that they should carry out, with the objective to stimulate use transformation and adoption of the innovation and to stimulate the users to change their behaviour. By this mean, we have learned that the users do change their energy behaviour to some extent, and they do also become more knowledgeable in the area of energy saving. Hence, from that perspective it has been a good learning process as a researcher. The added value for the Living Lab has been the increased knowledge base in the area of energy saving. This has led to new project initiatives that in turn have increased the collaboration with research institutions and other partners around Europe.

4.9 Living Lab Perspective

Both Portugal and Finland LLs served a specific objective and the RDI method for achieving it was the quintessential LL method. In Finland the manager of the Living Lab is Process Vision and user groups are PV personnel. The Client for the work is the building owner Varma Insurance Company who wishes to pilot a modernization project to retrofit equipment for monitoring energy in as detailed a location as possible. A common interest for Varma and Process Vision is to customize such new energy services as can be used in other office buildings. The focus is very specific and costs are partly shared between PV ad Varma. The LL exists as long as there are LL projects taking place.

Research is outsourced to Universities and RDI activities are developed together with other local partners.

The purpose of Lisbon’s case was to implement energy efficiency measures in private households through behavioural change and to test the effect of using smart metering technology and remote management tool model in the curbing of energy consumption as well as to promote and evidence the feasibility of investing in residential housing and achieving viable and profitable solutions for energy management and communication, in a true Living Lab environment. The Living Lab approach here focused on gaining sufficient knowledge about users’ needs and desires within their own environment 62

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration (their own homes), and to use that information as knowledge for the deployment of future ICT based systems. Hence, the objective of the Living Lab methodology is to apply a methodology to ICT systems development that tries to attract users and therefore succeeds in an increasingly competitive market, facilitating the interaction between relevant stakeholders, such as research organizations, companies, and public and civil sectors and the energy user community.

In Lisbon’s condominium initial years of occupation a shared problem arose. The unusually high commitment of all the inhabitants to the resolution of the energy behaviour problem of the building (building lack of compliance with the expected energy behaviour; low energy efficiency materials chosen in the construction phase and high energy costs, both for common areas and private dwellings), led them to implement energy efficiency measures and motivated the dwellers to install a micro generation system (16 photovoltaic systems were installed, 3.68 kWh each). This commitment was a key to introduce a residential LL environment in this building once the interest and eagerness to participate in such a co-creation process was known.

In the case of Amsterdam Apollon WP3 is a project that exploits Amsterdam LL’s existing projects supported by the local Innovation agency. Their role is also to support local SME companies to access the international market and to promote Amsterdam as an innovative place to invest in. Amsterdam LL has been actively working on several European and national instruments to support its LL activities.

The Luleå case is the most traditional and stable LL concept. There the university has been managing the LL for more than ten years now and they co-ordinate all sides of the project; permanent user community resources, links to different applied research needs of different faculties, supporting a company base with L’s, SMEs and micro enterprises.

The University has close natural links to the municipality and the energy company owned by the municipality. They are funded from projects and are supported by other partners.

The added value for these Living Labs has been the increased base in the area of energy savings. This has led to new project initiatives and a new business model for Process Vision. The project initiatives will in turn increase the collaboration between partners around Europe. Another aspect of added value has been a strengthened collaboration with local SMEs who have not been involved with similar projects before.

63

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

5 Pilot specific evaluation WP3 and D3.5 had to collect a lot of contextual information from each country to understand the challenges of LL collaboration supporting SME involvement in a lead market development. This contextual information is gathered from the national strategies for energy saving by 2020. Analysis of programs and actions taking place on national, European and Global levels was done. Public policies in harmonizing one European regulatory policy were considered.

Also industry legacy in this sector has never dictated any uniform standards, and building automation systems has been very proprietary and now, when citizens should be empowered to save energy, there is a need for common standards and open interfaces between systems. Other more appealing lead markets for European companies are to be found in larger newly industrialized countries.

The pilot specific evaluation is a combination out of all the questionnaires, tools and methods conducted in the duration of the Apollon project Work Package 3. Most valuable in terms of understanding and evaluating the pilot as a whole with not just for Living Lab point of view but also for considering the experiments within their country context has been the country and SME reports collected from all the sites. Here below are the templates of the reports collected.

Content structure of a Country reports 1.

2.

3.

4.

General market context for user centric lead market pilots in energy efficiency Bottom-up approach with SME and Living Lab piloting focus Top down Industry approach for lead market development Public sector role 4.1 In Research 4.2 In RDI 4.3 In innovative finance and cross border support 5. European and global activities 6. Conclusions

Content structure for SME evaluation report 1. SME involvement and partnerships in national and cross-border activities(Background and questions 1-3) 2. SME challenges and strategies in cross border collaboration(Q 4-7)

64

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration 3. Public sector support(Q8 with added input by partner) 4. SME experiences in Living Labs or Living Labbing (Q 9,10) 5. Conclusions SME Questionnaire for the value of Cross border piloting in Living Labs (Each country should conduct 2-4 SME interviews preferably with project partners, supporting partners or partners who were somehow involved in pilot demonstration) 1. Background of the SME 2. Strategic Collaborative partners 3. In which of these (question2) categories you are seeking partnership primarily from your home market and which from another country?

4. In which of these (question2) categories you see competitors hindering collaboration with your company?

5. Which alternative applies better to your company regards to collaborating in developing new services or products to market: a) with close collaboration to an Innovative growth oriented SME company ( separate domestic SME company and foreign SME company not yet in your home market) b) With a dominant national or multinational company (separate a possible client to you and/or service/technology vendor/partner).

6. While piloting and trying new emerging products/services in a lead market environments do you prefer to do it in your home market or in some other country with more lead market and/or volume growth potential and if so where?

7. How and in what level do you face interoperability challenges and identify if in home market or/and in cross border market?

8. How can public sector (RDI) and public funding support you in getting early market leadership in your industry?

9. How can Living Labs and cross border piloting support you in achieving your business goals?

Should piloting with users be first concentrated in your home market or should cross border piloting be preferred; pros and cons?

10. In Apollon which are supporting issues for you to extend close to market Living Lab piloting and which are hindering issues?

5.1 Contextual Factors Lisbon’s pilot consists on a residential LL, in which the end-users are the ones testing the technology and thus are the direct beneficiaries from the energy savings benefits (lower electricity bill). Lisbon is located in southwestern Europe and its southern latitude accounts for its Mediterranean climate. Summer months bring many hours of sunshine, with temperatures averaging 28ºC in Lisbon and often going well up into the high 30s. Winters are mild by northern European standards, with temperatures averaging 10ºC - 12ºC in Lisbon and seldom reaching freezing point at sea level. Taking into account these variables it is expected that energy consumption will be greater for ventilation and cooling, than for heating.

65

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration Communication within the pilot study was in Portuguese; nevertheless the i-Meter display presents the data in English. At the National Level, energy efficiency is regulated

by The National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency – Portugal Efficiency 2015 (PNAEE), which is an aggregated action plan for a series of energy efficiency programmes and measures, with a timeline running into 2015. This plan is oriented towards the management of energy demands, according to the scope of the document on which it is based, European Directive 2006/32/CE of the European Parliament and Council, of 5 April, regarding efficiency in final use of energy and energy services, and is coordinated with the National Programme for Climate Change (PNAC), approved by the Council of Ministers Resolution no. 119/2004, of 31 July, and is reviewed by the Council of Ministers Resolution no.104/2006, of 23 August, and the National Plan for Attribution of Emission Licenses (PNALE), which was approved by the Council of Ministers Resolution no. 1/2008, of 4 January. The aforementioned European Directive sets a target corresponding to an annual energy savings of 1% until 2016, based on average final energy consumption for the five-year period of 2001-2005 (approximately 18.347 toe).

The PNAEE encompasses four specific areas, for which guidelines of an essentially technological nature will be issued: Transports, Residential and Services, Industry and State. Additionally, three transversal action areas are also defined - behaviours, Taxes and Incentives and Financing –, which were the object of complementary analysis and guide lining. Each of the aforementioned areas includes a series of programmes, which integrate a vast range of energy efficiency measures, aimed at structurally reducing energy demands. In this programme, the Residential and Service area includes three large energy efficiency programmes: - Home Renewal Programme, which defines various energy efficiency measures involving lighting, electrical appliances, consumer electronics and area rehabilitation.

- Energy Efficiency System in Buildings, which groups measures resulting from the process of energy certification in buildings, namely insulation, improvement of glass surfaces and energy systems.

- Renewable at the Time Programme, oriented towards increased penetration of ownproduction energies in the residential and service sectors.

In the same Plan, there is a reference to the behaviour’s area that includes programmes aimed at promoting energy efficient consumer habits and attitudes, such as efficient product recommendation, through awareness and communication campaigns.

At a local level, in December 2008 the Energy-Environmental Strategy for the City of Lisbon (developed by Lisboa E-Nova) was approved by the Municipality. The Energy and Environment Strategy for the City of Lisbon project aims at defining performance-based indicators and targets for the city established on the basis of technical and scientific consensus within the framework of European Commission policies and strategies. This set of indicators and targets will allow designing the new path upon which the Lisbon communities must orient their social and economic activities, according to the actual quantified flows of energy, water and materials, analysis performed in this project context: the energy matrix, the water matrix and the materials matrix. This set of tools will allow to evaluate the results of the implemented measures and to monitor in a quantified and systemic way the flows of the city of Lisbon. In this document, there are targets that were established to concur with the political cycles of the city. The energy 66

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration targets for 2013 comprise an energy consumption reduction (through residential and services buildings and transports) of 8.9% and for the Municipality buildings an Energy consumption reduction of 9.4%. The annual reduction rate allows the city to comply with the European 20-20-20 strategy and the targets set by the National Legislation.

Scandinavian Energy markets are unique; however on these emerging user-centric services are making a first appearance in each individual country. Also strong national funding for national programs strengthens the formation of specific national practices.

Also regulation is very specific nationally as is energy taxation. Europe should strongly push for open standards and interfaces. Penetration levels of Smart meters vary greatly from country to country.

5.2 Eco-Systems

The eco-system charter will define how innovative SMEs such as partake in Apollon are a part of a bigger ecosystem and value construct. This will enable us to understand how challenging it is for any group of SMEs to scale their businesses beyond just piloted smart meter based services for one client.

5.2.1

Evaluation of cross-border activities for innovative SMEs utilizing LLs for RDI and market entry

Apollon energy-related SME clusters engaged in demonstration activities are present in 4 countries and 4 LL locations. Each of the sites has core SME partners involved as well as project related other partners representing larger companies/technology providers, major utility companies, research institutes and LL operators. Evaluation will focus on outcomes of such activities, mainly from the perspective of how SME’s ad LL operators interact and create value, and how cross-border activities create opportunities and face challenges.

5.2.2

General business ecosystem layers for emerging applications and user centric services in the smart grid/smart meter market

The figure below illustrates the different business ecosystem layers of the market.

Apollon will focus in its demonstration activities to emerging application layers for future applications and services (upper layers).

The traditional incumbent power industry and communication industry ecosystems are also involved in developing future lucrative service markets and convergence of these industries is taking place. SMEs can function in these ecosystems by being very flexible and adaptive to market opportunities and forming close partnerships with big incumbents. Apollon will analyse these opportunities in four different locations in 4 different market conditions. Evaluation of potential cross-border partnerships of Apollon members and how LLs can facilitate some lead-market demonstrations and activities towards their business benefits both in their home markets and in seeking for new cross-border markets will take place.

67

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

When analysing these application layers more in depth and taking into account how Apollon core members and supporting members see their place in these emergent applications and services, we can define each demonstration in its own context to better compare individual market and local conditions better for analysis purposes. Business ecosystems should be defined against local regulatory environment and industry legacy structures. This enables us to provide policy related advice for national governments and the European commission.

Clearly different application layers are driving the new businesses in the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and Finland. Emerging markets can be segmented by different end customers. Process Vision, Liander and LuleĂĽ Energi represent the traditional power generation and distribution business towards new apps and services. The traditional enterprise sectors are of interest to Process Vision, Logica, and LuleĂĽ Energi. Building and real estate management as well the home sector are interesting areas for all Apollon partners. These concepts help Apollon partners to map their future strategies and overlaps allowing for potential synergies to be identified between partners. The Figure below helps partners to place themselves close to industry incumbents in each local market and in potential third location markets.

68

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

5.3 Interoperability Issues Proprietary building automation systems have dominated the measurements of energy usage. Due to regulatory needs, governments have opened the business to new entrants.

European countries are moving from daily (24 hour delay) measurements to hourly or even 5-15min measurements. This will not only happen at the main meter level, but also at the smart metering (sub metering level) which has been implemented with a varying degree of granularity. This enables measuring individuals and or machines efficiently.

Efficiency is also further enhanced with radio communications. Interoperability challenges are partly posed by how to create open access interfaces to current building automation systems and how to agree European wide and possibly Global radio communication standards for smart meters. Also electronic equipment safety certification is not fully standardized in each European country.

5.4 Lead market opportunities

Lead market opportunities vary somewhat in each of the WP3 countries. The Portugal case has great opportunities in micro generation, due to its modern and maybe even too costly system of feed-in tariffs towards renewables. This is clearly seen in the Lisbon pilot. Also the integration of eVehicles on a local level has many lead market opportunities for Portugal. Furthermore, the move towards LED technologies in lighting (Lighting LL) provides lead market potential.

In the Finland lead market opportunities are in the area of radio technologies on an individual level. Also due to the presence of the most developed district heating grid and the one cross-border Nordic Energy market (NORDPOOL) it is possible to further 69

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration develop demand based pricing and creation of maximum synergies in dual production for electricity and district heating.

Sweden was the first in achieving a smart meter penetration rate of above 90%, albeit only with one way communication. Sweden has succeeded so well on the Nordic energy market that it fails to attract individual level savings or micro generation (no feed in tariff system but geographically divided price zones). However, Swedish municipalities who partly own their utility businesses have possibly been maybe the most progressive on pushing local alternative methods for energy production and citizen participation in energy savings.

70

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

6 Quantitative Evaluation of the Experiments Summary of the Quantitative Evaluation of Cross-Border Experiments This is a summary of all the experiments carried out in the pilot. The individual evaluation reports are attached in appendix 1.

Key Indicator

Sum:

No of cross-border activities

40

No of technology transfer activities

2

No of user involvement activities

50

No of intellectual products (methodologies, know-how, etc.) transferred in 2 the experiment No of Users that has been involved in the experiment No of new ideas that emerged from the cross-border collaboration with users

2000 10

No of implementations of e.g. new functions as a result from the cross-border 1 collaboration with users No of redesign of products, services, processes as a result from the cross- 1 border collaboration with users No of SMEs involved in the experiment

10

No of new international partners for the SMEs involved

4

No SME engagement activities

20

No of signed letter of intent between partners and/or customers for the SMEs 3 No of new businesses generated in other countries for the SMEs involved

2

No of new customers in other countries for the SMEs involved

1

No of new business proposals for the SMEs involved

3

Did the cross-border collaboration lead to increased turnover for the SMEs no involved

Did the cross-border collaboration lead to increased customer retention for yes the SMEs involved 71

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration No of Large Enterprises (LE) involved in the experiment

4

No of new international partners for the LEs involved

0

No LE engagement activities

6

No of signed letter of intent between partners and/or customers for the LEs 1 involved for the LEs involved No of new businesses generated in other countries for the LEs involved

0

No of new customers in other countries for the LEs involved

0

No of new business proposals for the LEs involved

No of local authorities/public organizations (LA) involved in the experiment No LA engagement activities

No of new international partners for the LAs involved

1 3 5 0

No of signed letter of intent between partners and/or customers for the LAs 0 involved No of new businesses generated in other countries for the LAs involved

0

No of new customers in other countries for the LAs involved

0

No of new business proposals for the LAs involved

0

Did the cross-border collaboration lead to increased turnover for the LAs no involved Did the cross-border collaboration lead to increased customer retention for no the LAs involved No of products that has been transferred in the experiment

No of cross-border collaboration tools that has been used the experiment

1 2

No of NEW (for the stakeholders) ICT-tools that has been used in the 0 experiment No of distributed cross-border collaboration activities

0

Did the cross-border collaboration tools you used lead to increased access to some relevant information Did the cross-border collaboration tools you used lead to increased some 72

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration effectiveness in communication

Did the cross-border collaboration tools you used lead to increased co- no creation of innovations among stakeholders No of research activities that has been performed during the experiment

20

No of authored conference papers

10

No of authored journal articles

No of research conference presentations

4 6

No of new research projects initiated

0

Did the cross-border collaboration lead to increased comparability of Living yes Lab research No of Living Labs that has been involved in the experiment

4

No of new Living Lab network members

0

No of new collaboration initiatives between Living Lab network members 2,2,1 (planned, prepared or submitted) Did the cross-border collaboration lead to increased access to user no communities in other countries?

Did the cross-border collaboration lead to increased value proposition to the no stakeholder community

Did the cross-border collaboration lead to increased learning of Living Lab yes collaboration in networks Did the cross-border collaboration lead to increased maturity of Living Lab yes management

73

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration

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

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

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

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

Real time data is an added value if the presentation is adequate to the audience, namely baseline and real time consumption displays. Real time measurement has gathered new players to the field of energy efficiency that necessarily have no motivation or the knowhow to create integratable solutions into the emerging industry of smart metering vendors, instead all want to create a full range solution providing full package from measurements into costumer displays. This creates a large number of players in the market and creates interface challenges as all are compatible with only their own software. Conventional metering vendors or established energy management software providers can co-operate quite easily on national level because of old partnerships but 74

D.3.5 Evaluation Report on Cross Border Collaboration new SMEs lack the knowledge or network of partners so they could focus on their core knowledge part of the solution.

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

Within Apollon project international cooperation has shown benefits from exchange of experiences and lessons learnt from the partners, allowing the results of an initiative developed elsewhere to be appropriated and worked upon in other projects. This allows a convergence of resources, leveraging European-wide available assets (scientific excellence, technologies, methodologies, tools, experimental facilities, Living Labs, user communities) and avoids double work while achieving the same results. The results of the co-operation can be seen in the good results in energy savings of the four living lab pilots: Helsinki: Average 9% (increase of energy usage 4,0% to decrease of 24,1%) LuleĂĽ: Average 9% (5-12% decrease of energy usage)

Amsterdam: Average 6% (4-8% decrease of energy usage) Lisbon: Average 15% (9-20% decrease of energy usage)

75