Apollon - A Catalogue of state-of-the-art concepts, existing tools and lessons learned for crossbord

DELIVERABLE

Project Acronym:

APOLLON

Grant Agreement number:

250516

Project Title:

Advanced Pilots of Living Labs Operating in Networks

Deliverable 1.1 A Catalogue of state-of-the-art concepts, existing tools and lessons learned for crossborder Living Lab networks Revision: Final

Authors: Anna Ståhlbröst (LTU) Bram Lievens (IBBT) Christian Merz (SAP AG) Petra Turkama (Aalto University)

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

Public

C

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

X

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

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

Statement of originality: This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise.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

2

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

Table of Contents 1.

Summary........................................................................................................................................4

2.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................7

3.

Networking theories..................................................................................................................9

4.

Living Lab networks ............................................................................................................... 11

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

Towards networks of Living Labs .................................................................................................11 Living Lab networks – definition and scope ..............................................................................13 Current networks of Living Labs ...................................................................................................14 Lessons learned...................................................................................................................................18 SWOT analysis LL networks ............................................................................................................20 Creating the Apollon Methodology Framework .......................................................................21

5.

Categorization of the APOLLON Methodology Framework ....................................... 22 5.1 Elements of the Apollon Methodology Framework.................................................................22 5.2 Apollon methodology categories...................................................................................................24 5.2.1 Connect.............................................................................................................................................................. 24 5.2.2 Set Boundaries and engage....................................................................................................................... 25 5.2.3 Support and govern ..................................................................................................................................... 26 5.2.4 Manage and track.......................................................................................................................................... 27 5.3 Summary................................................................................................................................................28

6.

SOTA analysis – methodology.............................................................................................. 28

7.

Catalogue of State of the Art................................................................................................. 30

8.

Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 67

9.

References.................................................................................................................................. 69

7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Connect...................................................................................................................................................30 Set boundaries and engage..............................................................................................................36 Support and Govern ...........................................................................................................................46 Manage and Track ..............................................................................................................................59

Appendix A -­ SOTA interview guideline...................................................................................... 69

3

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

1. Summary

In October 2006 the Helsinki Manifesto was issued stating for the first time the need for networked Living Labs as an instrument to facilitate innovation and (economic) growth.

Consequently a European Network of Living Labs has been proposed that act as “a crossregional, cross-national and pre-market network, which creates multi-stakeholder co-operation models for public-private citizen-partnerships (PPCPs).”

In the last years there has been an increasing number of Living Labs throughout Europe, which are gradually forming a vibrant and still growing community. These Living Labs do not only differ in the composition and approach but also in the domains they address and their approach.

Various emerging Living Lab networks have been set up on the European, the regional, and the national levels which mainly exchange high-level principles and best practices for individual Living Lab set-up and implementation.

The next step that is needed for those Living Labs to move from awareness creation to true collaboration, is to implement a more detailed analysis of Europe-wide user, market and technology characteristics and an economically more valuable mode of experimentation, by networking, comparing and scaling up cross-border Living lab networks. It is of particular importance to facilitate the participation of SMEs including micro-entrepreneurs both as users and suppliers in this process. The establishment of further networked systems for open userdriven research, development and innovation was also clearly recommended by the Living Lab portfolio Leadership group in its Living Lab roadmap 2007-2010.1 When looking to the criteria for becoming a member of LL networks it’s remarkable that there are no specific criteria related to the network aspect itself. Besides the fact that the Living Labs need to have international networking expertise no criteria are stated with regard to collaboration, common procedures etc. . Because of this high level approach and lack of clear collaboration criteria, it is difficult for the network to move beyond being just a cluster of Living Labs. Also the network does not impose any rules on common tools or methods to be used when becoming a member.

When looking at the various initiatives in networking Living Labs, we notice that the main objectives are similar: to know each partner better and to learn from each other. The exchange of best practices and lessons learned is seen as the most important goal of the network followed by harmonizing an integrating tools and methods between the partners. Finally, a third objective that the networks indicated is performing joint research. Here the aim is that between partners of the various Living labs and over the border of each Living Lab research on a larger scale is set-up and executed.

1 http://www.tssg.org/archives/2007/03/corelabs.html

4

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 However, currently most of the networks are relatively new and are still in the exploratory phase.

When the network has produced concrete output, it is still more a gathering of what is available or possible within (each of) the Living labs. For example, the Nordic network of Living Labs has created a toolbox (see www.lltoolbox.eu), this is at the moment more an inventory of all possible user centred research methods that can be applied, than a common research framework or toolset that is applied in each of the Living Labs.

The potential as well as simultaneously the challenge of Living Labs or other collaborative innovation network research is the fact that the phenomena can be approached from various angles with various research methodologies, disciplines and theoretical foundations. In this context, we have considered open models as the most appropriate theoretical foundations for the APOLLON work. This approach relates to all the approaches labelled differently such as open innovation, open networks, open platforms, open business models (Munsch 2009).

The open approach can provide three opportunities for organizations: 1. New ideas can stem from a diversity of partners which represents more perspectives than would have been possible otherwise 2. Business and financial risk can be alleviated by the inclusion of more partners and a broader market scale can be achieved by joining forces 3. Time to market is boosted by contributions made by other contributors in the ecosystem, However, taking an open approach also involve issues which can be categorized into three themes: culture, contract and competition (Munsch 2009). Organizations need to carefully assess the culture of their partners to ensure that they can work effectively with each other for a longer period of time. Important to note is that partnering require mutual benefits.

Living Lab networks can be defined as managed collaboration networks (as opposite to selforganizing networks), which feature internal transparency and direct communication. Members of a network collaborate and share knowledge directly with each other, rather than through hierarchies. They come together with a shared vision because they are intrinsically motivated to do so and seek to collaborate in some way to advance an idea or a concept.

When we look at who has initiated the network it has mostly been a bottom-up process. The various Living Labs themselves have organised and set-up the network in place. The main motivation for doing this was a certain need that they encountered to get to know the other initiatives as well as the need for “lessons learned” in order to grow themselves.

Based on the current state of the art knowledge APOLLON creates a harmonized methodology for creating, operating, managing and evaluating living lab networks. The consortium develops a scalable framework for systematic living lab network initiation, support and management for the thematic Living Lab networks in APOLLON project, as well as for ENoLL and other Living Lab networks in the future.

5

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 We show how organizations leverage their expertise and combine customers and suppliers into a seamlessly integrated value network by embedding their local ecosystems into a broader crossborder ecosystem of Living Lab networks.

The proposed categorization for Living Lab network creation and management will apply for various layers, and serve the living lab community at large. The APOLLON methodology focuses especially on Living Lab network level and cross-border collaboration, rather than on single Living Lab level, which in itself is already a collaborative network as such.

There are several alternative approaches to network methodology creation, ranging from stages of life cycle approach to layers of interaction, categorization by use cases, phases of development or Living Lab maturity, like the description of a Living Lab life cycle approach developed based on project C@R. Building on this model, in this context, we have selected a holistic Living Lab management approach, and divided Living Lab management into four categories: 1. Connect - relates to activities and considerations in the start up phase of collaboration. In this stage we are defining the primary intent of the community, as well as the domain and engaging issues: issues important to the organization, aspects that are important and motivating for people and can bring in new members.

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

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

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

The objective of the categorization is to establish a common approach to methodology, and divide the related tasks and elements to easily managed entities. The proposed categorization will be applied in all APOLLON WP1 (Methodology and Tools) related tasks (State of the art, methodology framework, collaboration model, evaluation framework, future recommendations and roadmap).

6

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 This not only ensures a common approach and understanding across different tasks and work packages but mainly guarantees consistent findings that can be integrated into the bigger picture which ultimately manifests with the validated and tested APOLLON methodology framework at the end of the project.

The categorization along the lifecycle of cross border Living Lab networks is therefore also reflected in the questionnaire that have been designed for semi-structured interviews within and outside of the APOLLON consortium. Parts of the questions have not been strictly applied but served as guidelines for an open discussion with the interviewee. As the interviewees have been chosen according to their proven record of experience and expertise within the European Living Lab community and network, several inputs have been captured that not directly corresponds with one of the questions but go beyond the initially requested information. One of the main targets of the interviews was to capture qualitative information on existing Living Lab networking initiatives in order to derive a rating of how successful methodologies, tools or organizational structures have been applied in real life.

To a certain extent relevant methodologies, tools, governance and organizational structures are existing applicable at all stages of the LL networking lifecycle. They range e.g. from technological solutions (e.g. reference architectures for Collaborative Working Environments (CWEs), collaboration tools) to common frameworks and models (e.g. Monitoring & Assessment, roles & responsibilities).

The Support & Govern category is most prominently represented in terms of state of the art.

Obviously the need to co-innovate across 2 or more Living Labs has brought up initial methodologies and tools that support the actual solution development between partners belonging to different Living Labs. In some cases the development of supporting structures, methodologies and tools has not been investigated systematically and offer big potential for the APOLLON consortium to take them to the next level.

In general the potential of available methodologies & tools and structures adding value to participating Living Labs of a synergetic network seems to be huge. In any case, no one of the interviewed experts have provided final answers on the constitution of a methodological framework for cross border Living Lab networks and further research on the ground need to be invested.

A simple SWOT analysis indicated that one of the shortcomings of state of the art methodologies and tools is the poor application in real life experiments in particular across 2 or more Living Labs. Therefore extensive experience with some promising methods and tools are missing despite of their obvious applicability in a network of cross border Living Labs.

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

2. Introduction

7

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 The Living Labs are an instrument through which the innovation process can be improved by establishing business-citizens-government partnerships that enable users to participate in R&D at an early stage. European Living Labs are at the forefront of defining and putting into practice this new approach within the context of their local ecosystem. Currently, Europe-wide federation and networking between Living Labs are being or have been setup, in order to exchange information, looking at harmonizing best practices for setting up and conducting individual Living Lab research. However the Living Labs in those networks are still operating and collaborating across Europe at an individual project level.

It is commonly thought that strongly increased cross-border Living Lab collaboration would potentially yield huge added value for Europe, as it enables firms, most particularly SMEs, to participate in domain-specific innovation ecosystems at a European scale, without losing sight of local circumstances and idiosyncrasies. Therefore, it is needed that these networks of Living labs are working on a more intensive, permanent and scalable collaboration, using common methodologies, tools and sustainable organizational structures for cross-border domain-specific Living Lab networks.

As part of APOLLON, work package 1 deals with the development of a horizontal methodology that enables and supports the ramp up and operation of a cross-border network of Living Labs.

The APOLLON methodology will build on best practices and lessons learned from earlier Living Lab network initiatives and the vertical domain-specific Living Lab networks set-up as the four experiments within APOLLON. It will consist of an adaptable framework for planning, specifying, building, and implementing practical and theoretical aspects of Living Lab networks.

The APOLLON methodology and tool set aims at providing support and help for sharing and harmonizing Living Lab platforms between thematic cross-border clusters of European Living Labs as far as relevant with the practical realities of the available technologies, actors and business environments. APOLLON methodology will thus contribute to finding synergies between the actors, scaling up lead markets, facilitating strategic partnerships between innovative SMEs and micro-entrepreneurs, orchestrating systematic RDI processes and stimulating crossborder open innovation in Europe.

The APOLLON methodology will address interoperability challenges in cross-border Living Labs networks through different levels. First, on a technological level APOLLON will investigate to what extent a common platform or technology will help to solve these interoperability challenges. Second, on the organizational and regulatory policy level APOLLON will investigate to what extent the eco-systems of each Living Lab can and should be similar. Finally, on the research level the project will look at to what extent common tools and techniques are required for cross-border networks.

This deliverable provides a catalogue of state of the art governance structures and ecosystem set ups, tools and lessons learned from earlier Living Lab projects (as far as they are of relevance for

8 Â

Final version, 21/05/2010 Â

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 cross-border networks of Living Labs), existing Living Lab network initiatives, as well as from the thematic Living Lab networks within the APOLLON project.

The document is structured as follows: Chapter 1 and 2 provide a summary and introduction respectively.

Chapter 3 deals with networking theories and gives some theoretical background information on open innovation environments and principal considerations regarding networking initiatives.

Chapter 4 focuses on Living Lab networks and their relevance and scope for APOLLON purposes.

In chapter 5 an initial categorization along the lifecycle of LL networks is proposed that will be applied to this state of the art analysis, to baseline studies for M&A purposes, to the requirements gathering from the vertical experiments and to the APOLLON methodology framework.

Chapter 6 reflects on the methodology being applied to derive the findings of this state of the art analysis. It states the general approach, chosen initiatives and projects, conducted expert interviews and the common validation and consolidation of the findings.

Chapter 7 lists the main findings of this state of the art analysis in table style indicating the APOLLON categorization, concept category, the finding’s origin, a description of main results, a SWOT analysis, references and the relevance for the APOLLON methodology framework.

Chapter 8 comprises the main conclusion of this SOTA analysis and tries to position this deliverable with regards to the upcoming future work within APOLLON.

3. Networking theories It is widely recognized that the autonomous activities of single organizations cannot produce those radical, cross-disciplinary and architectural innovations that would sufficiently address the increasingly sophisticated needs of users (Normann & Ramírez 1998; Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004). Globalization, democratization of knowledge and extensive utilization of developed information and communication technologies have enabled users to demonstrate increased power and influence over the content of available products and services (Gassmann, 2006).

Consequently, the drivers for innovation have changed, now emphasizing increasingly value adding co-creation with customers, accessing and combining globally dispersed knowledge using advanced ICT solutions, and forming collaborative networks and partnerships with new types of dynamics between public sector, large companies and entrepreneurs (Jorgen Rosted, 2009).

The potential as well as simultaneously the challenge of Living Lab or other collaborative innovation network research is the fact that the phenomena can be approached from various 9

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 angles with various research methodologies, disciplines and theoretical foundations. In this context, we have considered open models as the most appropriate theoretical foundations for APOLLON work. This approach relates to all the approaches labeled in differently such as open innovation, open networks, open platforms, open business models (Munsch 2009). A common theme for these open approaches is to open up companies and to advocate establishing a broad ecosystem whereby external parties are much more engaged and involved in conceptualization and implementation of innovative new ideas in a blend of formal and informal matters.

The open approach can provide three opportunities for organizations: 1. New ideas can stem from a diversity of partners which represents more perspectives than would have been possible otherwise 2. Business and financial risk can be alleviated by the inclusion of more partners and a broader market scale can be achieved by joining forces 3. Time to market is boosted by contributions made by other contributors in the ecosystem, However, taking an open approach also involve issues which can be categorized into three themes: culture, contract and competition (Munsch 2009).

1. Culture: In this theme, elements such as different perspectives on speed, resource commitment, organizational changes, and different terminology. a. Speed: When an open approach is applied with more engaged partners, the complexity increases. b. Priorities: The more partners working together, the more diverse priorities and resource commitments need to be handled. c. Common understanding: The open approach also requires coordination about terminology between the different partners. Partners from different cultural (both organizational and national) contexts. If this is not addressed, serious technical issues may arise, hence, appropriate time and effort needs to be devoted to create a common language for effective communication.

2. Contract: Contrary to what the term “open” may imply, detailed agreements that takes into account complexity, intellectual property rights and compliances need to be developed. a. Agreements: Since there is much uncertainty when two, or more, partners decide to join forces to pursue for example a new idea, agreements can be very complex.

Issues that need to be handled here are governance, ownership rights, fields of use, exclusivity, resource commitment and potential timing, intellectual property, termination conditions and rights and other contractual conditions. b. Intellectual property: Especially in the area of creating new technology and innovations by implementing an open model, it is important to consider the difficulty of intellectual property rights. It is often unclear what is, or can be, created in these constellations. Hence, it is important to document in detail pre-

10

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 existing properties and how new co-created properties will be owned. Also, splitting fields of use needs to be articulated. c. Compliance: In networks, it is quite common that when two or more partners are involved in the process of bringing an innovation to market, some might have a greater vested interested in its success. To support this process a contract is helpful, but difficult to develop.

3. Competition: In this category it is important to consider, prior to engaging in open approaches, what long-term competitive implications there might be included in the open networking approach. These competitive implications can be related to the direct competition between two or more partners or more indirectly to the more structural changes which might occur. a. Direct competition: Migration to direct competition is the form more frequently observed. In these circumstances, two or more parties come together with complementary capabilities creating or enabling a new technology. While doing so, competencies are transferred between the partners. Important to note here, is that the intentions and interests might be unclear in the beginning or they might change during the process. b. Structural shift competition: An alternative form of competition that can evolve is one where the structural nature of the value chain is changed. Hence, evaluating and choosing one’s partners carefully when entering into an open model is vital.

This evaluation should include not only what the partner might bring, but also its likelihood of moving into your market. Also, think about “what if” we were successful with our intentions.

Based on the described issues that needs to be handled when an open and networking approach is applied it is important to remember that open models are not a panacea. Organisations need to carefully assess the culture of their partners to ensure that they can work effectively with each other for a longer period of time (Munsch 2009). Important to note is that partnering require mutual benefits.

4. Living Lab networks

4.1

Towards networks of Living Labs

In October 2006, as a result of the Networked Business and Government: ‘Something Real for the Lisbon Strategy’ – which was organized during the Finnish Presidency - the Helsinki Manifesto was issued. Here, for the first time the need for networked Living Labs as instrument to facilitate innovation and (economic) growth was officially presented.

11

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Consequently an European Network of Living Labs has been proposed that act as “a crossregional, cross-national and pre-market network, which creates multi-stakeholder co-operation models for public-private citizen-partnerships (PPCPs).”

By so, Europe emphasize on the importance of an open, user-centric and networked innovation environment in Europe. As a first step the creation of a European-wide network of Living Labs has been facilitated through which “emerging knowledge-intensive services, businesses, markets, technologies and even industries for jobs and growth can be developed, tested and validated.”2 The establishment of the European Network of Living Labs is an outcome of the Corelabs project. One of the objectives was to establish a “systematic and organized approach that will ensure that common methodologies and tools are developed across Europe”. The goal was that these tools and methods, used in the various Living Labs would support and facilitate innovation in and across the different Living Labs in order to have a global reach.

In order to create such a network that could address these objectives, different (technical) requirements need to be addressed. These requirements are structured into the six key areas that each reflects a basic component that on the level of the network itself needs to be addressed and organized:3 1. Presence / discovery: partners have to be able to 1. Identify other partners and 2. Check the status in terms of resources, operations as well as availability for collaboration 2. Communication and end-to-end connectivity: The Living Labs as well as the various partners within each Living Lab need to have access to sufficient and compatible communication and collaboration tools (e.g. Video conf call system) that facilitates the cooperation between them 3. Interoperability: The Living Labs should use standard protocols in order to establish interoperability across the various, heterogeneous platforms. Also the applications, subject of evaluation in these Living labs, should meet up with certain standards, so that the transfer of them is easy and efficient. The use of Open Standards is one way of achieving this 4. Accessibility: A key element within the Living Lab is their open nature. The network should also facilitate this open access to all Living labs that are member of this network.

The access to and within the network could be enhanced via a wider selection of multimodal interfaces and devices as well as network connectivity. This should be guaranteed and seamless 5. Security: With regard to security, the network should ensure that unauthorized access, replication, or modification of information as well as issues arising from potential alteration of data by unauthorized third parties is prevented. This is necessary to built up and guarantee trust between the partners.

6. Knowledge / information management: One of the main elements within the network is the sharing of information and knowledge. The network has to enable and support the exchange of information through various knowledge interfaces.

2

Helsinki Manifest. 2006 The key areas were defined within the Corelabs project. See deliverable 3.2 “Technological & mass customization aspects”of the Corelabs project.

3

12

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 In order to meet up these requirements, the network of Living Labs should, according to the Corelabs study address five technological and mass customization aspects (see table 1). However, when looking at the current state of the different networks in place we notice that these elements are only very limited being tackled on the level of the network itself. Often it is due to the structure of the Living Lab and the infrastructure itself within those Living Labs that some of these aspects are being addressed. For example, by using standard internet protocols in their network infrastructure, the various Living labs are offering a sort of open service architecture.

But in none of the existing networks of Living Labs there are specific guidelines, protocols in place that would facilitate this. An interesting case with regard to this are testbeds. Within the network of testbeds (examples are PanLab and OneLab) the objective is to create a common, scalable infrastructure that is interoperable, using open service architecture. These testbeds have, on a network level, installed the proper mechanism that allows them to connect the different testbeds. This enables them to set-up and conduct cross-border testbed activities in an easy and seamless way.

Technological and mass customisation aspects relevent for a network of Living Labs4 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Open service architecture that supports intelligent service creation and adaptation Seamless & pervasive environment for service and knowledge discovery Secure, dependable and trustworthy infrastructure Network, device and application interoperability Application Support for variety of interfaces

Table 1 Technological and mass customisation aspects for networked LL

4.2

Living Lab networks – definition and scope

Living Lab networks can be defined as managed collaboration networks (as opposite to selforganizing networks), which feature internal transparency and direct communication. Members of a network collaborate and share knowledge directly with each other, rather than through hierarchies. They come together with a shared vision because they are intrinsically motivated to do so and seek to collaborate in some way to advance an idea or a concept.

Identified challenges in Living Lab network creation and management include the need for a specific Living Lab research infrastructure and commonly agreed methodology and terminology at the European level. Common methodology and tools for creating and managing such networks would provide SMEs, users and academic community a set of harmonized user-centered research and innovation services (best practices, services, methods, tools, operational and business models

4 Fahy, C. & Power, T. D3.2 Technological & Mass Customisation – Deliverable of the Corelabs project. http://www.ami-­‐

communities.eu/pub/bscw.cgi/d325463/D3.2%20Technological%20%26%20Mass%20Customisation%20Aspects.pdf.

13

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 and platforms) and advance the rigor and quality of living lab experimentation in Europe. Thus in order for Living Lab networks to fulfil their function to -

increase the yield on product and process innovation to accelerate top-line growth

-

reduce time-to-market – through lean processes, a higher yield on designs and faster cycle times ensure compliance – by incorporating customer and regulatory requirements at all stages of the product lifecycle and by automating the process of documenting compliance optimize resources – by gaining greater efficiency through the product lifecycle and digital product and process validation, and leverage globalization – through real-time collaboration with global partners, suppliers and customers

-

more harmonized, easily accessible and relevant methodologies, models and tools are needed.

The importance of common methodologies and tools is highlighted in collaborative multistakeholder environments and when the users are involved in an open innovation process. Open innovation methodologies enable systematic categorization, filtering and analyzing of the qualitative and quantitative user data. The related tools can be considered as a platform for interactions, co-creation and feedback, or wider, as a vehicle for broad social, economic and institutional transformations.

In APOLLON WP1 our objective is to create a sound knowledge base of the various methodologies and ICT enabled tools for conducting empirical human-centric RDI work, and empirically validate scientifically proven multi-disciplinary methodologies and platforms for experimenting with people, societies and companies in real-life contexts, when the companies are delegating sustainable control over the service development to outsiders, and establish sustainable user-driven service, product and concept development networks in open and user driven manner.

4.3

Current networks of Living Labs

In the last years there has been an increasing number of Living Labs throughout Europe, which are gradually forming a vibrant and still growing community. These Living Labs do not only differ in the composition and approach but also in the domains they address and their approach.

As a first step in networking these initiatives, the exchange of high-level principles and best practices for individual Living Lab set-up and implementation is now being addressed in a number of national and European projects.

Various emerging Living Lab networks have been set up on the European, the regional, and the national levels (see table). These networks have up till now mainly been focused on creating

14

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 awareness related to the concept of a Living Lab, development of tools and methods to be used in individual Living Labs, the exchange of best practices, and the federation into generic networks.

Level

Network

Short description

Europe

European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) -­‐ °2006

The European Network of Living Labs creates a platform where companies, public authorities and citizens can work together on developing and testing new technologies, business models and services in real-­‐life contexts. Currently it embraces about 220 Living Labs

Regional Nordic-­‐Baltic Network of Living Nordic is a regional Living Lab network labs -­‐ °2007 that promotes user-­‐driven innovation and “livinglabbing” through national, Nordic, European and international networking and active awareness raising in industry, academia and public sector. It currently consists of 4 Living Labs National The Finnish Network of Living Labs

Open Forum (LiTe Open) is a nationally and internationally networked program, with the mission to develop true testing platforms for new technology-­‐based product development. The network covers 14 locations in Finland.

Open Living Labs Sweden, OLLSE -­‐ °2007

The OLLSE network includes 7 Swedish Living Labs representing a wide variety of thematic domains such as energy saving, new media, healthcare/wellbeing, urban challenges, airport services, student services, emerging innovation cultures and more.

Network of Dutch Living Labs: Orange Living labs -­‐ °2008

This network is the cooperation between several Dutch Living Lab initiatives stimulated by the Dutch Innovation platform. It involves four core Living Labs, some small Living Labs and governmental departments and municipalities. The objective is to strengthen the economy of

15

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 the Netherlands by promoting it as an international testbed and Living Lab.

Table 2

UK Living labs

This network consists of the UK Digital Challenge Network of Living Labs (UK-­‐DC-­‐ NoLL) which networks 8 geographically-­‐ focused Living Labs in England and 4 university-­‐based Living labs.

Portuguese Network of Living Labs

This network consists of 8 Living Labs that are also a member of the ENoLL. The network is focusing on e-­‐Inclusion, economic regeneration and service transformation. Ii developed an open innovation approach within local strategic partnerships, bringing together local authorities, regional development agencies, government departments, research institutions, businesses (both large enterprises and SMEs) and the voluntary and community (NGO) sector

Overview of existing networks of Living Labs

These emerging networks based on geographical proximity again indicate the dynamic towards further collaboration between Living Labs. Also, several of these networks have moved, often in embryonic form, towards grouping Living Labs on a domain-specific basis. These experiences strongly indicate the need for optimizing efforts by grouping thematically clustered Living Labs across Europe. Sharing experiences and lessons learned as well as tools and methodologies between Living Labs communities is important at this stage to be able to capitalize on the effort spent. The networks currently are still not focusing on this.

The next step that is needed for those Living Labs to move from awareness creation to true collaboration, is to implement a more detailed analysis of Europe-wide user, market and technology characteristics and an economically more valuable mode of experimentation, by networking, comparing and scaling up cross-border Living lab networks. It is of particular importance to facilitate the participation of SMEs including micro-entrepreneurs both as users and suppliers in this process. The establishment of further networked systems for open userdriven research, development and innovation was also clearly recommended by the Living Lab portfolio Leadership group in its Living Lab roadmap 2007-2010.5

5 http://www.tssg.org/archives/2007/03/corelabs.html 16

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 But when looking on how these networks have been established and on which base they selected and recruited their members, we do so a lot of differences. With regard to the criteria for becoming a member the networks are not always that transparent. The European Network of Living Labs has, as one of the few, defined a set of criteria that enables them evaluate the candidate Living Labs that want to join. When looking at these criteria, two important conclusions can be made: 1. The criteria are not strictly defined. There are no detailed criteria mentioned in terms of scale, operations etc...

2. There are no specific criteria related to the network aspect itself. Besides the fact that the Living Labs need to have international networking expertise no criteria are stated with regard to collaboration, common procedures etc...

Because of this high level approach and lack of clear collaboration criteria, it is more difficult for the network to move beyond being just a cluster of Living Labs. Also the network do not impose any rules on common tools or methods to be used when becoming a member. Here the network should play a more dominant, steering role in order to be able to create an environment in which corss border research within the different Living Labs can be established.

Selection criteria used by Enoll for the acceptance of 4th wave candidates Evidence of co-­‐created values from research, development and innovation Values/Services offered/provided to LL actors Measures to involve users Reality of usage contexts, where the LL runs its operations User-­‐centricity within the entire service process Full product lifecycle support -­‐ capability & maturity LL covers several entities within value-­‐chain(s) Quality of user-­‐driven innovation methods and tools Availability of required technology and/or test beds Evidence of expertise gained from the Living Lab operations Level of own commitment to open innovation process IPR principles supporting capability and openness Openness towards new partners & investors

17

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Business-­‐citizens-­‐government partnership – strength & maturity Organization of LL governance, management & operations Business model for LL sustainability Interest and capacity to be active in EU Innovation system International networking experience and capability Channels (web etc) supporting public visibility and interaction People/Positions dedicated to LL management & operations

4.4

Lessons learned

When looking at the various initiatives in networking Living Labs, we notice that the main objective for all of these is similar: to know each partner better and to learn from each other. The exchange of best practices and lessons learned is seen as the most important goal of the network.

Subsequently, the activities are targeted to facilitate and achieve this. The harmonization and integration of tools and methods between the partners are considered as a next step in the cooperation between the members of the network. The objective here is to have a set of tools, methods or even infrastructure that enables to exchange comparable information, to perform research in a similar way within the various Living labs that are part of the network. Finally, a third objective that the networks indicated is performing joint research. Here the aim is that between partners of the various Living labs and over the border of each Living Lab research on a larger scale is set-up and executed.

However, currently most of the networks are relatively new and are in still in the exploratory phase. This is the case for e.g. EnoLL, Inoll,etc. .When the network has produced concrete output, it is still more a gathering of what is available or possible within (each of) the Living labs.

For example, the Nordic network of Living Labs has created a toolbox (see www.lltoolbox.eu), this is at the moment more an inventory of all possible user centered research methods that can be applied, then a common research framework or toolset that is applied in each of the Living Labs.

Due to the fact that these networks are young and therefore are still looking about how they want to address the objectives, there are still a lot of open issues. The elements the networks want to address are: -­‐ -­‐ -­‐

Open and transparent internal communication between the partners of the network and avoiding in-house clustering Sustainability of the network – both organizational as well as financial How to deal with the mix of different types of Living labs within the network

18

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 -­‐

Clear and well defined rules and procedures to collaborate (within an international context)

The scope of the initiatives is dominated by the timeframe. Some of the networks (EnoLL Nordic, Finlab,…) are project based and funded. The funding and the time these projects are defined do affect the activities of these networks. Although that the project approach has set clear objectives that have to be met at the end of the project, it is not always clear what happens next.

In other words, the sustainability of the networks is unsure (partly depending on the funding).

EnoLL, that has started as an objective within Corelabs, has had to find new ways of organizing itself after the Corelabs funding ended (legal organisation structure, membership fees,…). As this has only recently been initiated it is too early to tell whether this approach is successful.

Figure 4.1

Layered objectives Network of Living Labs

Most of the Living Lab network initiatives have only recently started. Therefore are still focusing on facilitating the exchange of experiences and “how to’s”. Therefore the initiatives are also confronted with a number of open issues, mainly with regard to procedures and practices to collaborate with each other. There is a lack of clear defined rules and procedures within the network that determine how partners should collaborate with each other. The result is that this currently happens on an ad-hoc base. The risk is of such approach is the possible creation of “silo’s” or clusters within the network, where a small group of Living Labs always collaborate between themselves.

When we look at who has initiated the network, then we see that in all of the cases, that this has been a bottom-up process. The various Living Labs themselves have organised and set-up the network in place. The main motivation for doing this was a certain need that they encountered to 19

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 get to know the other initiatives as well as the need for “lessons learned” in order to grow themselves.

Important to recognize is that, next to this bottom-up process, the networks have been supported by a “leading partner”. Such leading partner appears to be crucial in the set-up of the network.

The role of leading partner ranges in the various different from universities, living labs to governmental agencies.

4.5

SWOT analysis LL networks

Figure 4.2

SWOT -­ analysis existing networks of Living Labs

The various networks of Living Labs that are already established (EnoLL, Inoll, Nordic Living Labs, Hispalab,…) are still in their initial, orientation phase. In order to meet with the other objectives (second and third layer) it is required to start developing new methods, tools, protocols, technical requirements and to establish a better exchange and re-usability of processes and procedures creating higher impact on the product / service innovator, the user and the whole local/regional eco-system. For this a synergized cross-border network methodology and supporting platforms and toolsets for cross-border thematic living lab networks is needed. The main elements in this methodology that need to be addressed are: common ecosystems and

20

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Living Lab networks, common benchmark and impact assessment frameworks, common, technology platforms, and common integration methodologies.

4.6

Creating the Apollon Methodology Framework

Based on the current state of the art knowledge we will create a harmonized APOLLON methodology for creating, operating, managing and evaluating living lab networks. We present a scalable framework for systematic living lab network initiation, support and management for the thematic Living Lab networks in APOLLON project, as well as for ENoLL and other Living Lab networks in the future.

We show how organizations leverage their expertise and combine customers and suppliers into a seamlessly integrated value network by embedding their local ecosystems into a broader crossborder ecosystem of Living Lab networks. We further present model for engaging supporting partners and other external entities into the development work. Adapting the Collaborative knowledge network approach, Living Lab networks represent core collaborative innovation networks, which operate in close collaboration with related communities and supporting partners (learning networks) and interest groups (users, potential members).

Figure 4.3

Layers of Collaborative Networks (Reference: Collaborative Knowledge Networks project lead by MIT Center for Collective Intelligence and the Center for Digital Strategies at Tuck at Dartmouth.)

In Apollon project the supporting partners represent the collaborative learning networks, whereas EnoLL and other related communities would represent the collaborative interest networks. The objective is for the ecosystem they create is a a high-speed feedback loop in which the innovative results of networks are immediately taken up and tested, refined or rejected by learning and 21 Â

Final version, 21/05/2010 Â

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 interest networks, and fed back to the originating networks. The proposed categorization for Living Lab network creation and management will apply for all the before mentioned layers, and serve the living lab community at large.

5. Categorization of the APOLLON Methodology Framework

5.1

Elements of the Apollon Methodology Framework

Methodology creation can be defined as ‘the development of a hierarchical taxonomy of knowledge creation measures’ (Mitchell, Boyle, 2010). In methodology development we use the existing practical and theoretical knowledge at our disposal, and elaborate that with empirical evidence. We apply multiple perspectives and ways of working, and try to establish connections between the various elements of methodology, as well as the theoretical and practical triggers and data inputs.

Figure 5.1

The 4 phases of the lifecycle of a Living Lab [Schaffers et al.]

Apollon methodology is especially focused on Living Lab network level and cross-border collaboration, rather than on single Living Lab level, which in itself is already a collaborative network as such. Apollon methodology will have several impact layers, including: -

Apollon level methodology, which will be generic level methodology, featuring rules and guidelines that apply for various types of cross-border experimentation in all types of Living Lab networks. Apollon methodology will emerge from State of the art knowledge in Living Lab networks, enriched by knowledge emerging from Apollon thematic pilots, and validated in Apollon project in project level.

22

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 -

Methodologies specific to thematic networks. Apollon thematic networks reflect those of ENoLL networks, and thus the achieved results will be further elaborated and developed in ENoLL context after Apollon validation. Thematic methodologies will build on the generic Apollon methodology and be as harmonized as possible, even with different emphasis.

This multi-layer structure will enable us to improve the relevance of the methodologies for various domains and target groups. However, due to the complexity of this set up, the methodology needs to be divided into manageable parts or categories, and thus make it more easily accessible.

There are several alternative approaches to network methodology creation, ranging from stages of life cycle approach to layers of interaction, categorization by use cases, phases of development or Living Lab maturity, like the below description of a Living Lab life cycle approach developed based on flag ship project C@R.

Figure 5.2

Living Lab networks and their management stages

Building on this model, in this context, we have selected a holistic Living Lab management approach, and divided Living Lab management into four categories: 1. Connect 2. Set Boundaries and Engage 23

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 3. Support and Govern 4. Manage and Track The objective of the categorization is to establish a common approach to methodology, and divide the related tasks and elements to easily managed entities. The proposed categorization will be applied in all Apollon WP1 (Methodology and Tools) related tasks (State of the art, methodology framework, collaboration model, evaluation framework, future recommendations and roadmap). The Figure below describes the linkages between the various categories, as well as the tasks related to each stage of development.

The following chapters describe the categories in more detail.

5.2 5.2.1

Apollon methodology categories Connect

The first part of the methodology work relates to activities and considerations in the start up phase of collaboration. In this stage we are defining the primary intent of the community, as well as the domain and engaging issues: issues important to the organization, aspects that are important and motivating for people and can bring in new members. This also includes identifying the ideas, insights and practices that are to be shared in the community at the early phase. It further relates to the issues related to resourcing and the single partner’s maturity, capability and expectations in networking.

At this point we create a preliminary design for the community. Thus the focus needs to be on the value of the community both for the network and individual members’ point of view. This includes both value of contributing and value of learning from others (e.g. easier access to information, higher status/reputation of individual members, self-development). The process of setting up the network should be as transparent and inclusive as possible.

This stage includes the following tasks: •

Setting the objectives and mutually agreed goals for the network.

•

Defining roles, responsibilities and operating model for the partners, including initial ideas related to dividing risk and rewards amongst the parties.

•

Identifying and sourcing required sub-networks and supporting parties. The complementary parties needed for successful completion of the work need to be connected to the core group. This task also includes identifying the context of the network and articulating the related other networks and interest groups.

•

Identifying relevant policy framework that will impact the project, and be impacted by the project.

24

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 •

Identifying what knowledge to share and how, laying an initial plan for a community repository, identifying ways to capture and store soft knowledge (to be embedded into community practice and stored into relationships).

•

Monuments”: symbols for the identity of community (e.g. logos). Also facilitate creating and developing of own identity within the community.

•

Instruments: an infrastructure that supports interactive communication to enable the processes of constant negotiation of meaning, participation and reification.

•

Points of focus: focal concepts around which the interaction and collaboration will be structured such as engaging projects for community members

•

Launching the community with dedicated community spaces, both private and public (as in the “Seven principles”) and corresponding initial community events

Identified critical success factors in the connect stage of the development include: •

Establishing mutual trust and investing in social capital and social structures

•

Community members with similar interests should be connected together as early as possible

•

The potential coordinators and leader should be identified as early as possible, with proper legitimization and formalization of their role in the community and the organization

•

The managers and officials in organizations should be engaged early., to avoid being “threatening” to established structures in the organization

5.2.2

Set Boundaries and engage

At this stage, the network needs to define the organizations’ roles more clearly, as well as negotiate partners’ responsibilities and addressing the power issues. A part of this process is measuring and making visible networks’ value for the organization and for individual members.

Also the role and relationship of the network within the existing national and European networks need to be defined.

The network needs to redefine its boundaries, rules for accepting new members and sustaining existing networks. For a successful integration of new members, the network should establish entry routines and requirements for new “admissions” and corresponding processes. The network will further need to seek relationships with outside organizations in order to keep innovating and refining its’ agenda on sustainable bases.

25

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Maintaining trust and the social “glue” is crucial in keeping the network together and alive, therefore it is necessary to clearly define ownerships and issues related to intellectual property rights. In order to rejuvenate the community, the network should keep “renewal” workshops and other similar events on a regular basis. Thus at this stage also the rules and processes for engaging network members on individual as well as organizational level needs to be defined.

This includes virtual tools and networking platforms, as well as the social structures and interactions.

Identified best practices for engaging collaborative networks include introducing a “stewardship team” for the community, including the roles of: •

Facilitator (engaging members, supporting members, providing feedbacks)

•

Knowledge leader (analyzing and summarizing for community, analyzing and recommending for management)

•

Event coordinator (planning regular events, facilitating online events, growing the community)

•

Administrator (generating the inventory, landscaping the resources (ref Kaulback & Bergtholdt)), building and organizing a community repository)

Another critical issue is the perceived added value for the network partner. The network must have sustainable and credible operational and business models including strategy and implementation measures. Thus the network provided services, tools, access to knowledge and business model, as well as future potential must be clearly articulated for all beneficiaries.

5.2.3

Support and govern

Living Lab network support will be among the main focus areas for Apollon WP1 work, since Living Lab services has been an indentified development area for Living Lab community as a whole. Support and govern category includes issues and tasks related to supporting operational work within the network, including co-innovation, solution development, user interaction and field experimentation. This involves processes, methodologies and tools that the network will provide for its’ members’ disposal, and systematically follow in its’ operations.

Systematically applied methodologies and supporting tools provide companies and other organizations with a controlled environment for collecting, modelling, analyzing and storing qualitative user generated data in various contextual settings, as well as for managing user communities and projects involving target group users. In fact, sustainable methodological

26

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 foundation and research infrastructure are prerequisites for high quality research and experimentation.

In regards to Apollon methodology the main questions is the level of agility and detail in the methodology development process due to the complexity of the context. General meaning of the supporting processes however remains the same: supporting ongoing rhythm, milestones and events of the network, creating communications and active dialogue, building and organizing knowledge repository for the community, and enable positive engagement and creativity.

5.2.4

Manage and track

In this context manage and track refers to assessment of the potential and achieved benefits and impact that the network is creating. Evaluation is an ongoing process throughout the network engagement, and the results will be communicated in multiple levels, including customer, society & people and performance related results. Performance evaluation is closely related to the network objectives and key performance indicators, since Living Labs can have very different objectives ranging from purely economic objectives to policy implications.

According to (Wenger et al, 2002), communities cannot be measured in conventional ways as traditional methods are not likely “to appreciate the creativity, sharing and self-initiative that are the core how a community creates value”. The value of the knowledge produced by a community is highly dynamic and context-dependent. Also, it is important to keep in mind that not all important parameters can be measured quantitatively. Therefore, at this stage we will focus on providing as a preliminary overview of probes and indicators that can be useful for monitoring a community. However, this set should be tailored and adjusted for individual communities and different contexts.

Clear emphasis is on building a multiple criteria for tracking the network, with emphasis on network level benefits, including community related issues, like: •

•

Social networks o Amount/structure of contacts:  Social connections across communities  Networks across national borders o Participation in joint activities o Community Identity: blogs, symbols, conventions, ways of displaying membership  Social awareness Growth o The growth rate of the community (new members per month) o Activity level of existing members

27

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 o Creation of new communities, creation of new networking patterns, connecting 2 earlier unconnected networks etc •

Organizational issues/power dynamics o Interactions between 4 community types mentors, learners, enterprise and university, measured both qualitatively and quantitatively o Formal vs actual roles (e.g. who is most active in a discussion) o Is free discussion/exchange ensured? (measuring participations of different members) o What actors are involved, from what organizations and organizational levels

Performance measurement is directly linked to management. Thus at this stage we further elaborate on best practices and management models for the networks, with focus on creative application and combination of various methodologies and services as applicable.

5.3

Summary

The categorization will enable state of the art processes and practices to be grouped under relevant categories, and thus more effectively used for the further development of Apollon methodology, collaboration model and evaluation framework. Streamlined approach to methodology development from the start will make the methodology cognitively easy to access and thus contribute to wider implementation and use of the methodology or relevant parts of it.

6. SOTA analysis – methodology

The categorization introduced in chapter 5 has been designed to be applied across different tasks of Work Package 1 and beyond that within the APOLLON consortium. These tasks include the baseline study for Monitoring & Evaluation purposes, the development of the APOLLON methodology framework for cross border Living Lab networks and the state of the art analysis of already existing structures, tools or methodologies associated with Living Lab collaboration and networking. This not only ensures a common approach and understanding across different tasks and work packages but mainly guarantees consistent findings that can be integrated into the bigger picture which ultimately manifests with the validated and tested APOLLON methodology framework at the end of the project.

The categorization along the lifecycle of cross border Living Lab networks is therefore also reflected in the questionnaire that has been designed for semi-structured interviews within and outside of the APOLLON consortium (see annex A). Parts of the questions have not been strictly applied but served as guidelines for an open discussion with the interviewee. As the interviewees have been chosen according to their proven record of experience and expertise within the European Living Lab community and network, several inputs have been captured that not directly corresponds with one of the questions but go beyond the initially requested information. One of 28

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 the main targets of the interviews was to capture qualitative data on existing Living Lab networking initiatives in order to derive a rating of how successful methodologies, tools or organizational structures have been applied in real life.

The outcomes of the interviews served as input for a collection of available methodologies, tools and structures including a SWOT analysis that also reflects expressed lessons learned.

The applied common validation and consolidation of interview outcomes have been kept very simple by intention and comprises the following information: • • • • • • •

Main category and sub-category according to the categorization of the APOLLON methodology framework The concept category distinguishing between methodologies, organizational/governance structures and tools The origin of the finding naming the project’s or initiative’s name and its concept A verbal description summarizing the main facts about the finding A SWOT analysis listing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the findings Available references for further details An indication of the relevance of the findings for the APOLLON methodology framework

The following initiatives have been considered for the SOTA analysis and represent a set of Living Lab initiatives that contain a cross border networking or LL collaboration aspect. These initiatives have been investigated through the accessible extended partner network of the APOLLON consortium and are considered to sufficiently reflect the current SOTA and lessons learned with regards to networking structures, methodologies and tools.

Living Lab initiative

Contacted/interviewed Sources of information person

C@R (Collaboration at Rural)

Hans Schaffers (Aalto University), Christian Merz (SAP AG)

Recorded interview at 11th of February 2010, C@R deliverables

Ecospace

Hans Schaffers (aalto University), Victor Kaufmann (SAP AG)

Recorded interviews at 11th and 12th of February 2010, Ecospace deliverables

Laboranova

Roxana Belecheanu (SAP Recorded interview at 29th of AG) January 2010, Laboranova deliverables

COLLABS

Roberto Santoro

Transcripted Skype interview at 9th of February 2010, COLLABS deliverables

29

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Finlab

Janne Orava

Recorded interview at 9th of February, 2010, Finlab and Finnish network of Living Lab study results

ENoLL Nordic

Petra Turkama

Report on ENoLL Nordic project deliverables January 2010

OpenLite

Veli-­‐Pekka Niitamo

Transcripted interview on 5th February, 2010, Open Lite results

Open Living Labs SwEden (OLLSE)

Mikael Börjeson

Transcripted interview on 26th February, 2010, OLLSE

CoreLabs

Mikael Börjeson

Transcripted interview on 26th February, 2010, CoreLabs

PanLabII

Anastasios Gavras

Transcripeted interviews on19th February, 2010, PanLabII

7. Catalogue of State of the Art The following presents the main findings of the state of the art analysis.

7.1

Connect

Connect -­‐ Roles & Responsibilities

Concept category

Methodology/Organizational Structure

Origin

Collaboration at Rural (C@R) – Vertical Groups and matrix management

30

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Description

The cyclic development iterations have been supported by interdisciplinary task-­‐forces, called vertical groups. These task-­‐ forces originally were set-­‐up because of the need to integrate and align different work activities within C@R, aligning different aspects of the collaborative platform, the core services, the tools and applications, and user experimentation. They have been composed mainly of technical experts experienced in service oriented architecture and collaborative working environments and have succeeded in exchanging knowledge and methods across the living labs groups as well. Several vertical groups have been established: the Spanish Vertical Group (related to Soria and Cudillero living labs), the Sekhukhune-­‐Homokhati-­‐Åboland Vertical Group and the Czech-­‐Italian Vertical Group. These vertical groups have had specific objectives related to supporting the technological needs of the living labs, and specifically for developing the collaborative applications.

Nevertheless, all vertical groups share the objective of defining an architectural approach to create advanced collaborative environments based on the composition of already existing basic collaboration services. In order to achieve this aim, each vertical group has been centered in different approaches and architecture implementation parts, so they are collaborating to achieve the architecture related goal. As an example, the Spanish vertical group has defined a framework to instantiate software collaboration tools specified in BPEL and managed the processes related to the orchestration and choreography of the basic collaboration services that compose an specific software collaboration tool. The Sekhukhune-­‐Homokhati-­‐Aboland vertical group has defined an approach for high-­‐level modeling of software collaboration tools using Business Process Models Graphical notations that would be able to be translated as BPEL scripts. All vertical groups exchanged regularly.

SWOT

Strengths • •

Weaknesses

Applied in real life over a period • of 6 cycles (3 monthly) Authentic outcomes in terms of co-­‐innovation across 2 or more Living Labs

Opportunities •

Have not been applied successfully to all participating Living Labs

Threats

A generalized concept of vertical • grouping could merge into a skills & capacity database accessible to a wider community of Living Labs

31

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

References

C@R Deliverable D.3.1.2: Synergies Management and Integrated LL Requirements, Deployment and Development Report, C@R consortium

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

In order to achieve open innovation an effective and efficient methodology for identifying capable and skilled resources is of utmost importance. In particular a multidisciplinary approach requiring coordinated efforts is of benefit to the quality and quantity of results. A generalized framework of the vertical grouping concept could lead to a skills & capacity database that helps to access knowledge in a network of Living Labs to the benefit of individual Living Labs.

Connect -­‐ Objectives and Goals

Concept category

Methodology

Origin

Co-­‐creating Living Labs, CoreLabs, Living Lab Roadmap 2007-­‐2010

Description

In order to define a shared reference towards a harmonization of methods and tools for use in a European Network of Living Labs an interoperability cube for harmonizing Living Labs has been developed (Mulder, Fahy, Hribernik, Velthausz, Feuerstein, et al., 2007). The interoperability cube (Error! Reference source not found.) builds on the assumption that the focus on synergies and those elements that Living Labs want to exchange with each other forms an appropriate basis for the harmonization of methods and tools. The cube identifies these exchange possibilities and explicitly defines interoperability elements from organizational, technical and contextual perspectives in which different standards are relevant.

The interoperability cube consist of six sides: User involvement, Service Creation, Infrastructure, Governance, Innovation outcome, Methods and tools. The aim is that the sides of the cube should be used to support the process of harmonising methods and tools

32

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 among different Living Labs, but also as a way to structure and access the repository of other resources.

SWOT

Strengths • • •

Weaknesses

Developed in correlation with the • establishment of Enoll Easy to understand and follow for different Living Labs • Gives a common frame of reference which functions as a • basis for discussion

Opportunities •

Have not been applied successfully to all participating Living Labs Too broad definitions of each category Not scientifically validated

Threats

Each category could be defined • and developed further to support the process of setting up networks and to reach a common objective

Important aspects could be missed due to the limitations of the cube

References

CoreLabs – Living Labs Roadmap 2007-­‐2010, Recommendations on Systems for Open User driven Research, Development and Innovation

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

In order to achieve open innovation an effective and efficient methodology for identifying capable and skilled resources is of utmost importance. In particular a multidisciplinary approach requiring coordinated efforts is of benefit to the quality and quantity of results. A generalized framework of the vertical grouping concept could lead to a skills & capacity database that helps to access knowledge in a network of Living Labs to the benefit of individual Living Labs.

Connect – Roles and responsibilities

Concept category

Methodology/organizational structure/governance

33

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Origin

COLLABS, Deliverable 2.2

Description

Identification of living labs under various thematic domains in order to share pilot ideas and platforms for new projects and experiments.

The project did a review of existing European Living Labs under various thematic domains and shared this through project dissemination activities. Thematic grouping of the networks and living labs increased the awareness of the living labs’ specific focus and strengths within the living lab community. This enables effective sharing of knowledge and best practices with expert groups, as well as finding partners for future projects and cross-­‐border initiatives.

Thematic clustering represents the latest development in the living lab maturity process, where individual actors move from stand alone operations to regional networks and further to cross-­‐border thematic networks with increased industry relevance and value add for participating SMEs.

SWOT

Strengths • •

Weaknesses

Open for also none ENoLL • members First large scale attempt to • group living labs by specialization

Opportunities •

•

Not a comprehensive list of living labs maintaining and updating the list after the project is not clear

Threats

Enabling identification of • learning networks and interest groups to support • newly established thematic LL networks Background document fro ENoLL decising on thematic networks

Potentially different from ENoLL thematic partners Few living labs are strictly specialized in only one domain. Listing may create profiles that do not reflect the whole picture.

References

Deliverable D2.2 Technical report for WP2 (by Schaffers)

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

Added value for thematic networks. Potential partners for future projects, dissemination or supporting partners. Thematic roadmaps as an idea something worth exploring also in Apollon project.

34

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

Connect – Objectives and Goals/Subnetworks and supporting parties

Concept category

Tools

Origin

ENoLL Nordic LL toolbox

Description

The concrete outcome of ENoLL Nordic project was a virtual toolbox for Living Lab research. The online resource (www.lltoolbox.eu) includes advice and practical tools for companies and other actors to get involved and started with Living Lab research. The pages also include references to further literature on the subjects. The toolbox is interactive, and thus open for contributions.

Living Lab toolbox is a handbook and resource library for any actors interested in living lab research and practice. It summarizes methods and tools commonly used in user research, open innovation and living labs. The various methods have been grouped following innovation cycle and phases and thus easily accessible.

The toolbox was collected during ENoLL Nordic project, which operated as event based promotion and sharing initiative, investigating the opportunities and added value of Nordic collaboration for living labs. Toolbox is maintained by Luleå Technical University.

SWOT

Strengths • • •

Weaknesses

Open for everyone • Good collection of LL research methods and tools Ease of access and clarity of • presentation

Opportunities •

Usage and user feedback on the pages not systematically documented Not specifically targeted for living lab networks, but rather project based work in individual living lab

Threats

Using the page as a reference • and learning instrument for the project • 35

Similar resources exist based on other projects as well.

Implementation of the Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 •

•

Dissemination and awareness building for living lab work New potential living alb clients through the pages

practices is not discussed.

Professional use of the mentioned methods requires support.

References

www.lltoolbox.eu

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

Added value for SMEs as a practical guide. Reference point for more detailed information on specific methods, and thus providing an additional layer for APOLLON methodology.

Since Apollon project concentrates on living lab network level, but there are also needs in individual living labs and experiments for additional and specific consulting, the toolbox can act as a general reference resource for the experiments.

7.2

Set boundaries and engage

Set Boundaries and Engage – Networking business model

Concept category

Model/methodology

Origin

COLLABS, Deliverable 2.2

Description

A conceptual framework of living lab business models.

A living lab business model defines the assets (resources), activities and collaboration through which a living lab offers products or services to its stakeholders, and eventually creates value for them.

Thus, the business model describes a “value proposition”: the value created for its stakeholders by the product or service offering.

Moreover, the living lab business model in its rural or regional environment defines the position and functioning of the living lab as part of the rural innovation system and innovation policy.

COLLABS defined the elements of Living Lab business models and distinguishes living lab business models on basis of following dimensions: 1. Funding and revenue generation 36

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 2. Service offering and value proposition 3. Business process and organization.

Furthermore, the projects have been divided by driver into project based, consortium based and facility based living labs with different business models.

SWOT

Strengths •

Weaknesses

Builds on extensive review of • leading European Living Lab practices

Opportunities •

Have not been applied successfully to all Living Labs, more research needed to develop and proof the concept

Threats

Living Lab business models • have been identified as the major issues in Living Lab network sustainability. Great potential for breakthrough findings.

•

Various objectives in Living Labs –not all aim for economic value maximization, and thus linear revenue creation model may not apply.

Models become very generic and thus do not add value

References

Deliverable D2.2 Technical report for WP2 (by Schaffers)

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

Conceptual framework can be used as a reference when identifying and classifying various types of Apollon experiments and networks, and planning the potential business models based on this initial categorization. Furthermore, COLLABS project identified Living Lab business models as a critical and yet under investigated area of research. APOLLON WP1 can contribute to filling this identified gap in Living Lab research, and thus make a significant contribution to Living Lab community.

Set Boundaries and Engage -­‐ Living Lab Policy Framework

37

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Concept category

Governance

Origin

COLLABS, Deliverable 4.2

Description

Identification of the potential avenues for Living Labs to influence national and regional policy making. Identified policy challenges.

Many regions, provinces and cities across Europe have implemented policies and instruments to stimulate innovation and socio-­‐ economic development, for example through fostering clusters and through intensifying innovation support. It is now widely recognized that it is no longer sufficient to focus on technology innovation as innovation is increasingly shifting towards market and society pull models.

Responding to and even giving shape to this transformation, the Living Labs concept aims to balance the forces of technology push and market pull by contributing to the formation of sustainable innovation ecosystems where regional stakeholders, citizens and companies including SMEs are engaged and collaborating in an early stage for user-­‐driven and open innovation.

Living Labs could constitute such an interactive policy intervention as they constitute an open innovation instrument which brings in the users in an early stage. However to qualify as interactive policy intervention, living labs should constitute a learning environment for both living labs stakeholders and policy makers.

SWOT

Strengths •

•

Weaknesses

Builds on extensive review of • leading European Living Lab practices Focus on SME potential in • regional level

Opportunities •

Work is still ongoing and few concrete examples of implementation exist Division of various policy levels yet not clear.

Threats

Building on existing • knowledge policy implications can be accelerated •

38

Living labs definition must be clarified in order to avoid misunderstandings and wrong expectations.

In this context living labs considered learning environments, thus the definition could be much broader

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 References

Deliverable D4.2 Technical report for WP4 (by Schaffers)

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

Relevant especially for WP1 task 1.5: Future recommendations and roadmap. Important lessons learned collected from earlier initiatives in single living lab level. Presented policy recommendations still hold valid, and could be incorporated in Apollon work.

Set Boundaries and Engage – Technological solutions

Concept category

Model

Origin

CoreLabs –Deliverable 2.3 -­‐ Living Labs Roadmap 2001-­‐2010

Description

The living labs foster the formation of online communities and provide existing rural communities with technical support. For geographical and demographical reasons the Internet penetration in rural areas is far from that in larger cities. It seems that current business models and technologies cannot achieve breakthrough in this area. Therefore we need new business models which are closer to real life situations in rural areas, villages. For example, in a small community people know each other and they try to solve any arising problems in much closer cooperation than in larger towns and cities.

From the aspect of technology and business models the Wireless Mesh Network solution fits perfectly into this picture. Utilizing this solution a community can achieve wireless network coverage for a small town or village. The network infrastructure is managed by volunteer citizens. As the whole system is self-­‐healing and self-­‐ tuning, the system can be expanded in a plug and play manner without special knowledge. With this solution the whole community will have network access and will be able to communicate with each other through this data network. The Internet access can be provided by volunteers sharing their already existing wired connections. As a free source for the community, the mayor’s office may provide the whole village/town with several broadband wired gateways. The WMN can be used to extend the range and the

39

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 services of an already existing WiFi based ISP (W-­‐ISP) or ISP’s.

SWOT

Strengths •

Weaknesses

Builds on extensive review of • leading European Living Lab practices

• Opportunities •

Have not been applied successfully to all Living Labs, more research needed to develop and proof the concept Suitable methods and tools currently change and develop

Threats

The growth of social media • interaction

Growth of social networking technology

References

CoreLabs –Deliverable 2.3 -­‐ Living Labs Roadmap 2001-­‐2010

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

Applying supportive technical infrastructure is vital for business model success in networks of Living Labs.

Set Boundaries and Engage – Living Lab business model

Concept category

Governance/Models

Origin

CoreLabs –Deliverable 2.3 -­‐ Living Labs Roadmap 2001-­‐2010

Description

The governance structure of a Living Lab describes the way it is organised and managed at different levels such as the operational or strategic ones. These (organisational, contextual or technological) aspects are related to the life cycle of the Living Lab. The strategic level deals with issues like: the way Intellectual Property Rights and 40

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 exploitation of results are dealt with; the way stakeholders are involved (financial contributions, commitment, responsibility, influence), financing: public-­‐private-­‐partnership, commercial; ownership of the Living Lab, i.e. its services, infrastructure, and the responsible entity for Living Lab (dedicated organisation or consortium); the management structure, e.g. director, steering board, (technical) program committee, user committee; driver and nature of the Living Lab, e.g. community-­‐driven, research driven, business/industry driven, technology driven, open/closeness: sharing resources/network; Living Lab development: consortium dynamics (e.g. additional partners, user groups), subsidy/funding policy and the definition and adjustment of the agenda. The operational level includes aspects like: working practices for the day to day management; execution & monitoring of the living lab goals regarding the synergy, quality and progress monitoring, internal communication; the way new software and services are introduced and validated, responsibilities and liabilities; the definition of user group/ awareness of being part of Living Lab; dissemination and external communication: national and international consolidation; the way projects are organized and funded.

SWOT

Strengths •

•

Weaknesses

Builds on extensive review of • leading European Living Lab practices Gives directions on how to plan governance structures

Opportunities •

Have not been applied successfully to all Living Labs, more research needed to develop and proof the concept

Threats

The operational level can be • developed to give further support

Different cultures stakeholders

among

References

CoreLabs – Deliverable 2.3 -­‐ Living Labs Roadmap 2001-­‐2010

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

The governance of the network is important and this gives substantial support for this process.

41

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

Set Boundaries and Engage – Technological Solutions

Concept category

Tools

Origin

Laboranova -­‐ Toolset

Description

Laboranova supports innovators, teams and companies within the development and management of innovative ideas and concepts.

The methods and tools guide the users through the process of the early-­‐stage innovation starting with •

team building,

•

generation and management of back-­‐ and foreground knowledge,

•

idea and concept generation and management

•

and

the

idea

or

concept

evaluation

and

selection.

Laboranova secures transparent procedures and decision making on a solid knowledge base aiming at product, process or service innovation. Laboranova provides the web 2.0 tools supporting the early-­‐stage innovation. The following tools have been developed: Distributed Feedback: This tool provides a set of small, lightweight desktop applications (called widgets), which allow the user to have an overview of all the public ideas submitted by other users, to have an overview of the different markets open in IdeM (the Idea Market tool) and in which ideas are being traded on, and to enter an idea and submitted to the central idea repository, either as draft or public.

Idearium: Idearium is a visual and interactive tool for asynchronous and distributed brainstorming which enhances the ideation process in four aspects: • • • •

Project Management Visualization Collaboration Interactivity

42

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 IDeM: IDeM is a collaborative innovation support environment that uses the market metaphor to provide: • • •

idea generation mechanisms feedback, commenting and rating aggregation of the preferences of users to support idea selection

InnoJam: InnoJam is a discussion-­‐based tool that can bring together thousands of users and connect them in an asynchronous way to empower the generation and evolution of ideas.

InnoJam is aimed to support massive-­‐participation events. In that line, a higher level of participation from the users provides a greater value from the system features. Even though, it can also suit the needs of smaller events, with a lower level of participation.

The community of participants has an important value as it is given the power to vote and rank ideas, their evolution or other proposed alternatives.

InnoTube: Customers’ needs are often not openly expressed.

However, what emerges from our past experience is a clear need of having a better understanding of the useful information needed for fostering and participating in the Innovation process. InnoTube offerst the following features: • • • • • • • •

browse through and reflect about relevant videos on Innovation Connect to relevant knowledge assets (mainly videos, but not only) related to the Innovation dimension Gather annotations related to videos and provide feedback to existing videos Provide opportunity to identify relevant Innovation-­‐related Ideas, Innovators and knowledge assets (mainly videos) Connect with one’s own innovation-­‐related characteristics and positioning Connect with other members’ innovation-­‐related characteristics and positioning Monitor the evolution of the community in the whole or of a specific object over time Play a funny and compelling word matching game which fosters further reflection on innovation ideas and allows to connect to other people.

43

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 MashUp: The mashup is a web–based application which provides a common, yet personalized entry point to the Laboranova environment. The mashup acts also as an integrated front-­‐end to the user innovation space (ideas, people, and related information), as well as to the innovation tools developed as part of Laboranova.

Several user roles are catered for in the mashup and its functionality is customised to these roles.

For innovators, contributors and evaluators, the mashup will offer a space for visualizing ideas and associated information, for adding comments and other types of evaluations such as ratings, as well as for finding expertise and connecting to the relevant people at the right time.

For innovation managers and team or project leader, the mashup will provide support to monitor and analyse the innovation activity and contributions of their team members (through relevant analytics), as well as for moderating communication and fostering collaboration in order to make innovation more efficient.

Melodie: KartOO created Melodie to allow the collaborative generation of ideas over the internet. All ideas are shown as a cartography (map) which visualizes the results. There is a semantic system which links and clusters the same topics between the ideas, so that similar ideas are shown near one another. Moreover, people can improve an idea by entering an improvement of an already existing idea. All ideas are shown and every users is allowed to access them and to modify ideas until they are finalized.

Profile System: The Laboranova Profile System is designed to enhance users’ ability to identify people who would be useful to them in creating innovations. Profiling tools are key in that they should generate virtual crossroads that normally mainly happen by chance in our professional life -­‐ such as meeting someone having a common interest with a complementary expertise during a conference or other event – they can thus provide a random chance of meeting a collaboration opportunity. refQuest: The generation of ideas to solve a given problem in an innovation area is one of the main tasks in the fuzzy front-­‐end of innovation. refQuest is a multi-­‐player online game supporting the idea generation by disruptiveness and structuring of the ideation process by applying creativity techniques. It allows Virtual Teams to cooperate in ideation over distance.

44

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Rich Knowledge Meetings: Many times synchronous communication, i.e., in real time, is preferred to asynchronous. Rapid response to ideas will result in an efficient dialog to creativity and lower the risk for misunderstanding In asynchronous communication like email, discussion boards, the time delay to a response may damper a discussion.

Rich Knowledge Meeting tool makes it easy to have rich meetings even if you are geographical apart. You talk to each other, you can see each other, you can share documents, and co-­‐operate using the other Laboranova tools. And since you are using your normal computer you will have full access to your email, calendar, and all your files.

The Wrap: The Wrap is a file folder system and a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) combined in one manipulable visual structure.

The structure is made up of ‘folders’ (circles) in which content such as files, links and work tasks are placed as hyperlinks. The circles however double as ‘containers’ for both content and other circles allowing the circles to form a WBS, i.e. a hierarchy of sub-­‐ and superproject levels.

Xpertum: Xpertum is an interactive web-­‐based tool for visualizing social networks, in terms of competences and people, which uses basically force-­‐directed and clustering algorithms (work in progress).

SWOT

Strengths •

•

Weaknesses

Tool validation has been • executed with promising results Comprehensive toolset for early stage innovation

Opportunities •

References APOLLON methodology

Have mainly been applied in individual corporate environments within Laboranova

Threats

Piloting of such tools within a • vertical network of cross border Living Labs

No threats

Laboranova – Toolset, deliverable 7.5.2 -­‐ Innovation Management at Companies – Tool Validation Early stage innovation tool support not only applies to distinctive, single Living Labs but also to networks of Living Labs. In principle there is no difference in handling these tools as early stage 45

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 framework relevance

innovation doesn’t differentiate whether collaborating partners are acting within a single Living Lab or within a network of Living Labs.

Therefore it is expected that the findings of Laboranova can be applied in APOLLON as well.

7.3

Support and Govern

Support and Govern – Co-­‐Innovation

Concept category

Methodology

Origin

COLLABS D3.2 Living Lab methodology assessment

Description

Description of a few important elements of living labs methodologies that have been explored and validated in Integrated Projects C@R (www.c-­‐rural.eu) and ECOSPACE (www.ip-­‐ecospace.org). These methodologies for setting up and running individual living labs distinguish between generic and specific methodologies to run living lab innovation projects. The principles can be partly applied for Networks of Living Labs.

SWOT

Strengths •

Weaknesses

Among the most • comprehensive investigation into Living Lab methodologies

May not be detailed enough to add value in actual cases.

Opportunities •

Threats

Find analogies between the • processes in living lab and network levels

Network management is more complicated than operations in single living lab

References

COLLABS Deliverable 3.2 Technical report

46

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 APOLLON methodology framework relevance

Establishes a good overview of current state of affairs with regards to Living Lab and Living Lab network methodologies. Can help identify gaps in the existing knowledge in the field and thus direct APOLLON WP1 work.

Support and Govern – User Interaction

Concept category

Methodology

Origin

CoreLabs – Deliverable 2.3 Roadmap 2007-­‐2010

Description

User involvement is one of the key elements of a Living Lab, and as such should be a focal point of mature Living Labs. In creating usable systems it is generally accepted that they should be designed according to an iterative approach, and that user involvement is crucial, see e.g., Mulder (2004). The focus is on finding out what the relevant experiences, methods, tools that Living Labs benefit from are. Users are important to define context-­‐aware services, think for example of cultural differences. Organisational issues include questions like How to organize user involvement? How to find the right users? What about the validity? How to motivate the users?

From a technological point of view: How to get access to large user groups? How to analyse large amounts of data? In order to enable scalability, the use of grid technology can be seen as a possible solution, as the volume of data generated within the Living Lab could become extremely large. Analysing social context data, application usage data and user experience data collected in real-­‐life settings presents new challenges -­‐ it’s not clear a priori which data is relevant. Therefore, new analysis and reporting modules might be needed along with scalable, flexible storage and computing resources to cope with large amount.

SWOT

Strengths •

Weaknesses

Builds on a comprehensive • study of existing Living Labs 47

The merits of user involvement has not been Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

Opportunities •

scientifically validated numerous studies

in

Threats

Contious need to be updated • due to changes in use of technology

It is difficult to identify users of innovations

References

CoreLabs – Deliverable 2.3 Roadmap 2007-­‐2010

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

Gives a sound basis for user involvement activities and identifies relevant questions to be answered.

Support and Govern – Co-­‐Innovation

Concept category

Methodology/ Tools

Origin

CoreLabs – Deliverable 2.3 Roadmap 2007-­‐2010

Description

The CoreLabs project has investigated methods and tools for Living Labs and established a respective taxonomy. The current Living Labs are using a diversity of technologies, infrastructures and applications and some host specialist technology providers and research institutes. Best Practices have been analyzed in order to ensure interoperability by either defining the use of de-­‐facto standards or suggesting extensions to existing ones where applicable. The methods & tools category within the interoperability cube describes different methods and tools used within the existing European Living Lab at all stages.

Integration of the project in the Living Lab infrastructure. A full Living 48

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Lab service offering not only requires product and service development and evaluation methodologies but also a mechanism for the integration of the customers’ product or service into a Living Lab to provide it to the users. The efficient, transparent and smooth integration accomplished by the Living Lab provider is the key for trust and convenience of the customer. It also can work as a first product/service testing depending on the level of development (market launch testing).

Co-­creation. The core service of the Living Lab is to facilitate the co-­‐ creation of a product, service or application development. This co-­‐ creative product development process can be decomposed into four phases: Product Idea, Product Concept, Product Development, and Market Launch. The methods are divided into traditional market research methods and internet based methods allocated to the process phase they are most appropriate.

Data preparation. To fulfil the customers’ expectations regarding the results and to reduce the complexity of the evaluated data, the Living Lab provider offers a standardised data preparation. The great advantage of the standardisation is the comparability with the results within other Living Labs in the network and the confirmation of the expected output in the run-­‐up to the usage of the Living Labs.

SWOT

Strengths •

Weaknesses

Builds on a comprehensive • study of existing Living Labs •

Opportunities •

Does not give any guidance on which methods to use Does not describe methods and tools to be applied

Threats

Contious need to be updated • due to changes in use of technology

Methods needs to be adjusted according to situational aspects

References

CoreLabs – Deliverable 2.3 Roadmap 2007-­‐2010

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

Gives a sound basis for how to think about methods and tools during Living Labs activities and interactions.

49

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

Support and govern -­‐ Co-­‐Innovation, Solution Development

Concept category

Methodology

Origin

Collaboration at Rural (C@R) – Cyclic development

Description

Cornerstone of the C@R living lab methodology is continuous development, prototyping, user experimentation and evaluation of innovative collaboration systems and new ways of collaborative working. The aim in C@R was to link and integrate innovative technical work and user-­‐driven innovation process, embedded in local innovation and rural development contexts. The approach was two-­‐level: (1) organising the development and experimentation of software systems in cycles (mostly three-­‐monthly), and (2) within these cycles applying an action research approach at the „micro-­‐ level“ of interactions between designers, users, researchers and other stakeholders. From the early beginning and grounded in local community building C@R built up a series of experimentations and evaluations, monitored over time and organised in three-­‐monthly cycles. This approach has worked remarkably well in organising the living lab project teams and in achieving concrete results and also provided a good basis for end-­‐user driven software development processes. It has been applied across all involved living labs in C@R and therefore provided a guiding frame in terms of organizing and reporting progress on solution development.

Establishing an environment of user-­‐led co-­‐creation currently cannot go that far as to let users develop specific architecture components. These components even should be hidden for the users.

However, C@R aimed to maximize user engagement on all levels.

Therefore the “artefacts” must be identified that possibly can be influenced and shaped by the users, on basis of a process of interaction, exchange and dialogue between developers and users, and also researchers and other stakeholders. Such artifacts include simple scenarios for work and business enhancements, evaluations and ideas for improvements of current collaboration processes, elements of collaborative workplace reference architecture, initial application designs and mock ups, and more developed prototypes.

50

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 A next element of end-­‐user shaping and appropriation is in actually using and experimenting with the application prototypes in near-­‐ real or real-­‐life settings, providing explicit or implicit feedback and guidelines.

Therefore, an important challenge in designing living lab projects is to create the conditions and frameworks for such „action research“ interactions, e.g. by establishing a local user–stakeholder community and arranging agreements among all actors to participate to the process, and given such frameworks to arrange and manage the concrete innovation project as a process of user-­‐influenced experimentation and evaluation covering the complex, cyclic and interacting processes of conceptualizing, designing, developing, testing, using and validating the innovations.

SWOT

Strengths • •

Weaknesses

Enforcement to think in terms • of cyclic progression

Alignment and close synchronization of cyclic development activities across collaborative living labs

Opportunities •

No weaknesses

Threats

Cyclic development could be • applied more extensively across living labs, in particular for joint development activities

Solution developers might be afraid of being observed to closely (e.g. short reporting periods)

References

C@R deliverable D3.1.1 -­‐ Common methodology framework

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

Co-­‐innovation, when applied across living labs become tricky in terms of organization and execution. Appropriate planning and monitoring of solution development activities is key for the success of new products and services, in particular when development resources are spread across organizations in different living labs.

Therefore the cyclic development methodology constitutes an important aspect for cross border LL networks.

51

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

Support and govern -­‐ Co-­‐Innovation, Solution Development

Concept category

Governance

Origin

Collaboration at Rural (C@R) – Reference architecture

Description

SWOT

A platform for advanced Collaborative Working Environments (CWEs) has been designed that follows the principles of an Open Service Oriented Architecture (OSOA). The multilayer architecture design realizes decoupled building blocks to deal with different aggregation levels of business functionality, namely Collaborative Core Services, Software Collaboration Tools, Orchestration Capabilities and Living Lab Applications. Additional to these layers a Control BUS has been conceptualized and implemented in order to centrally deal with component registration and brokerage enabling component reusability across Living Lab borders. The architecture design provides a reference framework for the individual Rural Living Lab flavored implementations that reflect local specifics of the overall concept as a result of the contextual “engineering target point”.

Such a platform on the one hand need to be dedicated enough to accommodate commonalities within a range of rural Living Labs and flexible enough to serve individual needs of certain sectors, cultural backgrounds, ICT infrastructures etc. During the lifetime of the project it became evident that a reference architecture for rural CWEs has certain limitations in terms of reusable concepts due to the variety of use cases and professions being present in remote areas. Nevertheless C@R found out overlaps between architectural needs if not between all Living Labs at least between some of them.

These overlaps drove the architectural design and the flavored implementations of according platforms operated in the individual Living Labs.

Strengths •

Weaknesses

Common architectural • principles and elements applicable to a wide range of LL

52

Common component reuse only applied occasionally, no broad adoption

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 • •

solutions • Reusable concepts and components

Open standards and interfaces

Opportunities •

•

Some LL haven’t applied some of the major concepts at all

Threats

Reference architecture • approach applicable to many LL except the ones in C@R Reference architecture could be enhanced to reflect a guiding architecture framework for different sectors of LLs (which was the original idea of OCA Working Group)

Non compliancy to reference architecture result in missed synergies between LLs

C@R deliverable D2.5.1 – Open Service Oriented Architecture (OSOA) As soon as Living Labs identify a common ground to collaborate in technical solutions and applications there is a need to conclude on common principles regarding the software platform and architecture. A reference architecture provides this common principles which offers opportunities to reuse components, to integrate with heterogeneous platforms and legacy systems and to interoperate between different platforms.

References APOLLON methodology framework relevance

Support and govern -­‐ Co-­‐Innovation, Solution Development

Concept category

Governance

Origin

Ecospace – CWE Reference Architecture

Description

The CWE Reference Architecture describes the main building blocks, system components and artifacts with their interrelationships as a template solution to be reused while building architectures and designing systems for CWE. Being a “reference” architecture means being as technology-­‐independent as possible.

The ECOSPACE project endorses this architecture and implements tools and prototypes that validate the proposed reference

53

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 architecture by demonstrating at the same time a possible implementation direction exploiting state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art technologies like SOA, Semantic Web and Widgets.

A layered approach has been followed to present the architecture.

This approach defines seven layers which can be presented in two groups: horizontal and vertical.

Horizontal •

•

•

•

Basic Service layer: Here the Basic Collaborative Services (BCSs) can be found. A BCS represents a simple collaborative task that can not be divided into smaller parts, e.g. create a blog, send an e-­‐ mail, or upload a document. This is a fundamental layer as it provides the building blocks for constructing the other layers. It is populated by ideally all available BCSs in the CWE domain.

Orchestration layer: This layer is populated by Composite Collaborative Services (CoCoS). These services are defined as sets of BCSs combined in a defined order to provide value-­‐added collaborative functionality to the user. E.g. upload document and notify all users, inform users about an appointment. ECOSPACE has already identified and documented a number of BCSs Collaborative Application Layer: Here we find the software applications that employ the capabilities of basic services and/or orchestrated services that the user wishes to use, e.g. BSCW, BC. Desktop Layer: This represents the user interface or front-­‐end which is used by eProfessionals to interact with one or more CWE applications. This interface is decoupled from the other layers.

Vertical •

•

•

Semantic Infrastructure Layer: This layer stores models, metadata and rules to be used by all the other layers in order to provide “intelligence”, contextualization and personalization of CWE functionalities and services.

Registry/Repository Layer: This layer stores information on where the several components and information associated to the artifacts that populate the other layers can be found.

QoS Layer: This layer provides the capabilities required to monitor, manage, and maintain QoS such as security, error handling, transaction management, scalability and reliability.

SWOT

Strengths

Weaknesses

54

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 •

• •

Common architectural • principles and elements applicable to a wide range of LL solutions Reusable concepts and components Open standards and interfaces

Opportunities •

•

No weaknesses

Threats

Reference architecture • approach applicable to many LL except the ones in Ecospace Reference architecture could be enhanced to reflect a guiding architecture framework for different sectors of LLs (which was the original idea of OCA Working Group)

Non compliancy to reference architecture result in missed synergies between LLs

Ecospace – Deliverable W.2 D.1 – Versions of the API, Ontology, and Reference Architecture

As soon as Living Labs identify a common ground to collaborate in technical solutions and applications there is a need to conclude on common principles regarding the software platform and architecture. A reference architecture provides this common principles which offers opportunities to reuse components, to integrate with heterogeneous platforms and legacy systems and to interoperate between different platforms.

References APOLLON methodology framework relevance

Support and govern -­‐ Co-­‐Innovation, Solution Development

Concept category

Governance/Tools

Origin

Collaboration at Rural (C@R) – Reference laboratory

Description

The Reference Laboratory acts as a playground for integration testing and demonstration purposes. Therefore it includes to validate the integration of CCSs (Collaborative Core Services -­‐ basic services) and SCTs (Software Collaboration Tools -­‐ orchestrated 55

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 services) within the C@R architecture.

The reference laboratory delivers a reference implementation of the C@R architecture, a basic but functional miniature of what an entire Living Lab can become. Partners across different Living Labs can test integration issues and demonstrate simple functions on top of it.

The final deployment of this Integration Testing instrument is a stable set of tools featuring physical machines, mandatory elements of the C@R architecture (such as the C@R BUS), virtual machines, additional software, repository showcasing documents and components yet to be tested or already tested, and also a DVD image of an up-­‐to-­‐date distribution of the Reference Laboratory itself.

At the same time, the Reference Laboratory has to be flexible enough to allow users find the best practices and procedures, modify or expand it on their own to fit their needs without interfering with the rest of the partners, learn to choose which components can be tested and, in short, grow with the project.

SWOT

Strengths • •

Weaknesses

Application of up to date tools • for distributed development Provision of integrated testing facilities for distributed components

Opportunities •

References APOLLON methodology framework relevance

Reference laboratory has not been used by partners that are not sharing components and tools (only local testing and local repositories)

Threats

As soon as there is cross Living • Lab solution development a common infrastructure for design time components is key for success – the Reference Laboratory could serve as a starting point

No threats

C@R deliverable D2.6.2 – Reference Laboratory C@R deliverable D2.6.3 – Deployment models Distributed development activities across Living Labs need appropriate guidance and a commonly accessible and usable design time infrastructure. The Reference Laboratory is a good starging point but needs further refinement in order to make it applicable in a general cross border Living Lab networking context.

56

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

Support and govern – Supporting services and tools

Concept category

Tools

Origin

Ecospace – Collaboration tools and applications

Description

ECOSPACE has developed a Collaborative Working Environment (CWE) reference architecture as well as a large set of collaboration services and tools in an interoperable collaborative environment.

Some of the used concepts have already been contributed to standards (W3C). There are different ways of interaction; some tools are directly integrated in base applications or make use of a particular functionality of them, whereas others interact with base applications through CoCoSes (Composite Collaboration Services), which provide a set of Web Services that act as entry points.

Expectation awareness: User can formalize a private expectation about a user-­‐behavior in relation to a shared artifact (e.g. Document, Folder, etc.)

Document Tagging: Implementation of the popular Web2.0 tagging-­‐paradigm in relation to artifacts like files and folders.

Workspace Awareness: Combination of Shared Workspace and Instant Messenger, that provides availability information of different users in a workspace.

CWE-­Blog: Integration of blog-­‐software as own artifact-­‐type in Shared Workspaces-­‐System.

CWE-­Task Management: Extension provides full functional task-­‐management system in relation to shared documents and resources.

CWE-­Portal Modules: User are able to organize and layout their own portal with functions of BSCW and third party tools and information.

SWAPit: Application provides (visual) retrieval functionalities for 57

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 measuring the involvement of a user in respect to a special topic.

MARTE 30. Conferencing: Web-­‐based multimedia conferencing application with shared desktop and rooms support

VCS Meeting Space: Supports team meetings from planning, running them including VoIP/conferencing, to capturing minutes in a highly process oriented way.

VCS Skype Integration: Makes Skype presence and communication functionalities securely available inside collaborative workspaces.

Sharing Support: context-­‐driven e-­‐mail attachments sharing with mail body, on BSCW. Reduce documents redundancy on local & network repositories-­‐

Teambuilder & Evaluator Tool: Supports the retrieval of adequate manpower in respect to the competencies required in a project.

Jammeswm: Mobile Application which gives access to a Shared Workspace in a user friendly way and includes presence and instant messaging features.

TM4Wiki Editor & Browser: Authoring environment that supports the creation, maintenance, and use of ontology-­‐aware repositories of objects based on the ISO standard – Topic Maps.

AJAX Application for CoCoS: “Upload Document and Notify Users “: Application performs exemplary a common working task. Provide a created document and inform coworkers about the new document.

Synchronous Collaborative Tool: Tool provides synchronous communication functions for two or more people. These functionalities will be used for Webservice-­‐purposes in the ECOSPACE.

The Assessment of Knowledge Worker Team Productivity: Supports measurement of team productivity.

Annotation Based Access Control with UncleShare: Access control mechanism based on Annotation developed as a widget using SOA.

Holmes: Social Network Extractor and Analyzer: Extracting social networks (weighted graphs) using log files of shared workspaces 58

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

Expertise Extractor Using Online Shared Workspaces: Extracting expertise from shared workspaces using document-­‐based events.

SIOC Xplore Widget: Widget provides cross CWEplatform semantic querying and data integration.

CWE Data Importer & Exporter: Facilitating the interchange of data between CWEs

RFID2Doc: Toolset (RFID-­‐Reader, Document-­‐Management-­‐System) enables retrieval of meta-­‐information of printed documents.

Post‐@ Communicator: An easy to use, pure presence & IM system, indicating if and where someone is working and via which channels they can be reached (PC, phone, GSM, IM or other attached systems).

Role Based Access Control Standard with DFOAF: Based on FOAF, this tool supports the construction of trusted people-­‐networks based on weighted person to person relations.

Strengths

SWOT

•

Weaknesses

Comprehensive set of tools and • applications for CWEs of information workers

Opportunities •

Extensive real life application and testing of tools across different Living Labs is missing

Threats

Toolset could be adapted and • applied in a wide context of Living Lab networks

No threats

References

Ecospace – Tools brochure

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

The proclaimed lightweight approach of Ecospace in developing tools and applications that support the collaboration of information professionals offers opportunities for further exploitation within networking Living Labs. Therefore these tools or modifications of them should form part of the methodology framework for APOLLON.

7.4

Manage and Track

59

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

Monitoring & Assessment – Impact assessment

Concept category

Methodology

Origin

COLLABS Best Practice Assessment

Description

Best Practice Analysis framework, based on the harmonization cube.

This framework is especially targeted towards SME engagement, which is the focus area also for APOLLON project. The assessment dimensions include: user involvement, service creation, infrastructure, governance, innovation outcomes, as well as methods and tools. The framework was applied for 8 living labs. The results are available as spider-­‐web diagrams. For the seven categories we have identified three different thresholds ranging from 0 – 100. The value 0 means that a Living Lab has nothing specific installed or deployed in this category whereas 50 means that some specific measures are taken.

SWOT

Strengths •

Weaknesses

The framework has been • validated in COLLABS project

Opportunities •

Different interpretation and understanding of requested information

Threats

The criteria is commonly • accepted, and thus could be partly used as bases for APOLLON evaluation framework.

The relevance of the framework unless specified in more detail .

References

Deliverable 2.2 Technical report: Current best practices of LLs and services for SME innovation support

APOLLON methodology framework

A common Monitoring & Assessment framework could be of benefit to networked Living Labs in many ways and should form part of the methodology & tools framework. Combined with the results from 60

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 relevance

the other SOTA initiatives, the harmonization cube would create good bases for work.

Monitoring & Assessment – Success criteria, Living Lab network sustainability

Concept category

Model

Origin

COLLABS D4.2: sustainability plan

Description

The sustainability and viability plan for the CO-­‐LLABS network after its formal project duration. To this aim, the CO-­‐LLABS Thematic Network is working jointly with the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) and the AMbient Innovation Family of Communities (AMI Communities) in order to shape an evolved structure able to set a stronger synergy with the Living Lab movement, which promises to become the most important Open Innovation mechanism in Europe.

This deliverable describes the process of forming and structuring ENoLL, the most sustainable Living Lab network in Europe.

SWOT

Strengths •

Weaknesses

Real life example of network • creation

Opportunities •

May not be applicable since most networks are much smaller

Threats

Learning from mistakes and • improving the process

Directly copying does not advance research and practice

References

Deliverable 4.2 -­‐ Joint action plan and roadmap towards sustainability

APOLLON

Network sustainability is a major consideration also in APOLLON. 61

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 methodology framework relevance

ENoLL formation is a great example of network creation and should be closely followed in APOLLON project.

Monitoring & Assessment – Impact assessment

Concept category

Tool/Methodology

Origin

Collaboration at Rural (C@R) – M&A Framework

Description

Monitoring, assessment and evaluation has been a continuous activity within all C@R living labs. The introduction of the cyclic and spiral development approach and the introduction and acceptation within the project of action research methodology principles, has brought a more systematic approach to organizing, implementing and monitoring the main innovation and experimentation activities in the Living Labs. This approach has been applied as a common framework to all Living Labs in order to gain synergies in terms of identification of overlaps, comparability and applicability of innovation process etc.

Due to the evolution of the C@R Living Labs, this framework has evolved over time. The upgraded framework is focused on the following categories: 1) Living lab External Context This category is related to identifying and describing the Living Lab external context and trends driving living lab developments (e.g. funding available, strategic partners business needs, rural policy changes).

2) Living Lab Innovation resources This category is related to the Living Lab resources in the beginning of the time period under study, concretely: network infrastructure, experimentation resources and tools, know-­‐how, funds, user and business support base etc.

62

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 3) Living Lab Innovation processes This category is related to observing the unfolding innovation processes in the living lab. We may best observe these processes in terms of actions of / interactions among actors, decision making, resulting decisions and their effects. We have chosen to structure these observations using the Action Research framework of cyclic phases (reformulated into main living labs processes of Preparation, Deployment and testing, Use, Learning). It has turned to be best to concentrate these observations on critical living lab innovation processes, such as: · Living lab community building, involving stakeholders, and its evolution · cooperation between developers and users in developing tools and applications · users interacting with (prototype) tools and applications in their work environment · validation, evaluation and learning activities.

4) User involvement and feedback processes Because of its importance we specifically address this category. It is related to the decisions and processes to achieve user involvement and to the actual processes of user involvement and creation as unfolding in the living lab. Examples: joint design and development, applications cocreation, and at least provision of feedback to designers. This will allow us to observe, understand and assess the role of the Living lab as an environment of open, cooperative and real-­‐life innovation.

5) Other related processes This category is related to observing other activities, interactions or events that are part of what is happening in the Living Labs. Specific information to gather in the scope of this category is (only if processes of these types actually can be observed): · Strategic management of the living lab · Operational management of the living lab · Infrastructure management · Support to the users of the Living Lab · Incubation processes and services.

6) Impacts and value creation This category addresses the observation of effects of the living labs 63

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 innovation activities, and the assessment of the value (benefits) creation based on these effects. The value creation concept is to be considered as a very important concept to understand the benefits of Living labs, both in terms of value creation results and in terms of the value creation mechanism itself. The value created by the Living lab approach consists of two types of value: · Value of the concrete Living lab innovation results. For example the value of collaboration platform and collaboration tools for its direct stakeholders (e.g. users, increasing their productivity) as well as for the wider rural environment (e.g. contributing to rural infrastructure); · Value of the Living lab approach as an innovation environment.

Again this involves value for stakeholders (e.g. providing them an open collaboration environment) as well as value for the wider rural environment (e.g. enabling future innovation activities and collaborations).

7) Living Lab maturity This category aims to observe and benchmark the current development phase and quality of the Living Lab, using several criteria mainly related to aspects of openness, cooperation and real life innovation environment . The criteria included in this category address the following topics: · Level of cooperation based on public-­‐private partnerships, cooperation with technology and applications providers; · Early and continuous involvement of citizens / the general public / users / other stakeholders in real-­‐life innovation; establishment of forms of user co-­‐creation; · Cyclic and interactive learning-­‐based approach (non-­‐linear, non-­‐ waterfall) of design – prototyping – use -­‐ evaluation – redesign – learning; · Openness for new partners to enter the collaborative innovation (users, providers).

SWOT

Strengths • •

•

Weaknesses

Applied in real life over a period • of 4 cycles (3 monthly) Reflects incremental improvements based on action • based learning Qualitative and quantitative KPIs 64

Different interpretation and understanding of requested information Common approach doesn’t allow for tailored M&A according to maturity state, context etc.

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

Opportunities •

Threats

Better comparability of • networked Living Labs through more rigid and simplified application of framework

Living lab stakeholders might be afraid to disclose true information about the current state of progress and impact

References

C@R Deliverable D3.1.3: Living Labs Analysis and Assessment Report, C@R consortium

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

A common Monitoring & Assessment framework could be of benefit to networked Living Labs in many ways and should form part of the methodology & tools framework. Based on the findings and lessons learned of C@R an adapted and contextual version of the M&A framework need to be developed for application within the 4 vertical pilots.

Manage and track – Success Criteria

Concept category

Methodology/Model

Origin

CoreLabs – D3.1a – Innovation Aspects, Prerequisites & Requirements

Description

A Living Lab strive to stimulate innovation and creativity, hence its ultimate success will be measured against the quantifiable, accepted and sustainable innovation it produces. The success of a Living Lab can be shaped around four basic elements: Innovation, Collaboration, Multi-­‐contextuality and Sustainability Innovation: The success factors suggested for Living Lab innovation success are: − Number of peer-­‐reviewed Publications

65

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 − Number of legally held Patents − Number of Products that reach the market An even more holistic approach relevant to the philosophy behind Living Labs includes the following aspects for measuring an innovation from different perspectives. − Resources – human competencies, skills, knowledge, financial resources − Internal processes – new firms, spin-­‐offs R&D activities − Commercial – new science and technology advances in a region illustrated bu number of patents, new to market products, enterprises involved in clusters − Collaboration; university R & D financed by firms, inter-­‐ company collaboration and cooperation between research institutes and enterprises.

Collaboration: Participation among many stakeholders. But also collaboration in terms of: − Planned: the form that is used for long-­‐term strategies towards an established goal − Mediated: The use of a mediator to facilitate the collaboration between stakeholders − Ad-­‐hoc collaborations: a short-­‐term and spontaneous form of co-­‐operation initiated for a specific situation Multi-­Contextuality: By introducing an environment of multiple and diverse dimensions, users can contribute, evaluate and be evaluated in a real-­‐life situation free of conscious and often contrived reminders that a traditional testing environment might evoke.

Sustainability: This is an issue that becomes an indicator of the long-­‐term success of the individual Living Labs. The meaning of sustainable for regions and individuals are: − Employment Creation & Longevity: the aim is to stimulate innovation and enterprise of participating regions and thus the prosperity. − Inclusion: Provide and environment that enables the understanding of diversities in terms of age, culture, gender,

66

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 ethnicity, national.

Competitiveness: The creation of a Pan-­‐European Living labq as a supporting infrastructure for innovation.

SWOT

Strengths •

Weaknesses

Provides a basis for assessment of • Living Lab success •

Opportunities •

May not be applicable due to its focus on individual Living Labs The criterions has not been tested and validated in real-­‐life situations

Threats

Its categories can be further • developed and assessed in the Apollon project

References

D3.1a – Innovation Aspects, Prerequisities & Requirements

APOLLON methodology framework relevance

Assessing the impact and evaluating the outcomes of a Living Lab or network of Living Lab is essential

8. Conclusions

The APOLLON partners consider the state of the art that has been put together in this deliverable as representative and comprehensive. APOLLON is very well networked and comprise some of the key pioneering stakeholders of past and ongoing Living Lab initiatives in person.

No dedicated Living Lab networking initiative has been detected on an operational level.

Initiatives like ENoLL rather concentrate on dissemination of know-how and the formation of a larger Living Lab community. The networking aspect of the Living Lab methodology is therefore not very well investigated reconfirming the necessity for APOLLON to develop the methodology framework for cross border Living Lab networks.

When looking at the various initiatives in networking Living Labs, we notice that the main objective for all of these is similar: to know each partner better and to learn from each other. The 67

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 exchange of best practices and lessons learned is seen as the most important goal of the network.

Subsequently, the activities are targeted to facilitate and achieve this. The harmonization and integration of tools and methods between the partners are considered as a next step in the cooperation between the members of the network. The objective here is to have a set of tools, methods or even infrastructure that enables to exchange comparable information, to perform research in a similar way within the various Living labs that are part of the network. Finally, a third objective that the networks indicated is performing joint research. Here the aim is that between partners of the various Living labs and over the border of each Living Lab research on a larger scale is set-up and executed.

However, currently most of the networks are relatively new and are in still in the exploratory phase. This is the case for e.g. EnoLL, Inoll,etc. .When the network has produced concrete output, it is still more a gathering of what is available or possible within (each of) the Living labs.

For example, the Nordic network of Living Labs has created a toolbox (see www.lltoolbox.eu), this is at the moment more an inventory of all possible user centered research methods that can be applied, then a common research framework or toolset that is applied in each of the Living Labs.

However, to a certain extent relevant methodologies, tools, governance and organizational structures are existing applicable at all stages of the LL networking lifecycle. They range e.g. from technological solutions (e.g. reference architectures for Collaborative Working Environments (CWEs), collaboration tools) to common frameworks and models (e.g. Monitoring & Assessment, roles & responsibilities).

The Support & Govern category is most prominently represented in terms of state of the art.

Obviously the need to co-innovate across 2 or more Living Labs has brought up initial methodologies and tools that support the actual solution development between partners belonging to different Living Labs. In some cases the development of supporting structures, methodologies and tools has not been investigated systematically and offer big potential for the APOLLON consortium to take them to the next level.

In general the potential of available methodologies & tools and structures adding value to participating Living Labs of a synergetic network seems to be huge. In any case, no one of the interviewed experts have provided final answers on the constitution of a methodological framework for cross border Living Lab networks and further research on the ground need to be invested.

A simple SWOT analysis indicated that one of the shortcomings of state of the art methodologies and tools is the poor application in real life experiments in particular across 2 or more Living Labs. Therefore extensive experience with some promising methods and tools are missing despite of their obvious applicability in a network of cross border Living Labs.

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

This SOTA analysis will now serve as a starting point for further APOLLON tasks also within work package 1 – Methodology and Tools. In particular the requirements elicitation process for

68

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 the APOLLON methodology framework (task 1.2) and the Collaboration Process and Living Lab Network engagement model (task 1.4) should profit from the results of this study.

9. References [1] Gassmann, 2006, Opening Up the Innovation Process: Towards and Agenda, R&D Management, 36,3,223-228 [2] Munsch 2009, [3] Ramírez 1993, From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy, Harvard Business Review, 71, 7, 65-77 [4] Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004, The future of competition: co-creating unique value with customers, Harvard Business School Press, ISBN: 9781578519538 [5] Rosted, 2009, National Innovation Strategy for Finland, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Finland [6] Wenger et al, 2002, Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge.

Cambridge, MA, Harvard Business School Press.

[7] Mitchell, Boyle, 2010, Knowledge and Organisation: a social-practice perspective, Journal of Organization Science

Appendix A - SOTA interview guideline

The following questionnaire have been used as a guideline for the different interviews. Individual adaptations have been introduced by the different interviewers to reflect the targeted interviewee.

APOLLON approach/background LL networking methodology framework The main objectives for the horizontal WP APOLLON Methodology & Tools are to create • • •

a Methodology for (setting-­‐up) a cross-­‐border network of Living Labs an Approach to apply and validate the methodology within the APOLLON project a Framework to measure its success within the APOLLON project

The APOLLON methodology & tool set will build on best practices and lessons learned from earlier Living Lab network initiatives and the vertical domain-­‐specific Living Lab networks set-­‐up as the four experiments within APOLLON. It will consist of an adaptable framework for planning, specifying, building, and implementing practical and theoretical aspects of Living Lab networks.

69

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 The APOLLON methodology and tool set aims at providing support and help for sharing and harmonizing Living Lab platforms between thematic cross-­‐border networks of European Living Labs as far as relevant with the practical realities of the available technologies, actors and business environments. APOLLON methodology & tool set will thus address how to find synergies between the actors, scale up lead markets, facilitate strategic partnerships between innovative SMEs and micro entrepreneurs, orchestrate systematic RDI processes and stimulate cross-­‐border innovation in Europe.

State of the art analysis This task will create a catalogue of the most successful governance structures, ecosystem set ups and lessons learned from earlier Living Lab projects (as far as they are of relevance for cross-­‐border networks of Living Labs) identified State-­‐of-­‐the-­‐Art Living Lab network initiatives, as well as from the thematic Living Lab networks within the APOLLON project. It will also catalogue existing tools for cross-­‐border Living Lab collaboration.

1. Background information

1. Your name/organisation:

2. What kind of initiative or project do you represent?

3. What’s the purpose/objective of the initiative or project?

4. What is the duration/timeline of your initiative or project?

5. Please state the main achievements and shortcomings of your initiative or project?

2. General

1. How are Living Labs involved in your initiative or project?

2. How many Living Labs are forming part of your initiative? Who are they?

3. Who are the stakeholders of the Living Labs?

70

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 • • • • • • • •

Public and Civic Communities Public and Regional Authorities Industry SME’s Academia Investors Content Providers Other

4. What kinds of LL methodologies have been experimented with?

5. Which methodologies have been successfully applied?

6. In what way do you consider the Living Lab methodologies superior than traditional methodologies?

7. Do you see any benefits in collaborating with other Living Labs? Which benefits do you see?

8. In which stage of LL lifecycle do you consider LL networking/collaboration as most beneficial?

Why?

9. What aspects of LL collaboration has been part of your initiative?

10. What kind of concrete collaborations has been part of your initiative?

11. Which tools have been dedicated to support LL networking/collaboration?

12. How successful a particular tool has been applied?

13. Based on your experience, what do you consider helpful/beneficial in LL networking?

71

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 14. Did you gain any measurable impact of LL networking/collaboration for your individual LL performance?

15. What kind of LL collaboration is further needed in your personal environment?

16. Is there any documentation available in terms of LL networking results? What kind of?

3. Category questions

Connect

LL networking initiation

1. How was the LL networking/collaboration initiated in your project?

2. What criteria did you apply to choose your LLs to collaborate with?

3. What helps you to identify Living Labs that may be relevant for you to collaborate with?

4. What kind of working relationship needs to be established in order to enable collaboration between Living Labs?

5. What kind of collaboration in a network of Living Labs is beneficial to you?

6. What expertise have you gained from Living Lab networking?

Policy frameworks & regulations

1. To what extent is your business affected by local policies and regulations?

72

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

2. To what extent is your initiative or project affected by local policies and regulations?

3. In what way foreign regulations and policies influenced your collaboration between LLs?

4. Have you ever been supported/impeded by foreign regulations when collaborating with cross-­‐ border Living Labs?

5. Are there regulatory bottlenecks for cross-­‐border PPPs?

Set boundaries and engage

LL network business model

1. Do you make any difference in business relationships between local Living Lab partners and partners from cross-­‐border Living Labs?

2. What sources of funding come into question to establish collaborative partnerships with other Living Labs?

3. Which resources are involved in LL co-­‐operation? (e.g. competencies, job profiles that co-­‐operation partner have)

4. What is the individual stakeholders’ added value of LL cooperation?

5. What kind of business modalities, working relationships, governance and legal frameworks apply to your LL cooperation?

73

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 6. How did you handle IPR issues in a network of Living Labs?

Collaborative solution development

1. Have you collaborated between two or more Living Labs to develop solutions?

2. How did you handle a distributed development team? Did you use specific methods or tools to support distributed development?

3. Have you ever reused components, methods or tools from other Living Labs to drive your solution development?

4. What helped you accelerating and quality improving your solution development in a network of Living Labs?

Cross LL user interaction

1. Have you ever extended user interaction beyond single Living Labs?

2. Is there a need to access other end user communities beyond the ones available in local Living Lab? If yes, why?

3. Which Methods and Tools are used in the Living Lab network e.g. to integrate end-­‐user communities?

4. In which process phases are the users involved in cross-­‐border Living Lab networks? (front end (p-­‐idea, p-­‐concept) or in the back-­‐end (p-­‐development, market launch)

Cross border field experimentation 74

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

1. Have you ever applied methods or tools across different Living Labs to do some field experimentation?

2. Do you consider field experiments in other contexts (using the infrastructure of collaborating Living Labs) as beneficial for your business/project? If yes, what kind of benefits could you get?

Manage and track

Monitoring and assessment

1. What framework do you use for M&E?

2. Do you apply a M&E framework that is applied in other Living Labs as well?

3. Do you monitor the added value of collaboration with other Living Labs?

Commercialisation

1. Have you ever reached the stage of commercialization of new products and services?

2. What supports/prevents commercialization of new products and services from your point of view?

3. Could collaboration with other Living Labs help you to enter the stage or accelerate commercialization?

75

Final version, 21/05/2010

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

76

Final version, 21/05/2010