Page 1

OpenLivingLab DAYS 2017



This report is a collection of workshop debriefings from the Open Living Lab Days 2017 in Krakow, Poland. The workshops have been conducted by members of the ENoLL Living Lab community - all content debriefing the workshops has been provided by the workshop organisers themselves.

Main editors: Clara Mafe Ines Vaittinen Spela Zalokar Design: Dora Matok Ines Vaittinen


Learning Lab Participants


Day 1.

Day 2.



Open Science, Open Innovation, Living Labs; the innovation helix pillars................................................26


CONFERENCE OPENING........................................10 Enabling Citizen Science in the European Union............12


Reflecting on, and in, research and practice in Living Lab processes.........................................................14


Living Labs versus other forms of collective and collaborative innovation....................................................16


New Profession and Education Trends in Societal and Open Innovation.........................................................18 INNOVATION & RESEARCH TRACK III. Open Innovation and User Innovation in Living Labs for SME/business support, healthcare and urban & regional development..........................................20







Around the Open Innovation World in 80 minutes..........28 Multiple Helix Innovation without boundaries: Public – Private – People – Partnership............................30

LOCAL PITCHES...........................................................32 LOCAL CHALLENGES................................................34 PANEL DISCUSSION FEEDBACKS.........................36



LIVING LAB POLICIES...............................................54 SERVICE DESIGN.......................................................64

SMART CITIES................................................................72

CIRCULAR ECONOMY..................................................84


Highlights of the OpenLivingLab days The European Network of Living Labs signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Future Center Alliance Japan (FCAJ) based in Tokyo, Japan. The agreements seeks and carries out mutually beneficial activities for the advancement of social good and economic growth, open innovation and better collaboration among the companies, research organizations, universities, cities and regions and public sector organizations represented by the two organizations.

ENoLL Council accepts a new innovation partner – Vandejong, a creative agency based in Amsterdam.

Welcoming new Vice Presidents to the ENoLL executive board. ENoLL Council members, Wim de Kinderen (Brainport Eindhoven) and Anna Ståhlbröst (Botnia Living Lab) have been elected as Vice Presidents. They will join Artur Serra (i2CAT) in their new role. The three Vice Presidents support the activities of the ENoLL President Tuija Hirvikoski. This year’s Veli-Pekka Niitamo for best research paper was awarded to Abdolrasoul Habibipour, Annabel Georges, Dimitri Schuurman, Birgitta Bergvall-Kareborn for their paper on “Drop-out in Living Lab Field Tests: A Contribution to the Definition and the Taxonomy”. Next year OpenLivingLab Days will be hosted in Geneva, Switzerland by Genève Lab, Energy Living Lab & Mobile Communications and Computing for Quality of Life (mQoL) / CUI – ISS from Wednesday 22 August to Friday 24

August 2018.

Welcoming our 11th wave members: • Genève Lab • Smart City Malaga Enel Living Lab • Healthy ageing & well-being Lab • Atrium Lab • Smart Factory OWL • China Housing Lab • Smart Gastronomy Lab • Solar Living Lab • Textile and Clothing Lab • Open Lab • Madonie Living Lab • UNIS&F Lab • L’Acadie Lab

Welcoming our 11th wave members: • Genève Lab • Smart City Malaga Enel Living Lab • Healthy ageing & well-being Lab • Atrium Lab • Smart Factory OWL • China Housing Lab • Smart Gastronomy Lab • Solar Living Lab • Textile and Clothing Lab • Open Lab • Madonie Living Lab • UNIS&F Lab • L’Acadie Lab 9

DAY 1.

Conference Opening

Tuija Hirvikoski (ENoLL President, Director Laurea University) Wojciech Przybylski (Krakow Technology Park)

What are Living Labs? Living Labs (LL) are value driven and open innovation ecosystems that bring stakeholders and citizens together for the co-creation of new solutions and the transformation of socio-economic and socio-technical structures.

How is this achieved?

1) Invite citizens to hearings, consultations and experimentations

2) Engage people to shared value co-creation processes

3) Enable self-organizing citizen driven innovation

13 On photo: Tuija Hirvikoski

How do you enable and boost Open and Citizen Science in your ecosystem, what are your recommendations or fears about this upscaling initiative?


Enabling Citizen Science In The European Union

Wojciech Przybylski (President of the KTP Board) • Krakow Technology Park (KTP) is an open and user-ceantred innovation facilitator in the Polish region of Malopolska, but also a key actor in the the co-creation and implementation of its Regional Innovation Strategy.

Joelle Mastelic (Manager of Energy Living Lab) • The Energy Living Lab is an open innovation ecosystem dedicated to energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy in Western Switzerland.

‐‐ Around 20 living lab projects;

• Its goal: to increase social acceptance of technology by placing citizen at the beginning of the design process and undertaking in situ experiments.

‐‐ From start-ups to Comarch;

• Why use Citizen Science?

• Krakov’s Living Lab experience:

‐‐ From parklets to radar and video-detection early warning system for airports;

‐‐ Attitude behaviour gap;

‐‐ Smart city and Industry 4.0 / Industrial IoT as focus.

‐‐ Engagement of the citizen.

Jarosław Królewski (CEO Synerise S.A.) • is a State of the Art Marketing Cloud, one of the most valuable Polish hi-tech startups . • Citizen Science Main Challenge: Improving self-assessment tool and encourage people to build new type of civil society.

Juan Bertolin (Director Espaitec Science Park and LL) • STP/AoI is a hube of science, technology, innovation and entrepreneurship in a social landscape based in Castellón, Spain. • It is a hub, an orchestrator formed by people (mostly entrepreneurs), projects, investors and SMEs, and nurtured by:

‐‐ Tacit knowledge;

Omer Onur (Director of Basaksehir Living Lab) • Basaksehir Living Lab is an experiment, research and innovation environment that helps society see the real accretion value of new products and services. • Its Citizen Science Environment based on a Quadruple Helix model and oversees the following challenges: ‐‐ Getting industry involved; ‐‐ Sustainability of entrepreneurs and Start-ups; ‐‐ University’s use of Living Labs; ‐‐ Technology companies involvement.

‐‐ Open Innovation 2.0; ‐‐ Co-prefix; Moderation by: Jesus Maria Alquézar Sabadie (European Commission, DG R&I) On photo: Wojciech Przybylski

‐‐ Cross-Innovation. 15

Innovation & Research Track I.


Reflecting on, and in, research and practice in Living Lab processes

Drop-out in Living Lab Field Tests: A Contribution to the Definition and the Taxonomy Abdolrasoul Habibipour & Annabel Georges • Aim: Create awareness and knowledge on drop-out.

• Types: ‐‐ Participant-related drop-out: Participants only participate in the startup of the field test but they have not started to test that innovation. ‐‐ Innovation-related drop-out: Participants stop using the innovation because of motivational or technical reasons related to the innovation.

• Definition: “A drop-out during a living lab field test is when someone who signed up to participate in the field test, does not complete all

‐‐ Research-related drop-out: Participants stop participating in the research component of the field test, you don’t get feedback anymore from them.

the assigned tasks within the specified deadline”

Problem Statement

Aims & Objectives

• Taxonomy: Knowledge on drop-out

occurs within LL field tests.



Reasons why drop-out

Technological problems Perceived Usefulness Perceived Ease of Use

Participant’s attitude Personal Context Participant Resources


Definition & Types


definition and types of drop-out in LL field tests.

Task Design Interaction Timing

Opening by dr Pieter Ballon (SMIT Director, ENoLL Secretary) Moderation by dr Anna Ståhlbröst On photo: Annabel Georges & Abdolrasoul Habibipour


Innovation & Research Track II.

Living Labs versus other forms of collective and collaborative innovation

An interdisciplinary community lab to facilitate citizen’s participation and health: an exploratory study in developing lab tools for research, education and practice in nursing, social work and gerontology - Franka C Bakker The case of Windesheim University of Applied Sciences (NL) • Living Labs as applied research facilitate initiatives from citizens in specific neighbourhoods by increasing social connections and mutual support. Different stakeholders (Professional education, professional practice, business organisations and clients/consumers/ citizens) are brought together to work on best practices, possibilities and solutions. • Research Community Lab defines the promoting and inhibiting factors in the co-creation and research processes within a community lab:

Promoting Factors:

City Logistics Living Labs – an ecosystem for efficient city logistics innovation uptake - Nina Nesterova • City Logistics Living Labs as enablers of innovation. The transition to a more sustainable urban logistics system requires a long-term and continuous cooperation between industry, authorities, as well as research. In this respect, City Logistics Living Labs create an environment at the city level that enables this cooperation and facilitates a faster roll out of urban transport innovations. • Elements of the City Logistics Living Lab: ‐‐ Policy and political framework to work on the urban freight in the city; ‐‐ Established regular cooperation/communication mechanisms/ platforms between the main stakeholders; ‐‐ Continuous monitoring and analysis of data on urban freight; ‐‐ Iterative learning process and knowledge transfer.

‐‐ Involvment of students valuable; ‐‐ Research close to citizens; ‐‐ Activities provide new information; ‐‐ Activities stimulate new relationships.

Inhibiting Factors: ‐‐ No feeling of joint experiment, ‐‐ Rigiditiy of views and structure; ‐‐ Unbalanced roles in guidance in learning and innovation.

Moderation by dr Anna Ståhlbröst (Lulea University, Botnia Living Lab) On photo: Nina Nesterova

CLLL Living lab environment • Real life setting • Active user involvement • Co-creation City logistics implementation(s) • Iterative innovation process


ENoLL moves in a direction where the network aims to provide trainings for the interested audience on LivingLabs and teaching people to use innovation camp methodology.


New Profession and Education Trends in Societal and Open Innovation

How do you address this mission on your ecosystem, what are the challenges and your hints and tips for the audience in order to help them being part of the movement as educator or receiver?

Bror Salmelin (European Commission, DG Connect) • The world is spiky. Globalization has changed the economic playing field, but hasn’t levelled it. • There is a need for:

‐‐ Citilab Cornellà: Eductec, Opensurf, SeniorLab;

‐‐ New Milieus – Open Innovation 2.0.

‐‐ Laurea & City of Espoo;

‐‐ Self directed; ‐‐ Real world prototyping and experimentation; ‐‐ Common interest; ‐‐ Open platforms; ‐‐ Recognition beyond ordinary means.

Tuija Hirvikoski (ENoLL President, Director Laurea University) • The 3Os Strategy: “The year is 2030, and a new virtual environment has arrived, the Lab. Open Science has become a reality and is offering a whole range of new, unlimited opportunities for research and discovery worldwide. Scientists, citizens, publishers, research institutions, public and private research funders, students and education professionals as well as companies from around the globe are sharing an open.”

On photo from left to right: Jan Strycharz, Tuija Hirvikoski, Bror Salmelin, István Szakáts

‐‐ African Living Lab ISEG/UNIDAF;

‐‐ New business structures – Maslow 2.0 for organisations; • New types of ecosystems:

Moderation by Bror Salmelin (European Commission, DG Connect)

• Examples of Living Labs as learning environments:

‐‐ Open Innovation calls for mediator skills.

Jan Strycharz (Program Director, Workshop for Social Innovations Foundation) István Szakáts (Altart Foundation) • Practice around co-creation & openness needs to work for the structurally oppressed too or it will tend to reproduce upper or middle class rhetoric / social gaps. However, field experience tells it doesn’t. • In this sense, we need to develop: adapt / mutate theory and practice of Open Innovation in order to be emancipatory. • In which way? Technologies need to allow themselves to mutate on the influence of content, and Open Innovation is a technology.


Innovation & Research Track III.

Open Innovation and User Innovation in Living Labs for SME/ business support, healthcare and urban & regional development Systemic tools to better identify and understand stakeholder roles and relations in Living Labs - Christian Haider & Judith Preinesberger • Within the different innovation phases (Initiation, Development, Implementation and Maintenance), two different kinds of stakeholders could be identified: ‐‐ Actively Involved (possess contributive resources such as expertise); ‐‐ Passively Involved (actually or potentially affected by the project outcomes). • Systemic Constellations: offer great potential in delivering qualitative information about the motivation but also about the relations between the actors within the innovation system. It can improve the stakeholder management and steering of the innovation process.

Living Labs Managing the Intra-Organizational Knowledge Exchange Process When Transitioning from Closed to Open Innovation - Lynn Coorevits • Transitioning from closed to open innovation requires deviant behaviour from employees. • Drivers that facilitate participation in knowledge exchange: ‐‐ Idea generation; ‐‐ Habit formation; ‐‐ Social Network ties; ‐‐ Spark relevant conversation. Moderation by dr Dimitri Schuurman On photo: - Christian Haider & Judith Preinesberger

• Barriers that discourage this exchange: ‐‐ Limited support mechanisms; ‐‐ Limited management support; ‐‐ Fear of the unknown; ‐‐ Unclear mission; ‐‐ Peers resistance.

Overcoming Barriers to Open and User Innovation in Regional Development -Patrizia Hongisto • Objectives: ‐‐ Enlarging the field through a ICT4D focus; ‐‐ LLs for OI Stakeholders and Users Orchestration in ICT4D; ‐‐ LLs for sustaining Emergent collective creativity, reflective practices and relational competences. • How can LL practices attain and sustain regional development goals whether desired or emergent? ‐‐ Organizational and consumer research perspectives of sustaining emergent creation. ‐‐ Collective interaction towards user-driven development and innovation. • Barriers to expected outcomes: ‐‐ To provide a market for global participating companies. ‐‐ To expand local entrepreneurial activities. ‐‐ Pre-set organizational objectives. ‐‐ Institutional organizational limits. ‐‐ Divergent goals and collaboration. ‐‐ Practical inclusion and methodological practice.


Innovation & Research Track III.

Open Innovation and User Innovation in Living Labs for SME/ business support, healthcare and urban & regional development Spatial Analysis of Leading Circular Economy and Living Lab Cities - Teemu Santonen • The Circular Economy (CE) promotes resource minimisation and the adoption of cleaner technologies while maintaining the value of products, materials and resources in the economy for as long as possible and minimising waste. • 3Rs Principles: ‐‐ The Reduction Principle; ‐‐ The Reuse Principle; ‐‐ The Recycle Principle. • FP7/H2020 CE/LL project mapping ‐‐ Barcelona is 1st with 11 projects. ‐‐ Amsterdam, Berlin, Helsinki, London, Madrid, Manchester, Milan and Turin count with 6 projects. ‐‐ Copenhaguen, Hamburg, Ljubljana and Rome count with 5 projects. • Conclusion: There is a Structural Challenge ‐‐ Leading cities are operating in many CE dimensions. ‐‐ EU-funding is helping them to increase the gap to others. ‐‐ A clear gap between Eastern and other European cities.

Moderation by dr Dimitri Schuurman On photo: dr Dimitri Schuurman

Service blueprint model: a tool to improve the co-creation process in Living Labs - Lucien Papilloud • Blue Printing Model: Service blueprinting, representing the complex relationships among humans, products and processes, allows for the accurate description and mapping of service system so that all participants can easily and objectively comprehend the operation of the business process. • Cons: ‐‐ The blueprint modeling technique is quite complex and not really user friendly for a non-professionnal. This tool could be an obstacle to the co-creation process. ‐‐ Constraining and not flexible enough for the participants. ‐‐ The plurality of perspectives due to the number of actors inducts the complexity of the use. • Pros: ‐‐ Its input as debate’s trigger and problem statement’s assistance should not be underestimate. ‐‐ It is useful to synthetize and clarify complex situation in a visual way. This advantage permits to reach a common ground and launch a dialogue. ‐‐ Allows the participants to immediately confront to implementation constraints.


DAY 2.

Keynote Panel

Open Science, Open Innovation, Living Labs; the innovation helix pillars

Bror Salmelin (Advisor to the DG for Innovation Systems at the European Commission, DG CONNECT)

• Essential drivers for modern innovation policy: ‐‐ Connectivity; ‐‐ Opennes;

• Innovation as parallel activities: Research → Prototyping → Pilot Roll-out → Production

‐‐ Interaction; ‐‐ Organic;

• Types of innovations:

‐‐ Crowd resourcing;

‐‐ User-centric innovation;

‐‐ Catalytic IPR.

‐‐ Open innovation; ‐‐ Systemic innovation;

Jean-Claude Burgelman (Head of Unit, DG Research & Innovation) - Video Message

‐‐ Experimental mashup. • Several perspectives needs to be integrated for innovations:

• Open science : Open access to publication, data, collaboration. • Free science is not about creating freely available data but about opening up the process under certain conditions and limitations.

Legal & Self-regulation

Economy & Society

Access & Technology

On photo: Bror Salmelin

• Open science can be really helpful for and will lead to more, better and faster open innovation – European Commission helps to open up data by policies. • Open data means: findable, accessible, usable.

Prof. dr hab. Jarosław Górniak (Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy at the Jagiellonian University) Bartosz Sokoliński (Head of the Development and Innovation Office of Industrial Development Agency)


High Level Panel Debate

What is the win-win approach, what are the trends if we move our focus from European Regions? What shall we learn from open innovators over Europe and beyond?

“Around the Open Innovation World in 80 minutes” Artur Serra (Vice President ENoLL, I2CAT deputy director) • More than 160 living labs in 5 continents. • Tripple collaborative impact: -Local -Global -Policy level • Fab Labs: ‐‐ Technical prototyping platform for innovation and invention, providing stimulus for local entrepreneurship. ‐‐ Connecting to a global community of learners, educators, technologists, researchers, makers and innovators. ‐‐ Network that spans 30 countries and 24 time zones. ‐‐ 1.173 in 97 countries in 2017.

Noboru Konno (President, Japan Future Alliances Innovation Network) • Japan’s Problem: Not just the economic policies but about deterioration of social capital due to factors such as a decreasing population that is rapidly ageing alongside several post-industrial challenges. • Future Center Alliance Japan is an alliance/platform of corporations, government ministries/municipalities, universities, NPOs, etc. to generate and accelerate open innovation, pre-competitive collaboration, utilizing ”ba”(place) for innovation: Future Centers, the Innovation Centers, the Living Labs. • “Wiseplaces”: Future Centre + Innovation Centre + Living Labs.

Dr Belinda Chen (deputy director of IDEAS Institute, Taiwan Living Lab)

Moderation by Moderation by Artur Serra (Vice President ENoLL, I2CAT deputy director) On photo: prof. Rudolf Giffinger, Dr Belinda Chen, prof. Jarosław Górniak, Artur Serra, Noboru Konno

• U-start (U-start Graduate Entrepreneurs Fund Program) is an initiative supported by the Ministry of Education to promote new startups and innovation among young adults.

• U-START integrates innovations from colleges and universities with industry resources to provide opportunities for young entrepreneurs. • 315 teams participated. • FAST Lab (Fabricated Application & Service Testing Lab) provides a platform for the 3D printing ecosystem which includes makers, 3D printing manufacturers, and application service providers.

Prof. Rudolf Giffinger (TU Wien) • Smart Cities: a city well performing in a forward-looking way in specific key fields of urban development. • Smart City characteristics: ‐‐ Smart Economy; ‐‐ Smart People; ‐‐ Smart Governance; ‐‐ Smart mobility; ‐‐ Smart Environment; ‐‐ Smart Living. • The challenge on city level: ‐‐ To activate the potentials through integration of stakeholders, costumers and residents. ‐‐ To transform them into assets what makes a city smart. • E-Profile: ‐‐ To increase Austria‘s innovative strenghts and competitiveness by means of open innovation. ‐‐ Supporting the transformation process towards more resilient energetic conditions: increase of ee through housing rehabilitation; use of solar energy. 31

Open Debate

New initiatives, trends and replicable models that can be applied througout Europe and beyond.

Multiple Helix Innovation without boundaries: Public – Private – People – Partnership Andres Barreneche Policy Analyst at the Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) of the OECD • Digital and Open Innovation 2017-18 OECD project will focus on the following questions: ‐‐ How does the digital transformation affect the ways different sectors innovate? ‐‐ Is digital transformation changing the role of distance for innovation? ‐‐ What challenges are brought by digital transformation and what are the roles for innovation policy? • Digitalisation has a transformative impact on innovation processes, particularly: ‐‐ Changing firms’ competitive advantages; ‐‐ Creating opportunities and modes of collaboration; ‐‐ Strengthens mechanisms for open innovation.

Wim De Kinderen (International Project Manager, Brainport Eindhoven) • Brainport’s Ecosystem improves life in the city through: People, Partnership, Co-creation, Experiment • Eindhoven Open Data principles: ‐‐ Data residing in the public space belongs to everyone; ‐‐ Data may only be opened if there are no privacy threats; ‐‐ Data may only be used according to the privacy legislation.

Nuria de Lama (Representative of ATOS to EC) • SynchroniCity Digital Innovation Hubs has 5 IoT Large Scale Pilots: ‐‐ Smart Cities = “SynchroniCity”* ‐‐ Automotive = “Autopilot”* ‐‐ Assisted living = “ActiveAge”* ‐‐ Wearables/safety = “Monica”* ‐‐ Agro = “Internet of Food & Farming”(*) • Eindhoven’s example: ‐‐ Trace Ring is one of the 12 Km main roads for motorize traffic in Eindhoven. ‐‐ Nowadays, Kennedylaan (part of the ring) is one of the most crowded areas and the traffic is growing (23 million traffic users per year). ‐‐ The societal goal is to decrease the environmental impact (NO2 & noise) in this and surrounding areas by adjusting the behavior of traffic management system in an intelligent and automated way.

Karol Wosinski (Manager of Technology Broker Team, Industrial Development Agency) • Innovation: Creativity + Imlementation. • Innovation is evolution in controlled form and can be learnt.

Beata Mosór-Szyszka (CEO, Project: People)

Moderation by Andrés Barreneche (Policy Analyst at the Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) of the OECD) On photo: Wim De Kinderen


Local Pitches • Top 5 projects of 2016:

Living Lab and Policy - Robert Maciaszek, (Director, Department of Economic Development UMWM) • Three pilot tests by Krakow Living Lab for Małopolska Region: ‐‐ Krakow Beacon Valley – platform for beacon implementation in public institutions and companies in experimental business model (with Krakow start-ups: HG Intelligence and ‐‐ CivilHub – IT management system for cooperation of public administration and inhabitants (Expose start-up). ‐‐ Mikropark (innovative, modular city installation of plants and leisure sets (Wytwórnia Kraków, BIM Lab) .

Smart city/smart mobility - prof. Andrzej Szarata (Krakow University of Technology) • Walkability improvements within the city centre: ‐‐ Cycling investment; ‐‐ Development of public transport system; ‐‐ Parking policy - as a tool in management of the city accessibility; ‐‐ Mobility management; ‐‐ Education; ‐‐ Walkability improvements. • Positive feedback of implemented changes. • Strong acceptance for car restrictions among shopkeepers.

Smart city/smart environment - Maciej Ryś (Leader of Smogathon) • Fighting smog with technology. • Helping technological projects in various fields of science and business to fight smog.

‐‐ City Tree - smog-eating moss installation with the power of 275 trees ; ‐‐ Cortina - coal-fired boiler that reduces emission rate by 96%; ‐‐ Origins - beautiful indoor sensors; ‐‐ Clair - nanotech filters for air purification; ‐‐ Hextio Air - air purification and deodorization efficiency increased by 10 times.

Circular economy - prof. Joanna Kulczycka (AGH University of Science and Technology) & Marzena Smol (Mineral and Energy Economy Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences) • Boosting Circular Economy can be achieved by: Sharing economy, bio-product, renewable energy, eco-design, service, extend product life, repair, recycling, reuse, symbiosis. • EU adopted Circular Economy Package includes revised legislative proposals on waste, boost global competitiveness, foster sustainable economic growth and generate new jobs. • EC Pilot Piority Program was established by the Ministry of Environment in May 2017.

Circular economy - Adrianna Pawlik (National Centre for Research and Developement) • Supporting projects related to bioeconomy in Poland. • Bioeconomy – related projects : Developing, producing, processing, reprocessing or usage of bio-based resources. • Recycling and Sustainable Resource Management related projects.

Service design - Piotr Hołubowicz (SEEDiA), Jan Strycharz (Workshop for Social Innovations), Agnieszka Włodarczyk (Krakow Living Lab)


Local Challenges Local Visit: Life Science Park with Kazimierz Murzyn • Aim of the visit: a presentation of TTO platform and life science projects, discussion on building partnership, sharing know-how and best practices in the area of healthcare and medicine, pharmacology and drug development, food and agriculture. • Hosting entity: LifeScience Krakow Klaster

Local visit: Selective Waste Collection Point – “Lamusownia” with Piotr Odorczuk • Aim of the visit: In Lamusownia every citizen of Krakow can leave – free of charge – “problematic” waste, for example: bulk, electrical and electronic equipment, hazardous waste (paints, varnishes, batteries, fluorescent lamps, etc.) rubble and tires, as well as recyclables (paper, plastics, Tetra Packs). Lamusownia produces waste-based and non-polluting alternative fuels for cement plants, using largescale logs from waste for the production of breeding boxes and bird feeders for wintering birds nesting in the city, collecting and using rain water for city cleaning. • Hosting entity: Municipal Cleaning Company Kraków

Local Visit: Traffic Management Center with Łukasz Franek

Local visit: Malopolska Greenery Authority with Katarzyna Przyjemska-Grzesik • Aim of the visit: to take a closer look at the process of designing the first woonerf in Krakow that has to accommodate the needs of both pedestrians and cyclists in a modern urban living space and create something attractive on the workshops on Thursday thanks to ENoLL community. • Hosting entity: The Municipal Greenery Authority (ZZM)

Local visit: Małopolska Laboratory of Energy Efficient Building with Marcin Furtak • Aim of the visit: Małopolska Laboratory of Energy Efficient Building is a unique 1: 1 research laboratory. In an energyefficient building, independent climate zones are set up and the processes are fully automated and monitored by almost 3.000 people. Specialized sensors. The infrastructure of the MLBE building itself as a research object and its specialized measuring equipment allow to conduct interdisciplinary research in the field of widely understood energy saving construction. • Hosting entity: Małopolska Laboratory of Energy Efficient Building hosted by Krakow University of Technology.

• Aim of the visit: to demonstrate how the joint challenge big metropolises face as far as the sustainable and efficient smart transport is concerned can be solved by introducing ITS. • Hosting entity: Krakow Road and Transport Authority 37

Panel Discussions Feedback In general terms, the topics presented were considered to be interesting as far as the content is concerned although ULL methodology and operations were missed for some attendees. Business and project examples were particularly appreciated by many. However, an important part of the audience was critical about the format of the panel discussion. According to several responses, the panel followed a series of one-way communication lectures in the shape of a traditional seminar where the audience felt a lack of interaction opportunities. As a result, the presentations were perceived to be very long and the audience found it difficult to stay focused. In this regard, some of the recommendations for improvement include mixing lectures and workshops throughout the four days, more interactive lectures based on real cases, and an actual panel discussion involving a moderator that facilitates and encourages debate but also integrates the public.


Workshop Tracks The workshops are categorized following the five tracks:

OpenLivingLab DAYS 2017







OpenLivingLab Days 2017 Workshop Debrief ENoLL SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP WORKSHOPS EU presidency ePlatform for citizen engagement: Tuija Hirvikoski (Laurea University of Applied Sciences, ENoLL president), Bror Salmelin (European Commission, DG connect) Health Living Labs: Kelly Verheyen (LicaLab), Evdokimos Konstantinidis & Panagiotis Bamidis (ThessAHALL), Harri Haapaniemi (Laurea University of Applied Sciences) Future of Living Lab Research: Dimitri Schuurman (imec Living Lab), Seppo Leminen (Laurea University of Applied Sciences)


Evaluation of data collection and data analysis in a transnational healthcare project: Sonja Pedell (Future Self and Design Living Lab), Leen Broeckx (LiCalab), Ana Lavaquial Thais Vieira (Hubz), Zhengjie Liu (Sino-European Usability Center), Lillianna Vélez Rueda (Telehealth Antioquia University), Hiroko Akiyama (University of Tokyo), Carmen Aguero (Tecnológica de Monterry)


Towards European Home Care Business Ecosystem: Tiina Ferm (Turku University of Applied Sciences Living Lab for Wellbeing and ICT – TWICT), Elina Kontio (Turku University of Applied Sciences)

Duxis: An integrated and contextualized approach for Living Lab practices: Lynn Coorevits & Bram Lievens & Tanguy Coenen (imec Living Lab), An Jacobs (iMinds SMIT)


webFitForAll: a collaborative online platform for serious game development with and for older people: Panagiotis Bamidis & Dr Evdokimos Konstantinidis (ThessAHALL)

Managing Innovation Uncertainties: a User-Oriented Knowledge Typology for Targeted Learning Activities Throughout Living Lab Projects: Dimitri Schuurman & Annabel Georges & Aron-Levi Herregodts & Joris Finck (imec Living Lab)

Commercialization of the – internet wellbeing service for seniors: Pia Kiviharju & Sari Jääskeläinen (Laurea University of Applied Sciences)

Blockchain, a promising track for Living Labs: Eric Seulliet (3D Living Innovation / La Fabrique du Futur), Laurent Dupont (Lorraine Smart Cities Living Lab)

Involvement of Stakeholders in Improvement of Tech Transfer Process and Supporting TT Platform: Kazimierz Murzyn (Life Science Park), Wojciech Przybylski & Agnieszka Włodarczyk (Krakow Living Lab)

On the edge of data & IoT policy co-creation in the context of Living labs: Olha Bondarenko & Wim De Kinderen & Gaby Rasters & Niels Wiersma (City of Eindhoven)

Conceptualizing Transnational Living Lab model through the lenses of the customer: Virpi Kaartti (Laurea University of Applied Sciences), Kelly Verheyen (LiCalab), Tom Van Daele (Thomas More University College)

Our Infrastructure Futures: Learning, Sharing, Connecting, Building: Penny Evans & Carolyn Hassan (Bristol Living Lab), Colin Taylor & Rebecca Di Corpo & Ann Padley (University of Bristol)

Transdisciplinary and transnational co-creation for health and care in an ageing society: Mathilda Tham & Sara Hyltén-Cavallius & Anna Kivilehto (Småland Living Lab), Eva Pavic (Johanneberg Science Park), Hiroko Akiyama (University of Tokyo)

Bringing -and keeping!- all the stakeholders together: creating a catalog of models of governance for innovation: Fernando Vilariño (Library Living Lab)

Towards personas as tool in Living Labs: Jaakko Porokuokka & Paula Lehto (Laurea UAS), Marita Holst &Anna Ståhlbröst (Luleå University of Technology) Value chain innovation in textiles and clothing: Jesse Marsh (Territorial Living Lab TLL-Sicily), Francesco Molinari (Lunigiana Amica LL), Ingrid Willems (WeConnectData)

SMART CITIES Sensitizing techniques for ideation and co-creation in Living Labs projects: focus groups about using contextual triggers and boundary objects in smart cities research: Dimitri Schuurman & Kaatje Boury & Pauline Dewolf & Annabel Georges (imec Living Lab) Going GREEN with active involvement of inhabitants: Katarzyna Opałka & Barbara Kazmirowicz & Iwona Kluza-Wasik & Katarzyna Przyjemska-Grzesik (The Municipal Greenery Authority), Agnieszka Włodarczyk (Krakow Living Lab), Veera Mustonen (Helsinki Living Lab)

Utilizing innovation potential of urban ecosystems through citizen engagement: Marco Combetto (Informatica Trentina Trentino as a Lab), Matjaz Getz (E-zavod Living Lab) IoT Large Scale Pilots World Cafe: Galia Mancheva (ENoLL office Synchronicity) Smart City Ecosystem Innovation by means of Stakeholder Profiles & Business Model Canvasses: Nathalie Stembert (StembertDesign - U4IoT), Nuria de Lama (Atos Research & Innovation - Synchronicity)

CIRCULAR ECONOMY Panels inside the learning curve: who, what, when, why…: Koen Vervoort (imec Living Lab), Ines Vaittinen (ENoLL office - EU-MACS) Leveraging Behavioral Change for Energy Efficiency in Public Buildings: Antonio Zonta (Green Schools LL), Joelle Mastelic (Energy LL), Francesco Molinari (Lunigiana Amica LL), Wojciech Przybylski & Agnieszka Włodarczyk (Kraków Living Lab) iScape + Tips & Tricks: André Gobeil (LLio), Penny Evans (Bristol Living Lab), Anja Maerz & Lucy Barrett (Future Cities Catapult - iScape), Ines Vaittinen (ENoLL office - iScape)

Introducing design methodologies for ideation: multi-disciplinary analysis as a tool for designing circular economy innovations: Kathleen Vinck & Dimitri Schuurman & Aron-Levi Herregodts (imec Living Lab) Co-creating services for smart cities – models, processes and ecosystems: Maija Bergström & Kaisa Spilling (Smart Kalasatama Living Lab), Tuija Hirvikoski & Anne Äyväri (Laurea University of Applied Sciences) Smarting up your city in smart mobility: Lukasz Franek & Lukasz Gryga & Michal Pyclik (Krakow Road and Transport Authority), Wojciech Przybylski & Agnieszka Włodarczyk (Krakow Living Lab)



Evaluation of data collection and data analysis in a transnational healthcare project Workshop organisers:


Sonja Pedell, Leen Broeckx, Ana Lavaquial Thais Vieira, Zhengjie Liu, Lillianna VĂŠlez Rueda, Hiroko Akiyama, Carmen Aguero, Tom Van Daele

Re-framing obstacles based on service design templates.

Description: In this workshop participants reflected on processes in a transnational healthcare project. The workshop was based on experiences of LiCalab (Living & Care lab) - one of the care living labs in Flanders, Belgium. In the past 3 years, LiCalab became a leading living lab in the region with the focus on healthcare and now runs research projects commissioned by universities, university colleges, municipalities and private companies. Within the workshop, LiCalab shared the challenges they are facing in cross-border projects and evaluate the process. Together with participants, LiCalab co-created solutions to collect and analyze qualitative data in a transnational context.

Aim: Feedback on the process challenges and ideas to handle the challenges in future projects.

Outcome: Good and practical ideas to deal with challenges in the future. For example, focusing on communication during the whole process was raised as an important point. Other practical ideas included: double check the translations to be sure that concepts are translated in the right way, organize a kick-off meeting where you explain why (the objectives) you set-up this living lab process, organize bi-weekly meetings in the set-up phase to integrate the feedback of the partners, organize a webinar with all practical information.

Value for participants: You have to overcome several barriers when working together (local, national, transnational). Communication and explaining why from the beginning is key.

Next steps: Webinar, storyboards - We integrate some of the ideas in future projects.


Conceptualising transnational living lab model through the lenses of the customer Workshop organisers:


Virpi kaartti, Kelly Verheyen, Tom Vandaele, Bianca Ceccarelli

We used the customer journey to look at the process of transnational collaborations from the view of the customer (SME). We used 3 running cases in transnational cooperation for SMEs, that were explained to the participants. Then they had to design the full process.

Description: This workshop built on the strong results of the OLLD’2016 workshop in Montréal on the same topic. Concrete results emerging from the 2016 workshop were:


1) Report on results that were used to start from in this workshop and

We got insights in how to promote the transnational living lab, but we have to work still in defining ways of coordinating the international projects.

2) Creation of the community of care living labs, that exchanges knowledge in 1 special newsletter / month

Value for participants:

The workshop at OLLD 2017 built on both the results of the 2016 workshop and the experience gained in running a Transnational and Care Living Lab (TCL) through recent innovation projects. The workshop examined ways that transnational living labs allow SMEs to accelerate the introduction of their innovations to business markets in different EU countries, and even beyond.

A lot participants that were present contacted us to be part of the transnational living lab in the future: Spain, Flanders, Sweden, Australia, Greece.

Next steps: We will meet with the ENOLL board to discuss how we can proceed with this ambition within the framework of ENoLL.

Aim: The goal of the workshop was to move forward in setting up a Transnational (global) Living and Care Lab as a unique innovation instrument to support SMEs in developing and scaling up innovations for ‘living and care’ and ‘active and healthy aging’.

49 commercialisation and scaling Workshop organisers:


Sari Jääskeläinen, Pia Kiviharju

Using the cards of the coco-toolkit:

Description: Workshop organisers presented a digital service that is free for users and all service providers. It promotes health, social activities and wellbeing of elderly and their families. Together with participants, new business models were discussed and developed for platforms such as seniori365.

Aim: The aim of the workshop is to find a business concept which contains various revenue streams from different stakeholders and sponsors. It has been free for users and service providers, but to ensure its existence in the future there must be found revenues from different sources. The next goal is to find a holistic business concept which contains various revenue streams.

- To define what kind of potential stakeholders might be interested in funding the service? (light blue cards) - Why would they be interested in funding the service? What do they benefit from it? (green cards) - How they are present in the service? (pink cards)

Outcome: As the result of the workshop the organisers received various business concepts that contain potential revenue streams and answers to their questions. The discussion in the workshop was inspirational and supportive for product-development teams.

Value for participants: Learning how to exploit a product, getting to know the -service and get an experience of the CoCo Toolkit as well as finding potential business partners.

Next steps: We’ll continue on our roadmap and we are ready to meet new business partners in a near future.


Health living labs: defining project ideas for future calls in healthcare Workshop organisers:


Kelly Verheyen, Dr Evdokimos Konstantinidis, Panagiotis Bamidis, Harri Haapaniemi

We used a brainstorm technique and worked in 6 rounds:

Description & Aims: The goal of this workshop was to define project ideas for upcoming calls focused on innovation in healthcare. This workshop was led by three living lab managers experienced in writing winning project proposals for European funding: LiCalab, Laurea University and Thess-AHALL. The introduction of this workshop inspired participants by explaining successful innovation projects that are running at the moment and the key success factors in writing a proposal for an EU-funded project. Participants learned do’s & don’t, tips & tricks in writing strong project proposals. After this inspiring introduction participants started to work in small groups on defining proposals for future calls. Participants could choose out of 5 calls that will open in the near future (2017-2019). Moderators guided them through the co-creation process with their knowledge of the calls and experience in writing proposals.

• Define or comment on GOAL, AIM or overall concept = Partnership • Innovation programme that will be offered (activities/WP) • Objectives / KPI • Innovative way to recruit/select SMEs to the project • Impact to be realized with project --> Conclusion was presented on six sides of a cardboard cube (each side for each thematic area) after which each group presented their cube to the rest of the participants.

Outcome: The 3 proposals worked on by the participants gained innovative ideas to resubmit the proposal. There were also participants who contacted us after the OLLD to join the proposal writing.

Value for participants: Gaining insight in how to write and develop a winning project proposal.

Next steps: Organisers will contact the people that wanted to join the proposal writing and will submit those proposals again.


WebFitForAll: a collaborative online platform for serious game development with and for older people Workshop organisers:


Panagiotis Bamidis, Dr Evdokimos Konstantinidis

The participants of the workshop were divided into groups representing different stakeholders of the campaign through the serious games platform webFitForAll. Each group worked on different aspects of the campaign from a different perspective. The groups/stakeholders exchanged information in real time through a twitter wall.

Description: The workshop was built around a collaborative online platform for serious game development with and for older people, webFitForAll which received the 3rd place at the Best Living Lab Project Award 2016. In its prototype stage, the webFitForAll tool has been built to facilitate co-creation on SGs by involving remotely different types of stakeholders. During the workshop, participants formed groups representing different stakeholders and worked on designing a “Play for …” campaign, where citizens are engaged in co-creation by playing games and collecting points for a goal with social impact.

Aim: For participants to design a “Play for ...” campaign from a perspective of different stakeholders. The designed campaign will run across Europe afterwards.

Outcome: Most of the participants focused on the role of living labs, research communities and business developers. All of the participants want to participate in the materialization of the campaign.

Next steps: All the involved participants will be involved in the materialization of the campaign that was designed during the workshop.



Bringing and keeping all the stakeholders together: creating a catalog of models of governance for innovation Workshop organisers: Fernando Vilariño

Description: Identification of different possibilities for a sustainable governance model of a living lab, which could be used as a reference for future living labs or different 4-helix implementations. The workshop shared among the participants’ current implementation for sustainability and governance of living labs, together with well known and documented cases. All the participants contributed to a collaborative paper that could be used in the future as a reference tool for current and new living labs.


• 5. General discussion: The obtained models were presented to the attendees and publicly discussed. This allows to get a perspective about how the diversity of living labs can provide also diverse plausible models of governance. • 6. Collaborative creation of a joint paper: It is essential now to have a catalog of models of governance based on the work done, and to have it published to be used by a reference document by institutions.

Outcome: 1. A well defined dynamic and methodology for the workshop. 2. An improved matrix (visual tool) that is helpful to have a perspective about the model of governance.

To obtain a catalog of models of governance for Living Labs. This is a most needed tool to illustrate cases, particularly for public administrations.

3. A collaborative paper (on-going) written by the participants of the workshop.


To understand the depth, the detail that the model of governance must have in order to have a really sustainable project. To realize that the model of governance compromises the sustainability of the project. To understand that COMMUNICATION (both internal and external) is an essential part of the model of governance for a 4-helix project.

• 1. Presentation of the attendees and general background: Analysis of documented examples. It is very important to have a common base about the discussion of the models of governance. • 2. Identification of the 5 basic questions for the model of governance. Discussion. Essential reflexion about 1) WHO, 2) WHAT IS CONTRIBUTED, 3) HOW ARE DECISIONS TAKEN, 4) HOW IS COMMUNICATION CARRIED OUT, 5) WHICH IS THE OUTCOME FOR EACH INSTITUTION. • 3. Presentation of the Model of Governance Matrix: A visual tool to build up a picture of how the 4-helix project is hold. • 4. Hands-on: Participants were distributed in 4 tables of 4 participants each to create the matrices about their own projects. The auto-analysis and discussion allows the participants to identify strong and week points of their own living labs.

Value for participants:

Surprising insight: 1. All the participants wanted to participate in the collaborative paper. 2. All the active living labs participating in the workshop showed doubts about the actual sustainability of their current models of governance.

Next steps: Finish the collaborative paper with a catalogue of models of governance by the end of the year 2017. 59

Blockchain: a promising track for living labs Workshop organisers:


Eric Seulliet, Laurent Dupont

• 1) Overall presentation of blockchain concept


• 2) Individual brainstorming to get participants’ insights on what blockchain characteristics are (with post-its)

Through presentation and discussion about user cases, the workshop illustrated the challenges and opportunities of blockchain applied to cocreation. The blockchain – seen as the next web revolution – allows creative individuals to unite to innovate together while keeping the added value they have created. Initially confined to the field of bitcoin and financial transactions this technology has a potential of disruption in multiple sectors. It introduces a new dimension for configuring the exchange of information between individuals and competing companies and thus allows the emergence of new governance models. The profitability of a co-creative approach of projects can then be considered.

• 3) Reflection in small groups on use cases + pitch for restitution

Outcome: Confirmation that blockchain is a topic of importance for living labs and for co-creation approaches.

Value for participants: Sensibilisation of people on the importance of the blockchain phenomenon and how it can impact co-creation approaches.


Surprising insight:

Explain what blockchain is and how it can be an opportunity for living labs.

Several people came up with the same interesting idea, i.e. using the blockchain for traceability of property rights and especially for identifying level of contributions of co-creators. Another example was pertaining to manage micro transactions for rewarding participants in a co-creating group.

Next steps: Interested people are invited to participate in an upcoming event that will be organized on 7 December in Paris, France (


Our infrastructure futures: learning, sharing, connecting, building Workshop organisers:


Penny Evans, Dr Carolyn Hassan, Rebecca Di Corpo, Prof Colin Taylor, Ann Padley

The workshop started with a quick interactive drawing exercise to introduce participants and Living Labs to each other and then explored what Infrastructure meant to participants.


LL principles were used as a backdrop (of active user involvement, real life setting, multi stakeholder participation, multi method approach and co creation) and undertook a scenario building exercise.

The workshop was inspired by the discourse amongst the UK’s infrastructure sector. The organisers asked for participants’ experiences (learning); explain and share their local and national challenge and understand whether this resonates with others’ current thinking (sharing), exchange knowledge, expertise, ideas and capabilities (connecting) to help develop a (replicable) model for city-scale innovation in infrastructure. The workshop examined the relationships between communities, universities, cities, government and private infrastructure stakeholders, regulators and policy makers.

Aim: To share challenges facing UK Infrastructure thinking, and steps being taken by UK Universities, Government and other stakeholders to explore new ways of engaging citizens and cities with this agenda. To learn from other LL members and gain insights into how they might engage with this agenda through a co- creating scenarios based on re-development of an imaginary urban (infrastructure) space.

The facilitators formed three groups and invited them to answer four questions, to consider how the Ultimate Living Lab would rethink infrastructure in the context of the development of a recently destroyed city shopping centre. They used five “think about” provocations to consider: technical aspects, risks, benefits, financing and ambition to assist the creative thinking process. Colin Taylor, Professor of Earthquake Engineering and PI for UKCRIC (UK Collaboratorium for Research on Infrastructure and Cities) programme presented some thoughts using real scenario playback. The three groups were then invited to review their presentations. Each group presented their thoughts and process back to the group: How would you define Infrastructure? How would you frame the brief? Who would you involve? What would your organisation contribute to the Ultimate Living Lab? This interactive scenario based planning was a reasonably quick and creative way to surface some of the key challenges and possible (Ultimate) LL contribution to thinking about infrastructure and citizen engagement. The organisers were particularly interested in the way in which different expertise and LL approaches (but that share a commitment to citizen engagement with co creation) might add value to our thinking and open up new paths for collaboration internationally hence the idea of the Ultimate Living Lab. 63

Outcome: Because this was a joint University and KWMC presentation, this workshop allows us to explore “infrastructure” from different perspectives using the Living Lab participant’s contribution as a focus. Living Labs have the potential to lead the way in how to genuinely approach social and technical innovation through inter-disciplinary research and practice. Through the workshop, a fledgling network of Living Labs interested in Infrastructure futures was created, that could be a focus for future Living Lab collaboration that is citizen centred and uses co-creation approaches.

Next steps: • Future collaboration of UKCRIC with ENoLL network will be explored • Relevant UK-based events: ‐‐ International Symposium for Next Generation Infrastructure, 11-13 Sep¬tember 2017, London (hosted by UKCRIC) ‐‐ Festival of Future Cities 2017, Bristol, in association with Future Cities Catapult ‐‐ UKCRIC Urban Observatories Annual Symposium 2017, Bristol

Value for participants: The organisers introduced a major global challenge – “how do we think about and deliver infrastructure planning that is fit for future generations and is supported (and probably paid for) by citizens”. This is a complex subject, but participants embraced the challenge and grasped key ideas relatively quickly and through the workshop they were able to explore Living Lab approaches and how these might enable us to go forward. The participants appeared to find the challenge stimulating and relevant. There seemed to be interest in pursuing ideas.

Surprising insight: Participants invoked stereotypes of engineers and architects and that they should be isolated from the co-production process. Learning - that engineers need to improve our understanding of the co-production process and to be proactive in helping shift the false stereotypes to true ones. Notion of purpose, and its value in helping to frame questions and actions, didn’t seem to be at the front of people’s minds. Expectation was that explicit purpose would be at the heart of the discussion. 65


Towards personas as tools in living labs Workshop organisers:


Jaakko Porokuokka, Dr. Marita Holst and Dr. Anna Ståhlbröst

Persona development process, modified from the works of K. Goodwin. This approach is systematic, simple enough to use and flexible towards different needs.

Description: This is a methodology workshop to support early phases of innovation processes. Having a shared understanding of development focus is an important factor for any project aiming to operate on a customer centric or a customer driven approach. Personas are research-based, archetypical profiles of users that enable different stakeholders of a development project to obtain and maintain a common focus during different stages of development process. In Living Lab projects, personas can be used to make sense and summarize vast amounts of user research material, to give the research group a uniform, easily relatable focal point of a particular user group, and to make it possible for new stakeholders to understand the users’ context and their view on development theme. The workshop demonstrated how Laurea UAS and Botnia Living Labs have created and used personas in their multidisciplinary research- and development projects. During the workshop participants got a first-hand experience on how they can craft personas to benefit their own projects.

Outcome: Plenty of interest from participants towards our line of work and personas as tools in living labs, ideas for papers. The ideas for papers included ideas on how personas are related to the concept of user roles in Living Labs, how they could be used to improve the innovation potential of Living Lab projects, and how personas might be of help in recruiting Living Lab participants.

Value for participants: Understanding of the methodology combined with hands-on experience on how to use it themselves.

Surprising insight: New applications for personas as a tool, such as using personas as a framework to influence and track Living Lab participants’ attitudes and behavior during the extent of the project.

Next steps: We will be in touch with the workshop participants and, more specifically, are contacting those potential new Business Labs for TCBL to bring them into our network.


Value chain innovation in textiles and clothing Workshop organisers:


Jesse Marsh, Francesco Molinari, Ingrid Willems

In the first part of the workshop a brief overview of the of the sector and innovation requirements was given. Afterwards, participants were split into two groups to explore two specific challenges requiring a co-design approach. In this way participants were able to see get a close-up on the issues involved and also see how they could contribute.

Description: In this workshop, a range of different ENoLL Living Labs engaged with participants to explore together options and strategies being followed in several on-going research initiatives in field of textile and clothing. Methods and tools were explored to ensure citizen engagement, experimentation, impact assessment, and scaling up and out.

Aim: The workshop had two objectives: 1) raise awareness in the Living Lab community on the importance of addressing manufacturing in general and the fashion industry in particular and 2) see which ENoLL Living Labs might be interested in joining or collaborating with the relevant networks and projects presented.

Outcome: Two main outcomes emerged: 1) high general interest on the issues raised by the T&C/fashion sector and 2) at least three possible Business Labs for the TCBL project network

Value for participants: Seeing that their interest in the T&C problematic was shared with other Living Labs: new opportunities for collaboration within the ENoLL community.

Surprising insight: There was a discussion on the contribution of the elderly, in addition to issues raised by the elderly, that had not been addressed yet in TCBL.

Next steps: The organisers will be in touch with the workshop participants and, more specifically, are contacting those potential new Business Labs for TCBL to bring them into their network.


Duxis: An integrated and contextualized approach for Living Lab practices Workshop organisers:

remarks for the ‘game’ later on.

Lynn Coorevits, An Jacobs, Bram Lievens, Tanguy Coenen

Part3: Rock, paper; scissors debate. Two participants were asked to play rock paper scissors. The participant that wins, can chose a pro or con argument. The loser has to give the counter argument. Each argument can only be used once by the participants. If you give an argument twice or don’t have any arguments left, you are burned. The winner of the game wins a Duxis KitKat. The game intended to uncover all pro and con arguments for the platform and detect how the platform could be improved.

Description: This workshop introduced a technical and collaborative platform (Duxis) where Living Lab practitioners can work together with future users and other relevant stakeholders to generate and apply contextualized knowledge in the innovation process. The workshop will focus on the needs and integration of such a platform for Living Lab practitioners and aim to map the requirements of the Living Lab community for such tools. The workshop focused on Methodological and Panel management innovation.

Aim: The aim was to gain insights in the challenges of different Living Labs in terms of user involvement and motivation, as well as to identify how a digital platform such as Duxis would be able to tackle their challenges. Additionally, workshop organisers wanted to understand how participants perceive Duxis as a platform for panel management and experience sampling.

Methodology: Part1: Introduction of labs and presentation of Belgian Living Lab challenges. Post-it exercise to write down all the challenges they deal with related to user involvement and motivation on orange post-it. Afterwards the participants could write down solutions for all challenges (digital or not) on a blue post-it. The organisers wanted to detect whether there were other challenges Living Labs deal with and if they already use digital tools to tackle those challenges. Part2: Presentation of Duxis as a platform with panelkit and experience kit as subelements. The participants were asked to write down all positive and negative remarks on a paper. They also were told they would need those

Outcome: Extra challenges that Living Labs deal with were identified as well that they currently do not use digital tools to tackle them. Pro and con arguments for Duxis as a platform and ways in which the platform can be improved. Panelkit as a platform seems to be more warmly welcomed by the participants then experience kit, because they are afraid that users will become overburdened.

Value for participants: The part where challenges were identified as well as solutions could help living labs in immediately tackling their own challenges. The presentation on duxis gave them some insight on where we are going as a LL and what they can do as well.

Surprising insight: Necessity to make Duxis multilingual. The fact that nobody uses digital tools to tackle challenges

Next steps: Additional workshops will be organized on the requirements for panelkit and experience kit, while the panel will be developed further. 73


Going GREEN with active involvement of inhabitants Workshop organizers:


Katarzyna Opałka, Barbara Kaźmirowicz, Iwona Kluza-Wąsik

3 groups were created, each dedicated to a different kind of user, following the stages bellow:

Description: In the field of participation and quality of public space, the main challenge for Krakow during work on ‘SMART_KOM Strategy – a Roadmap for Smart Solutions in Krakow Metropolitan Area” was that of setting up NBS cooperation networks between the city’s stakeholders (Science-Business-Residents-Local Government). The provision of living inclusive environments in old historic cities, especially in city centres where urbanisation is dense, is a challenging endeavour that requires joint efforts. This is especially the case for some run-down areas such as Zabłocie, Azory or Pradnik Biały, that are in need for relevant regeneration processes, not only in the spatial and urban dimension, but particularly in the social and economic aspects. In this respect, improving the quality of public space, would include increasing the access to green zones and achieving high quality levels of water and air.

Aim: To introduce to participants with the idea of ‘parklets’ as a creative tool for bringing greenery into the city centre by involving different users: families, cyclists and pedestrians.

Discussion on users’ needs and expectations;

Parklet design;

And Parklet modelling in real scale.

Outcome: 3 initial projects of ‘parklets’ that will potentially be applied in Krakow city centre.

Surprising insight: We thought that participants will design drawing on prepared sheets of paper but they prepared their projects in 3D using items we took with us and items that they had with themselves or/and they found in the room.

Related Local Challenge: This workshop was linked to visit to the Malopolska Greenery Authority on Wednesday afternoon.


Co-creating services for smart cities: models, processes and ecosystems Workshop organizers:


Maija Bergström & Kaisa Spilling, Tuija Hirvikoski & Anne Äyväri

Facilitated discussions in four groups, under two different themes (2 + 2 groups) to focus on two different aspects.

Description: Smart services are often created by several players and they require a wider ecosystem. The service ecosystem can be further developed during piloting phase together with the different stakeholders linked or engaged in the cocreation of the services. In this sense, co-creation events organised in the context of the pilots serve to engage and build a wider knowledge network of models and best practices. Cities in Finland are seeking to act as innovation platforms and enablers of new smart services. The Six Cities Programme, bringing together the biggest cities in Finland (Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa, Turku, Tampere, Oulu) has spearhead projects developing the cities as innovation platforms, Smart Kalasatama being one of them. In this respect, the programme for agile piloting, developed by Smart Kalasatama Living Lab, engages the whole urban community in the creation of smart city services. Each round of agile pilots is built around a theme or a set of challenges looking for new, innovative solutions.

Outcome: Some cases, and the notion that transnational level in ecosystem development is rare.

Surprising insight: We didn’t expect citizen activism to be mentioned in discussions, but it was, which was a positive surprise.

Next steps: Documenting outcomes in a blog post.

Aim: During this workshop, a strategic model for boosting collaboration between the city and the businesses in the context of healthcare and wellbeing and education was presented. Processes and methods for developing the innovation ecosystem were addressed later on.


Sensitizing techniques for ideation and co-creation in Living Labs projects Workshop organizers:


Dimitri Schuurman & Kaatje Boury, Pauline Dewolf & Annabel Georges

First, theory.
Second, sensitizing techniques group discussion.
Third, 3 groups were formed around a smart city theme and they had to come up with a use case for their further research.

Description: Living Labs are linked to User Centered Design and User Innovation methods and techniques, but the ideal way for co-creating with end-users in focus group discussions is rarely discussed. In literature, some so-called ‘sensitizing’ techniques are described to overcome the cognitive barriers of end- users to facilitate the ideation and creation process. The usage of ‘boundary objects’ has been described within the design thinking literature.

Outcome: 4 groups worked out a use case. The participants got the knowledge of other participants.

Aim: This workshop will discuss sensitizing techniques involving boundary objects and context for living lab research methods, by means of examples that were used in research around City of Things in Belgium – City of Things, a partnership between imec, Antwerp and Mobile Vikings, is building a Smart City IoT research testbed where industrial and academic research can be performed in a realistic, city-wide setting. The central research question for this workshop is “How to implement sensitizing techniques and boundary objects in smart city research?” and the focus is on learning from each other’s projects and finding new methods when co-creating with end-users.


Smarting up your city in smart mobility Workshop organizers:


Lukasz Franek & Lukasz Gryga & Michal Pyclik, Wojciech Przybylski & Agnieszka WĹ‚odarczyk

Presentation and study visit in TCC to present tools and systems, followed by a discussion on work and tools used in the future.


Value for participants:

Mobility is closely linked with the environment, and particularly in Krakow and Krakow Metropolitan Area (KMA= Krakow + 13 nearby municipalities). In the Strategy for Krakow and KMA, project led by Krakow Technology Park, transport policy in the KMA along with ITS would significantly improve the quality of air in Krakow. Therefore, a key challenge in Smart Mobility is the optimization of transport communication system (private and public) and increasing the efficiency of the communication network in the city centre by introducing ITS.

workshop participants could take solutions (or solutions that were discussed) and implement them in their cities (their projects).

Aim of the workshop: To show the joint challenge big metropolises face as far as the sustainable and efficient smart transport is concerned. This will be achieved by discussing types of solutions used in different Systems


Smart City Ecosystem Innovation by means of Stakeholder Profiles & Business Model Canvasses Workshop organizers:

Nathalie Stembert, Ms. Nuria de Lama

Description: During the workshop “Smart City Ecosystem Innovation by means of Stakeholder Profiles & Business Model Canvasses” a concise training on Stakeholder Profiles was provided. The ‘Stakeholder Templates’ that are part of the U4IoT Co-Creative Workshop methodology were utilised to explore Smart City solutions from a stakeholder and end-user perspective. The stakeholder profiles were co-created in four phases, a Co-analysis, Co-design, Coevaluation and Co-implementation phase. In these phases the profiles were generated and role-played by the participants of the workshop. Based on the generated profiles empathy was raised in order to enable SynchroniCity partners to identify themselves with the needs of the respective stakeholders and end-users. The first half of the workshop consisted of a concise training on the Cocreative Workshop Methodology provided by U4IoT. The training enabled participants of the workshop to co-create use cases and gain insights in the needs of stakeholders by means of Stakeholder Profiles. The second half of the workshop was initiated by a concise training on Business Model Canvasses. Participants of the workshop collaborated with city representatives to create a Smart City IoT Ecosystem.

Aim: The aim of the workshop was to introduce the Coordination and Support Action User Engagement for Large Scale Pilots in the Internet of Things (U4IoT) and the Large Scale Pilot (LSP) project SynchroniCity to OLLD attendees, among others LSP partners, city representatives, other stakeholders and end-users.

Methodology: Based on the context of the SynchroniCity project use cases were created by means of the ‘Use Case Template.’ The ‘Stakeholder Templates’ were then

utilised to explore Smart City solutions from a stakeholder and end-user perspective. Both templates are part of the U4IoT Co-Creative Workshop methodology. The insights generated from the first part of the workshop were meant to be implemented in the second half of the workshop on Business Model Canvasses to inform a Smart City IoT Ecosystem.

Outcome: Informed by the SynchroniCity project and attending city representatives two use cases were co-created (in terms of who, what, where, when, why and how) by the participants who attended the workshop. Each group chose the three main stakeholders in their use case and worked in pairs of two participants on their Stakeholder Profiles. Due to the limited amount of time only the Coanalysis and Co-design section of the Stakeholder Profiles were completed.

Surprising insights: • The workshop provided relevant learnings for the U4IoT Co-Creative Workshop Trainings. The Stakeholder Profiles can inform several sections of the Business Model Canvass and could provide a new view on comparing value propositions for a broader IoT ecosystem. • Insights generated during the workshop were very beneficial for LSP partners from the SynchroniCity project and city representatives that attended the workshop. Two relevant use cases were developed. One of the use cases turned out to be also relevant in the context of other cities, providing great opportunity to be used in Smart City ecosystem development.

Next steps: U4IoT will continue to support the LSPs in the LSP-Programme to engage end-users in their projects. The Co-Creative Workshop Methodology will be utilised for Co-Creative Workshop Trainings with LSP partners. Learnings from this workshop will be used to inform these trainings. The insights from this workshop will be integrated in the SynchroniCity project and will among others inform the design and development of a Smart City IoT ecosystem 85 for the 11 reference zones within the project.


Panels inside the learning curve: who, what, when, why‌ Workshop Organizers:


Koen Vervoort

After a very short overall explanation participants were split up in 4 groups of max. 5 people & we dived into using panel circles to identify and map involved stakeholders as much as possible. After a short wrap-up of this phase the 4 groups translated their panel circles into a predefined panel matrix, explaining them the advantages of this approach. The workshop was concluded with an explanation of the possible further steps participants can take following up the panel matrix.

Description: Together with all participants of the workshop users were identified in a predefined project, mapping them into panel circles before scheduling them into a panel-matrix in order to understand the advantages of a separate approach towards Living Labs. After a short introduction to the problem definition of the project and its defined activities, participants were split up in smaller groups. First, each group identified all involved stakeholders and mapped them into panel circles, presenting their results to the whole workshop. Thereafter each group linked their panel circles with a panel matrix and think about their approaches & possible outcomes. Afterwards all matrices were consolidated in an overall matrix, discussing the different approaches. Finally, there was discussion about the (dis)advantages of the panel circle/matrix approach.

Aim: To share knowledge about our panel management tools & methods

Outcome: The participants provided fruitful insights for the EU-MACS project and for me as an organiser I got a lot of follow-up questions resulting in several leads for cooperation in the future

Surprising insight: The high amount of follow-up questions. Such a high interest was unexpected.

Next steps: Methods & tools will keep disseminating because this could be valuable to all living labs within the ENoLL network.


Leveraging behavioural change for energy efficiency in public buildings Workshop organizers:

Local Challenge:

Antonio Zonta, Joelle Mastelic, Francesco Molinari, Wojciech Przybylski & Agnieszka Włodarczyk

This workshop is linked a visit to the Małopolska Laboratory of Energy E icient Building on Wednesday afternoon.



An intense and immersive session introducing the participants to a few success stories of Energy Efficiency was achieved through incentivizing behavioural changes in the building occupants. The actual workshop was preceded by a study visit to the premises of the Małopolska Laboratory of Energy Efficient Building (located in the city centre at the Cracov University of Technology).

The approach was rather traditional: a presentation of the different experiences and a Q&A session, followed by a wider discussion on the different experiences presented.

The term DSM (Demand Side Management) refers to the modification of consumer demand for energy through various methods such as financial incentives and behavioural change achieved through people’s education. Usually, the goal of DSM is to encourage the consumer to use less energy during peak hours, or move energy use to 0 -peak times such as night
or during the weekends. More recently, a number of Living Lab inspired projects have successfully managed to introduce behavioural elements as well as Analytical DSM in the real-life experience of energy efficiency in public buildings.

The audience was aware of the complexity, but also the potential for local impact and reusability, of the presented approaches.



Next steps: Replicating the experience of the workshop - drawing from the lessons learnt - also within the next edition of the ENoLL Summer School. Additionally, there will be room for coordinated actions with and by the respective national and regional governments, to procure a broader acceptance and permanent takeup of the project results in terms of policy adaptation and update.

• Exchange experiences on behavioural-based energy saving. • D emonstrate that a number of Living Lab projects in Europe have successfully managed to increase energy efficiency in public buildings.


This report... is a collection of workshop debriefings from the Open Living Lab Days 2017 in Krakow, Poland. The workshops have been conducted by members of the ENoLL Living Lab community - all content represented in this report has been produced by the workshop organisers themselves. Thank you, ENoLL community of Living Labbers and Living Lab enthusiast, for embracing the spirit of co-creation in collaborating together on this effort that has made the workshops a success. Looking forward to seeing you all at the next edition of Open Living Lab Days in Geneva!


OpenLivingLab Days2017 report  

This publication is a report on the four-day event that took place in Krakow, Poland between the 29th August and 1st September. The report i...